1
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, September 3, 2004
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
Review and Discuss FY 2004-2005 Budget
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
9~
v
Q
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
On Friday, September 3, 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 Commissioners Court workshop scheduled for this time and
date, Friday, September 3rd, 2004, at 9 a.m. The workshop
was posted for the consideration of budget matters.
Constable Terrill, would you check outside? There may be
some folks outside that want to come in. We'd sure like to
have them in here if they have an interest. We'd sure
appreciate that. Mr. Auditor, what do we have?
MR. TERRILL: No one out here, Your Honor.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know of anything. I
would like to clarify one thing. We -- we talked about it,
and I -- I don't know if I got a clearance. We talked about
the Information Technology budget, and we requested a
part-time person, and I don't recall if -- what the decision
was, or if there was one.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think there was -- my
recollection is there was not a change from the requested
submission that was made on that budget. Someone else may
25 ~ have a better recollection than I do.
9-3-04 wk
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, that includes the
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. The discussion that the
Auditor was talking about was possibly a Schreiner student
on a part-time basis, as I recall.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- and my only
comment on this is that the -- you know, in my mind, that
department needs to -- has to run smoother this year. And I
think, even with extra people, that if it doesn't, I'm going
to look for a major change there next year. It's just -- I
mean, because it's kind of -- we're trying --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we need one today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Oh, I know that.
But I'm just saying, I hope this solves the problem, but if
it doesn't, we're going to have to go back to square one and
figure out how to make that department work.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think -- I think this will
help, Commissioner. We have a situation today -- he had to
be -- he had to be out of town, and I have a situation right
now that needs to be handled. And it's not an emergency,
but it would help to have someone in-house right now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page is that?
JUDGE TINLEY: I.T.? It's going to be fairly
close to the front, I think.
9-3-04 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
MR. TOMLINSON: It was 85 hundred --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What?
MR. TOMLINSON: I just want to make sure that
I understand that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Eight.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: Four point -- let's see.
JUDGE TINLEY: Page 8.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We didn't do it. At
least I haven't got it marked, if we did.
JUDGE TINLEY: I remember we discussed it,
and I don't recall doing anything different than what you'd
requested, I think, is --
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Well, that's what I
thought, but I didn't -- I didn't add it to the recommended,
because I wasn't absolutely sure. That's -- that's why.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much time do you
see this part-time individual and so forth?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I want somebody that
has really flexible time that can -- that could do some work
in the afternoons late, and maybe some on Saturdays, or that
can come in on days that -- that Shaun's off. And -- either
that, or let them do some weekend -- weekend work for -- so
he won't have to do the weekend work. One -- one or the
other. And I'll just -- I mean, it's just a matter of
9-3-04 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
25
trying to schedule someone at variable times, and we can do
it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, does this
person need to be a bonded person?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember us having
those discussions at one time.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I mean, they're not
going to handle any money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What?
MR. TOMLINSON: They're not going to handle
any money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, okay, that's
cool. What about -- I remember the -- another part of the
-- I don't remember money ever being a part of the
conversation, but things in the District Clerk's Office,
jail information, those kinds of things, that are not for
the general public's eyes, or -- help me a little bit.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think you have to
be -- I don't think the bond --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- I think where
he's going -- where Buster is going is, how do you make sure
we get someone who's not going to hack into the system and
mess something up?
MR. TOMLINSON: I understand that.
9-3-04 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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, is there --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here, let me tie it,
Jon.
MS. UECKER: You might be thinking more about
an errors and omissions policy on this department or
something.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe that's what I
was thinking.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or getting into
sensitive documents or files.
MR. TOMLINSON: As a general rule, that
person would not be able to enter the -- the program itself.
We only want somebody that can fix a PC or a printer, not
someone that has access to the program.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay.
MR. ALFORD: More of a hardware man.
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm looking for a hardware
technician, someone that can --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- that can troubleshoot a PC
or -- or a printer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, I don't have access
to -- to court records.
9-3-04 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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I feel better
now.
MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, or the Sheriff's
records. I can't -- I mean, they're the ones that have the
ability to control who gets into their records.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I just -- we'd
had that conversation at one point.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I just wanted to
make sure that we didn't miss something.
MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, no one could get into
the financial software unless I give them authority to, and
they have to have a user name and password to get past the
front door.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Well, I didn't
know if you were talking about somebody doing data entry
or --
MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, no, no, no, no, no.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- or anything like
that.
MR. TOMLINSON: We're looking for someone
that can -- can do some troubleshooting work or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You answered my
question.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- answer some questions
9-3-04 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
about Excel or Word, or --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Viruses.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- how to clear up a virus on
a computer, those kinds of issues.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: You okay now?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I'm committed.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what are we
putting in there? This 83?
MR. TOMLINSON: I asked for $8,320.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that what we're
putting in?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: I assume that's what you've
got currently plugged in now, isn't it?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's what's in the
requested column.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Well, that's been
included in the numbers that you've been running heretofore,
I guess, isn't it?
MR. TOMLINSON: I had not run it. The last
run I did, I did not include it, because I was not
absolutely positive --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
9-3-04 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
MR. TOMLINSON: -- that that's what happened.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate you bringing that
to our attention. Is there anything else?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other members of
the Court have anything?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have -- my list has
five unresolved items on it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are they, Jon?
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's use your list.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ag Barn; I'm not sure
that I understand what we did there. Road and Bridge
organization. Juvenile Detention Facility. City projects,
which that we can't do until next week or a later date
because of -- we're still waiting on some things. And then
the salaries, the number 12 position and trying to eliminate
or do something. And we may -- that's what -- I think we
kind of resolved we weren't going to do anything this year,
from my memory, but I want to make sure that I recall that
correctly. Those are the items that I don't -- that I still
have a question mark as to what we're doing on. I don't
know, and there may be others. Those are the bigger ones
that I remember.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why don't you give us
the first one again.
9-3-04 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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ag Barn.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ag Barn, okay. Go to
the second one. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, the second one
is -- is Road and Bridge. And that, to me, is -- we can --
I think we can finish that today. My view is, we need to
adjust the salary structure that was requested. We -- I'm
not uncomfortable eliminating the County Engineer position
completely, but I'm also -- but I would be more comfortable
with retaining that by reducing it to probably $3,000
salary. And, you know, if the current County Engineer wants
to stay on and review our information for $3,000 and
renegotiate an arrangement, that's fine. If not, we can try
to find somebody else. But, I mean, I would -- rather than
rely 100 percent on contract fees, I'd rather hire someone
on some sort of a basis that's based on -- this is for "X"
hours of work doing very specific jobs. That -- and what
the person does would be pretty much decided by the Road
Administrator, and when we're doing any kind of plat reviews
or other reviews that needs an engineer to look at it, let
the County Engineer do it up to that, you know, dollar
amount for the year. Then we have to go back, like any
other budget item.
And the reason that, to me, is a little bit
more preferable is that it is a little bit more in the gray
9-3-04 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
area as to -- related to the 1995 Attorney General opinion.
I still think we need some reason to eliminate the position
altogether, the way I read that opinion. And I think if we
put a very -- a -- you know, if we put a salary on it and no
one wants it, well, then it's thereby eliminated. But if we
put a -- I mean, to me, you have to put that step -- that
offer out there, and if no one accepts it, well, then you go
to the contract basis totally -- you eliminate it totally.
On the salaries -- I don't know where that page is. Where
is it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know where
that page went either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's back in this
thing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It seemed like to me
it was in the back of something, back two pages of
something.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that thing
Leonard gave us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Here it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What does it look
like?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is the front.
JUDGE TINLEY: You got it right there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's Road and Bridge,
9-3-04 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
about the middle of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Position schedule.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, got it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have visited with Len
Odom a little bit more about this part of it. In my
opinion, the amount requested by Mr. Odom is way too high.
I would reduce it, you know, to $10,000. I think that the
amount requested for the administrative assistant out there
is too high; I think that should be $3,600. And I think the
amount listed for the two current supervisors is too low,
and I think that should go to $1,500 or $1,800, somewhere in
there. $1,500.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll go $1,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $1,000?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you on
those other two, though.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, you know, I -- and
the reason -- the logic that I have, I think that it's a --
I want to see more subdivision oversight than we have had
under the current system. I would like to see the -- and
this is during the construction phase of subdivisions, and
also reviewing and see things that are going, and I think
that they're -- the two supervisors that were designated
here are very qualified to do those ongoing inspections
9-3-04 wk
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
during construction. You know, my conversations with
Mr. Odom, you know, to me, something about on a weekly
basis, every subdivision that's under construction should
have one of our -- someone who is knowledgeable driving
through it and just checking on things. Know the
contractor, have a relationship with the contractor from --
you know what their scheduling is. And I think they should
be compensated for their knowledge that they have, if
they're going to be doing this inspection-type work. And,
to me, $1,500 is a good number for that. But, you know --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree with
everything you said, including the strategy on the engineer
and the compensation adjustments for the people in Road and
Bridge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I differ just a
little bit. I feel like that if you're going to do anything
with the engineer's office, it's totally eliminated, and the
way I read the law, it says "for any reason." And the
County Attorney clearly said that, even though that wasn't
written in the latest opinion, it had intentions of carrying
that language over. So, to me, the clean-cut way to do it
is draw a line through the County Engineer's office, and --
and then your -- the plan here of dispersing the work and
money is almost a good plan. I agree with you that
Mr. Odom's salary -- or the request was twice as high as it
9-3-04 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
should be. And Ms. Hardin's salary should drop back to
$3,600. But the two supervisors -- I mean, I'm not going to
fight over $500 each, but it just -- in my mind, I have -- I
just have that $1,000 in there instead of $1,500. But the
rest of it, I'm -- I'm for.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sort of. I think the
comment, Commissioner, about gray area, I think we're very
much in a gray area. And I think that the Attorney
General's opinions and Mr. Motley's review of that suggests
that if somebody really wanted to challenge it -- and I
don't know that anybody does, but if somebody really wanted
to challenge it, we might be hard-pressed to find a
justifiable reason the way we're heading. However, having
said that, I'll go along with it, but I'd like to suggest,
instead of just setting the base of $3,000 that's out
there -- I'm not sure what the $3,000 is for. I'd much --
I'd be much more comfortable if we were to allocate,
perhaps, five under Professional Services, and negotiate
a -- a retainer with a registered engineer who will set his
rates to do our work, and when the retainer is used up, he's
going to bill us at regular engineer's rates. I just have a
gut feeling we're going to find that we will use more, just
like we did floodplain, than we think we will use sitting
here trying to talk about it. So, that's my -- my take on
it. I'd like to see us probably establish a $5,000 retainer
9-3-04 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
for a registered engineer, who will take on the
responsibility of reviewing the work as we give it to him,
and obviously will bill us at a negotiated rate, or whatever
rates he charges and so forth. I don't guess I have any
problem with the -- with the other changes you're proposing
in the position schedule at Road and Bridge, but I wish you
would give them to me one more time, please.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I had was Road
Administrator would get a $10,000 increase.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would make him
70,024?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Something like that.
Whatever it's currently at.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason for that
is oversight of floodplain and oversight of all of the work
previously done by the County Engineer.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we going to be
plugging in money to train that individual --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- in floodplain, as
we did the prior -- the engineer to-date?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have talked to Mr. Odom
about that. He does not think it requires as much training
as we budgeted last time, but there is some training that
9-3-04 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
needs to be budgeted, yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He seems to think that
it doesn't require a certification at all. Which is --
JUDGE TINLEY: For floodplain administration.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. Which
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think we do need to
plug in money for training, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Secretary's salary,
what would that be?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ms. Hardin. That's --
and we can say the name instead of the position, because it
makes it easier. Increase of $3,600.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Plus 36?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I'm not sure how
this would work out with Barbara. The reason there is that
she's going to take on a lot more responsibility in both
floodplain, and kind of -- she will almost be, you know --
and additionally, responsibilities in subdivisions and
related work to that, which is going to be almost like a --
in those areas, a deputy-type position, as opposed to a
secretarial-type position. Also, in my conversation with
Mr. Odom, though it doesn't reflect any salary change,
the -- Ms. Guthrie's position would also take on some of
Ms. Hardin's current workload, but there'd be no change
9-3-04 wk
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there. It's depending on how that sorts out.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What for the
supervisors?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I like $1,500,
but I don't -- you know, $1,200 is a good number.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $1,250?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which supervisors are
we talking about?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- Doug Koennecke
and Joe Biermann are the two that Mr. Odom recommended that
would be in that category. They would take on subdivision
responsibilities in addition to their other functions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And how much extra
are you talking about?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $1,200 per year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to say
something about them, if I could. They -- I don't know how
long they've been here, but a long time, and those two young
men are extremely, extremely knowledgeable about every
aspect of Road and Bridge functions. They can drive by and
see things in a road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're good guys,
both of them.
MS. NEMEC: Twenty-eight years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many?
9-3-04 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
MS. NEMEC: Twenty-eight for Koennecke.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God, isn't it time for
him to go, then? He's younger than I am.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And as I see -- you know,
not counting the training, but including what we spend on
floodplain, the savings to that department after these
adjustments is about $50,000. Now, we would lose some --
well, I'd say more like $40,000, 'cause if you add training
in and you add $5,000 for a new engineer, which -- so about
$40,000 savings, which is a pretty significant personnel
change in that department.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I understand
Commissioner Williams correctly. You're suggesting that, in
lieu of a salaried county engineer, we create an item for
contract engineering services, and fund it with a $5,000
balance; that we then solicit proposals --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- from qualified professional
engineers?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: For a retainer agreement with
a base of that, but to draw upon it on a specified hourly
rate, and then to the -- to the extent that it exceeds that
$5,000, that he be paid at an hourly rate as specified in
25 ~ that retainer agreement?
9-3-04 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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my idea,
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: But basically a contract
basis?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you -- we'd calculate
that, for $5,000, or whatever number we settle on -- we may
want it to be $4,000 or $3,000 -- that gives us 30 hours of
work. And anything above 30 hours would be at a --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At a negotiated rate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At a negotiated rate.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the retainer agreement
would be subject to the Court's approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But something along that
line. I have no problem with that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, we'll go along
with it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that works real good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I think the very
next step, before we take another step, is to call Mr. Odom
and see if he can agree to these numbers before we go.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is he -- I know he was
going on vacation. Has he left? I don't know -- I know he
9-3-04 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
had a memo out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, that's what
happens when you start giving people more money; they just
get up and leave.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, yeah. I talked to
him yesterday. All I can say, based on that conversation, I
think he would go along with this, but I certainly don't
want to speak for --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I would hate for
us to go through this exercise -- let's see if he's there,
and then if he says, "No, I'm not going to do it for that
kind of money" --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Kathy's going to
go and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- you know, if that's
the case, if we can't work the deal out, then --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Come back.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, my opinion is we
would go back and put the County Engineer back in, and go on
till next year and try it again.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we have a framework for
-- to go forward.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Hey, we're
close.
JUDGE TINLEY: I just don't know how badly
9-3-04 wk
21
1
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 was wanting him to bleed orange, as -- as
Mr. Odom said.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He'll bleed any color
today, after last night's game.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We got hammered.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Stomped.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think this is a --
while we're in a little bit of a -- Kathy went to see if
Mr. Odom is around. This is a good example as to how I
think the Court would like to have some -- you know, view
all departments, look at them, and if we can cut out
personnel and reshuffle and use contract, this is what we
have in -- at least what I have in mind for all departments
to do -- try to do.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Amen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And increase, you know,
those that are remaining to do more work and more
responsibility.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And the taxpayers
are going to save about $40,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hopefully. I think they
will. I think, you know, they're -- the one caveat that I
would have with this, and I talked to Mr. Odom about this as
well, I said, you know, my personal feeling is there may be
a need for a part-time clerical person out there at some
9-3-09 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
24
25
point in the future. He didn't disagree or agree. He
said -- but he didn't -- he wanted to try to make it work
with current staff. But I think that we are increasing the
clerical amount by some out there, and, you know, it depends
on -- but that should -- that still would not come close to
a full-time salary.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll bet he makes it
work.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He very well may.
JUDGE TINLEY: I suppose we can come back to
that item. What's next on your list, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Juvenile Detention
Facility.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that suggestion --
I'm unclear as to where we are there, and part of that's
because I -- there was a conversation going on when I left
on -- when was the last meeting? Wednesday?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I left early, and I don't
know what was resolved. And there are some -- I know, some
memorandums that we've received related to funding or not
funding part of that in our budget, and I kind of wanted to
know where we are.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the Juvenile Board
9-3-04 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
meets next Tuesday.
MS. MITCHELL: He's going to be here in about
six minutes.
JUDGE TINLEY: And one of the items on that
proposed agenda will be that that budget be finalized and
approved, and once we have that in-hand, we'll know where
we're going on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, then we'll --
that will come -- kind of like the City; we're waiting on
additional information.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. We'll have to come back
to that one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- well, I
can talk to you about it after that board meeting, but I
think we need to have some discussion on that as well. On
the salaries, the number -- trying to eliminate the position
number 12, that was decided we were going to hold off for a
year on that, as I recall?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Eliminating the lower
12's? Yeah. I think we ought to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- do a study on it,
get it figured out properly.
JUDGE TINLEY: You didn't do a run-up on
those numbers, did you?
9-3-04 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
(Mr. Tomlinson shook his head.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My recollection was we
were going to look at that and try to, you know, see if we
maybe can redo the whole schedule, try to eliminate the
number of slots a little bit, simplify it some, and in doing
that, be able to eliminate the low end. But not have to
hopefully bump everybody up, though. At least -- maybe bump
everybody up some, but not as much as would be required to
try to -- under the current setup. And then I have Ag Barn.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well --
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me first try and get out
of the way -- we don't have any City/County things that we
can address here that we haven't already addressed
satisfactorily?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Back to Ag Barn, I
guess.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to ask my
colleague to my immediate right if he'd help me put some
meat on that strategy skeleton, which would get us down --
you know, which would deal with the nitty-gritty of the
strategy. But I think, for these purposes, we got to
determine if we're going to go that route, if we're going to
allocate money to help formulate a plan and get it ready, as
9-3-04 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
opposed to a major capital improvement. So, is that where
you are, Commissioner?
recollection was that we were going to get serious about
looking at the problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I don't know -- I
don't -- didn't really recall a budget impact.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, only to this
extent. One of the -- one of the topics in that strategy,
which I didn't bring with me -- you got it there?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not -- not fund the
major improvements, as were being proposed, but use funds
that were proposed to design and get us ready to make a
final decision on what -- what the new agricultural element
would be. So, instead of buying -- for example, instead of
buying two air conditioners or whatever, we would put that
-- some of that money into Professional Services, and we
would get the plan ready to go so it's ready in -- in
midyear.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I've
been meditating on this, and I've got a couple of questions;
help for my understanding, mostly. One's a statement
9-3-04 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
question. Are there two issues here? One is the current
facility, the Ag Barn, and the traditional uses of it, and
then the second issue is the event center. Are those
interrelated, or are they discrete? Do we do one without
doing the other?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, they're
discrete. They're separate and distinct. The facilities
corporation creation, however, is part of that, and they
will deal with that part of it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. So, that leads
me to my question. They are discrete. So, one way or the
other, we're going to have to cure the problem with the
current Ag Barn, which is the leaking and tiles and all
that. Doesn't that suggest that we should go ahead and deal
with that in this budget? That's going to be useful to
the -- to go ahead and expend those funds, and not -- it's
not going to impact the outcome of how we ultimately remodel
or expand or change the Ag Barn?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Except for the --
well, I -- in my mind, I would say no, because of the fact
it appears to me that we're looking -- that we're moving
for -- we're not moving toward a new roof or new windows.
We're looking for a new facility, and which is -- I don't
know how long of a term, and I don't know how much money.
So, I agree with Bill that we would take the money that we
9-3-04 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
were going to fix the new roof, don't fix the new -- put a
new roof on there; take
together the plan. And
professional architect
we've done four or five
something up. That's -
that money and use it toward putting
I'm assuming that you're hiring some
end planner and all those things that
times, and sit down and draw
- so I'll --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And get us firm
numbers for -- for funding.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was the thrust
of the proposal.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I can see us, next
year, or -- I mean, I don't know how fast these things move,
but I can see us, in the fairly near future, of knowing
how -- how we propose to fund it, and move forward.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my other, I
guess, concern or question is -- I mean, I think, to me, the
first thing we need to explore is what a facilities
corporation is and what the benefits are of it, 'cause I
just don't know the answer to that. I don't know how they
work, and -- you know. Then, I think there -- and these can
be done simultaneously -- we need to have another discussion
and maybe bring somebody in as to whether we have one
building or -- or one facility that does ag and other, or
we're going to go with an ag facility and other facility.
9-3-04 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
And -- 'cause that's a big -- I mean, that's a big decision.
If you go with an events facility and an ag facility, that
totally changes what you do with the current exhibit hall.
And the reason is, then, to me, you tear it down. You can
build a barn -- you can build a pole barn with maybe a
concrete floor in it, and that's it. I mean, you don't have
any kind of meeting area at all in that facility.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's excellent
thinking. That's good, clear thinking.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the right track.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if you're going to go
with one facility, one structure or one building, then you
may want to rehab and put a new roof on the exhibit hall,
use that building, and tear off the barns or the -- the
other part behind it. So, I think that there -- you know,
you kind of need to get across that hurdle.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I'm across it.
Now what?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I am too. Now what?
Well, let me make a comment, Jon. Now, I understand what
you're talking about, and you and I have had a lot of these
types of discussions over the last two years. I think our
experience in running that facility shows us that, first of
all, we want to take care of the agricultural component.
9-3-09 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
But mixing the agricultural component, whatever that is,
whatever it entails, and people events is not a good
mixture, and I think we need to separate them. If the
facilities corporation is -- drags up behind what we're
doing on the agriculture side, so be it. If they do their
job right -- and I'll get all the information on facilities
corporations so everybody knows what it's all about. They
can do their job and they can take care of an events center
under that set of laws, and worry about how to fund that.
We take -- we worry about the agriculture component. I
firmly and honestly believe we do not want to mix or
continue mixing people events and agricultural events,
animal events, in the same structure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- on that
point, that may be the right direction to go, but I think
this is -- that is much more of a -- a local political issue
than a facility issue, really. I mean, I think there's a
lot of opposition in this community, as we found at the last
bond issue, to mix them, although I think, in reality, you
can do it, and you can do it cost-effectively that way.
Probably more cost-effectively. But that's -- that
political hurdle is real. And if that means -- to get
something done means to do -- you know, build a barn and
that's it, you know, I'm pretty much there. But I think it
just -- you know, I can look at it.
9-3-04 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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask -- I've got
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The facilities
appointment by Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, see, I'm real
comfortable with that. If each one of us would choose a
person from the community to serve on that corporation, that
makes me feel better about that group. Number two, I got
just a little bit lost the other day, and that -- that
group, the facilities corporation, would go over and build
the meeting/dining room, et cetera?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And events center.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Events center. Let me
write that down, "events center." And then this
Commissioners Court would be responsible for the Ag Barn --
pole barn, goat barn, whatever, that part of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the rehab of the
existing arena.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. Then, when
we get both of those things built, and we want to start
talking about who's going to manage the whole thing,
9-3-04 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
including the event center and the hog barn, then is the --
the facilities corporation then is out of the picture? They
won't have anything to do with management of the facility?
We go and find another group, then, to manage the facility?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The ag facility or
the -- or the other, or both?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Both.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's a
discussion the Court would have to have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought we had that
the other day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It could be that the
facilities corp. could run them both.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It could be that the
facilities corp. could run them? Build it and run it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, just to follow up on
that, it could run one or both, so we -- the County could
run the ag, and the facilities corporation could run the
other, and -- or the Court could decide that we don't like
the facilities corporation, and we're going to hire a
manager.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or the other way
9-3-04 wk
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
around. We could decide we don't want to manage it, and let
them manage the whole thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the first
subject of the subsequent discussion, but those are options
that are ours.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, but I think
that's a part of this political hurdle that he's -- that
he's talking about. There's a check in here somewhere that
we need --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- to kind of take a
look at. But I wanted to bring up something on your -- your
list here. "Cancel all bookings for facility." I don't see
how you -- we can do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have contracts with
people.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We may not be able to
do that. I think that speaks to something the Judge
mentioned the other day. We have 4-H events; we have a lot
of -- we have some paying events that are scheduled. I've
already had some phone calls, and probably you have too --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I sure have.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- as to what
9-3-04 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
we're -- our intention is. If that's not a practical way to
go, then we won't do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think there's any
need to do it at this time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cancel?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, cancel.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, not at all. I
don't either.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You know, that's --
I'm cool with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If the ceiling falls
in on somebody's pet poodle, then --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the Judge's fault.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- it's the Judge's
fault.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My thought only was
if we scaled back the operation, there might be some savings
in Mr. Holekamp's budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- so I guess the
only thing that I have a little bit of a -- I don't know --
I hate to use the word "problem," but a hurdle to get across
still, is the current budget impact of this proposal is
budgeting money to hire a consulting firm. You know, we've
done -- we've done this twice. We have a bunch of data on
9-3-04 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
what can be built out there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, we do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just don't think we're
going to get anything different by hiring another one. I
mean, I think that this Court knows the options. We can
build a pole barn, or we can build what we had in the bond
issue, or we can build what was -- the grandiose plan we had
last time. I mean, we know there's various options. The
components would be, you know, whether you put it in one
location or we split them into two, but we know the square
footage, what we need. We know -- we know all -- all of the
data is available, so I certainly don't want to get another
consultant on board again. I just don't see the point at
this point with that. Now, I think we do need possibly to
hire somebody, more from a construction standpoint, as to
come up with costs as to what the square footage cost is,
and I'm talking, you know, a couple thousand dollars to hire
someone to say, okay, you know, we can get -- cut all these
little things out, move them around on paper. Someone to
say, okay, what's it going to cost to build this within
10 percent variance? And maybe it's $10,000; I don't know
what that amount is, but I just don't want to hire another
consultant.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm not looking
25 ~ to fatten some consultant's pocket. There are things we're
9-3-04 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
going to need to know. And, I agree, we've been down this
three, and I've got a stack of stuff from the old one 2 feet
high sitting in my office right now. So, I want to sort
through that. I can probably find a lot of what you're
talking about. But I think we're going to need some
professional help to get us to the point where we know what
we're building, ironclad, know what we're building on the
agricultural side, and what the costs are going to be, so we
know how to fund it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think there's --
we need cost information, but you can call any of the larger
contractors in Kerrville, and they can tell you a metal pole
barn's going to cost you "X" dollars a square foot. A
finished kitchen-type area is going to be "X" dollars a
square foot. An open -- you know, I mean, it's all done per
square foot, so we need to figure out the size, and then
it's just a matter of a pretty simple exercise to come up
with a -- and I'm talking about a -- you know, a very
general number. At that point, once you get serious into
it, once we -- if we can get beyond the facilities
corporation and a basic plan and some costs that we're
relatively comfortable with, at that point, if we go out and
say, okay, now we need to figure out how to fund this, at
that point you need an architect. But I don't think we need
9-3-04 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
a consultant or someone at the front end. I think once we
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think I'm --
I think you and I are on the same page, and -- and to do
that. And all we need to do today, instead of funding major
improvements, is determine what amount we'd like to put in
Professional Services once again, and leave it in there for
that purpose, and move on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't have to pay
architects -- once you hire them, you're going to build it.
They -- all that's gratis at that point from them. Just
hope it comes through on the bond issue, or you figure out a
realistic way to fund it. Of course, considering we haven't
had a real good success rate on getting from -- from Step B
to Step C, we may have a harder time finding one that's
willing to do it again, but I think that the -- you know,
that's the approach we should take. So, I think maybe
$5,000 in Professional Services is sufficient.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In my mind.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, let me weigh in here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Weigh in, Judge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, good.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we've got some given
facts. Number one is, we've had a facility out there that
9-3-04 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
we've deferred maintenance on for many years. Funds were
deteriorate, so we have a facility that needs some serious
rehabilitation, primarily a new roof. I'm concerned about
the safety factors. By virtue of the continued use of that
facility, we've got an obligation to permit the continued
use of that facility. What I'm hearing is that we're going
to push this off into the future again some more. Now, in
the meantime, the facility will continue to deteriorate some
more. That facility will, therefore, continue to be used
for an additional period of time, and we have people that
have vested rights to use that facility, and we need to make
sure that it's adequate and it's safe. We have the
opportunity to try and get that facility where it's usable
for, you know, several years into the future. Granted, it
won't be the Taj Mahal, but it's adequate.
They use it, even in its deteriorated state,
and have been reasonably satisfied, and we can do that for
about $100,000 to $125,000. I rolled it up some to include
a little insulation and things of that nature. We can
recoup a lot of those savings -- or those costs by the
savings realized from energy efficiency, and not having to
do continued maintenance on those 20-some-year-old air
conditioners. Over a period of three to five years, you may
save as much as half of that cost. Think back. How many
9-3-04 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
years have you thought about this problem, and have you
thought about, well, what are we going to do about it? And
how many of those years have you done nothing about it? It
That may be the answer for the next go-round;
I don't know. But the bottom line is, we've got a facility
that is bordering on being terribly unsafe. We have a use
that's required, that we're obligated to provide for the ag
and the 4-H people, and I hope it doesn't take a serious
accident out there, because of our failure to see that
proper rehabilitation of that facility is done, before we do
something about it. We're not talking about a big-tab item,
relative to a lot of the other things that we do. If we
were to roll up those maintenance numbers that have not been
utilized in past years, we'd probably be there. It's more
than a bandaid, but it's something that's feasible. If we
want to look forward, then, to an event center separate and
apart, that's fine, but I think the people we're committed
to to have a usable facility out there, this will satisfy
their needs for many years to come at a very reasonable
cost.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I mean, I think
your point's well taken, but I disagree totally with your
last statement -- last part of your statement. This does
9-3-04 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
not fix the ag problem. A new roof gives a -- a quasi event
facility. It does nothing to address the horrendous
situation of all the barns and lack of barn space that we
have. So, I think that this is a -- I mean, it could be
done, and I don't think it's wasted money, 'cause I think it
would -- I think the first part of what you said is
accurate, that the utilities would recoup a lot of it. And
it would kind of make that, for a long -- that -- you know,
the exhibit hall usable for ag functions for a time to come.
But I think there is a lot of other work on the electrical
side that needs to be rehabbed in that building and in the
arena. The arena still needs a major renovation, which
is -- you know, on the insulation side, lots of other
things, ventilation and other things that were discussed
last time, and then it needs -- the whole barn issue still
needs to be addressed. So, I think that it's -- I could go
along with your proposal, but it's just a -- it's not much
more than a bandaid to the ag side.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just -- all due
respect, Judge, I appreciate your point of view. You're
concerned about safety issues, and you have to extend that
concern into the arena. If you're fearful of an event that
would really get to an extent that would get our attention,
I direct your attention to the arena. The electrical system
is in bad shape, and it's very noticeable every time there
9-3-04 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
is a stock show in there and we blow out the panels because
of all the extra use. So, if we're going to extend our
concern for safety, then let's extend our concern for safety
over the entire facility.
JUDGE TINLEY: If there's -- if there are
unsafe conditions in there, they need to be resolved too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, it's
unsafe. And, I mean, I think you -- and this -- during the
bond issue, this became an issue. What's unsafe? Well, is
it up to any kind of code? No. Nothing out there is. Is
it -- is someone going to likely get seriously hurt?
Probably not. So, does that mean it's safe or unsafe? You
know, in my opinion, it's unsafe, but during the bond issue,
a lot of people said it's safe. No one's gotten hurt. No
one's going to get hurt, likely. But, you know, I'm just
saying that there is -- there's a whole lot that needs to be
done out there. But, you know, I don't have a problem with
spending the $100,000 this year to fix the roof, because
that does need to be done. I mean, even if you use it as an
ag facility, I can see that is something that -- it's not
wasted. Does it fix the safety problem? Does it fix the ag
problem? No. It's not much more than a bandaid to it, but
it is -- you know, spend some money now, as opposed -- and
making an improvement to the facility. So, I -- I mean, I
can go either way. I think that it's -- you know, if -- and
9-3-09 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
I almost go back to something Commissioner Baldwin said one
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it's that
unsafe. I think that we -- you know, so, like I said, I can
either do that repair this year; I don't think it's wasted,
or I could defer it. It would be nice, probably, to get
something going out there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I'll weigh
in, and in sort of a devil's advocate way. I'll tell you
what my constituents would be saying if they were listening
to this conversation; what they have said to me time and
time again last year, and again this year. They would say,
"Maybe you all have more vision and wisdom than we do, but
you talk about these things every year and nothing gets
done, and that thing continues to deteriorate." Some of
them would say, "We could probably fix it up over a couple
of weekends with volunteer labor." And they can't, but I'm
telling you the way my constituents think. They would say,
"Put a new roof on it, patch it up, make it more usable, and
let's get on with it."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: It was a lot of your
constituents that spent weekends building that facility,
spending money out of their pockets, signing notes at the
9-3-04 wk
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bank.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir, they
remind me.
JUDGE TINLEY: They're very vested in that
project. They should be.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They remind me real
regularly.
JUDGE TINLEY: And they should.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A lot of -- all citizens.
I don't think it was only western people working on that
facility.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, no, it's all over the
county.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have -- I
have -- you preached my sermon. I've been exactly where you
are for many years, and was the only member of this Court
that voted against the -- having a bond issue, and went
actively to defeat the bond issue because of some other
factors in the picture. You know, but I'm -- I have now
shifted -- had a paradigm shift.
JUDGE TINLEY: Spell that, please.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I will not, but
there's a "g" in there. Over to trying to do -- to really
fix the facility. Now, again, I'm -- part -- part of me is
9-3-04 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
still back where I was two years ago. I'm not real
interested in Bill's event center. Fine, I'll be happy to
help him get one, but I don't have the interest in that.
It's just not my thing. But I am interested in the
agricultural youth of our county, very much so. So, I see
this thing as -- as three different options. We can put a
roof on it, or we can put a roof on it and fix the health
and safety issues, which are many, or we can go the whole
package. I don't -- I can't imagine this redneck voting for
a $100,000 dollar improvement right now, and then turn
around in March and voting for two more million to tear down
that 100,000 I just put in it to build something new.
So, to me, it's -- you have three options.
You either -- you spend a couple of million dollars out
there and fix the thing, and get something that our
community's proud of, or you put a roof on it, fix the
electrical issues, fix all those little issues, or you put a
roof on it and don't worry about who gets shocked and who
doesn't get shocked. And I -- you know, the -- I wish you
wouldn't use this language of -- you know, this fear of
people getting killed or injured and all that kind of thing,
unless that's a reality. If that -- if that's a real thing,
we need to fix it. And if we're not going to fix it, again,
we need to nail a board across the door and close it. If
it's -- if it's a safety -- I mean, if somebody's going to
9-3-04 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
get hurt out there, we don't need that at all.
JUDGE TINLEY: My concern is that we may be
fast approaching that by deferring doing something out
there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I agree. I agree,
and I've been there for years. So, I -- you know, and I'm
-- I'm willing to go with the roof. I'm willing to go with
the roof and the electrical work, and I'm willing to go
here. My preference is here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me just throw in
behind Commissioner Baldwin. I think he and I have finally
got ourselves worked around it so we're on the same playing
field --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're friends.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- on this issue.
Same playing field on this issue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Don't get used
to this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We agree on more than
people think we do. See, I think -- I think what the
Commissioner says is correct. If we hitch up our britches
and make a decision to move forward and take care of our
agricultural requirements -- obligations, as the Judge said,
provide that community with a -- with an events -- with a
center that takes care of all their needs, agricultural,
9-3-04 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
going forth for many years to come, we can get that done to
the point of going to construction by the end of this next
budget year. And I see no reason to delay it any further.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about -- here's a --
a little compromise.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about we budget
$125,000 for major repairs, but we're -- but we're not going
to authorize spending it until February, at the earliest.
If we can -- you know, if we can get this big plan worked
out and have a real plan and we're moving forward, we won't
spend that money; we'll put it into the bigger picture. But
if we get -- hit a roadblock somewhere, which is a real
possibility, considering the history out there, we turn it
loose and we get that -- we -- at least we get the roof and
air conditioners fixed this year. But we don't spend that
money unless we hit a roadblock.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if the
end of February's a good date.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, end of March.
Sometime during the year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, I'd like it
before that, to have something, because our concern here is
the roof leaking on our stock show or other activities. And
the stock show's when?
9-3-04 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
MR. ALFORD: January.
JUDGE TINLEY: January.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, I agree with you.
I just am in a little disagreement with you on the date
thing, because we're -- we're really not doing anything if
we wait till March. So, that puts the pressure on this guy
to get all the ducks in a row.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, how -- does anyone,
in any of the quotes --
JUDGE TINLEY: November 30?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just -- did any of
these have any kind of a time estimate on that new roof?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Short time. Matter
of weeks, not months.
JUDGE TINLEY: Won't take long.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Matters of weeks to
get it done?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I suppose so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think y'all are a
little bit more optimistic than I am when it comes to
construction.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know if we
can get that done by November or not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, what I -- what I'm
9-3-04 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
more concerned about, I don't want to have the roof off in
January.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
MR. ALFORD: That makes two of us.
MR. TOMLINSON: You don't have to take the
roof off.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, that's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say it again?
JUDGE TINLEY: You won't take the roof off.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They won't take what's on
there off.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Cover it and
insulate it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think yours is a reasonable
approach, Commissioner. I would suggest that we bump it to
150 because of the electrical issues that I think we're
going to get into. And I think that'll be the feasible time
to go forward on the electrical.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does that 150
include repairing the sound system?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, there was 7,700
or something like that in there. We had agreed to that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to do that,
9-3-04 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
and I'd like to do it in a way that it's done before the --
the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have it done by
January 1st?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, now, if that's
your goal, to get it done by January 1st, then just give
Mr. Holekamp the authority to get it done by January 1st. I
don't believe we can have the alternative plan and the
numbers together by January 1st in time to make a decision
as to whether it's a go or no-go.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we can get pretty
far along.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we can get
pretty far along, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's have this
discussion on November 1st. And tell Mr. Holekamp, you
know, to line somebody up, but we're not going to order the
materials until, you know, November 1st.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 150?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 150. With sound system.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. Question.
Does that include relocating and buying new air
conditioners?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
9-3-04 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
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about concession
stand and restrooms? I'm just joking. I'm joking.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A/C, sound.
JUDGE TINLEY: Roof insulation, heat and air,
electrical corrections, and sound.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Talking about
electrical corrections in just the exhibit hall, or are we
talking about the arena? What are we talking about?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we could
even move into the arena for $150,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either.
That's why I asked the question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I think that
what the Judge is talking about, when you start moving air
conditioning and stuff like that, you're going to have to do
some electrical work. And when you're -- when you are going
to rerun a -- a pole, we might as well redo the whole pole
almost, and patch it in somewhere. I think they know where
the service is to all that stuff.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that it for that
item for now?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir?
9-3-04 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
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you need a transfusion this
morning?
MR. ODOM: No. No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Didn't know what --
what blood you lost or what color it was.
MR. ODOM: Well, I had the -- he squeezed
orange, but I still always have maroon. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You didn't bleed it
all dry last night?
MR. ODOM: He tried, though. I got a
transfusion.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Len wins either way.
Either the Aggies win or the Mormons win, so he's all right.
MR. ODOM: Doesn't make me any difference.
JUDGE TINLEY: Hadn't thought of it that way.
MR. ODOM: I was going to be a winner either
way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Len, what we talked
about, since I was the last one -- I don't know if I was the
last one that talked to you, but you and I talked about a
lot of this.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We moved the salary for
you to $10,000.
9-3-04 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
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you need this, Len?
MR. ODOM: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We put your two
supervisors, Doug Koennecke and Joe Biermann, at a $1,200
increase.
MR. ODOM: $1,800.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, but they -- we went
to 12 -- for a 12.
JUDGE TINLEY: Each.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Twelve each. And
Ms. Hardin, $3,600. That's what the -- the Court agreed on.
We would put -- the County Engineer position is eliminated.
We're going to put $5,000 in Professional Services, and
we're going to negotiate a retainer for a certain amount of
work with a local engineer.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That sums up the -- and
your -- and, basically, the responsibilities are adjusted as
you presented.
MR. ODOM: Yes. And that is -- I heard the
comment the other day that -- you know, and there may be
some ways to do it. We just pulled from our memory what we
were doing. There may be some other ways that you -- we
want to interact with the Commissioner so we have no
9-3-09 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
problems there. So, I -- that's just a guideline that's
there. So there may be some steps in there that you wish to
do, which has always been, you know, an open door where you
can come in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I've got some
discussions on mine. That's the one that I --
MR. ODOM: I haven't seen them yet. You have
a better idea. I'm not an expert in it. I haven't been
involved in it that much. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What y'all -- your
visit there confused me a little bit about the salaries on
the supervisors. You said $1,200; you said $1,800. Where
did $1,800 come from?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it started out at
15 to 18, and that quickly went to 15. Then it quickly went
to 1,000; then it went to 12. So it was --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was requested,
$943.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Len and I had
talked $1,800.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then it came down --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- to $1,200.
MR. ODOM: I would ask the Court that we
9-3-09 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
would look -- I don't see a whole lot there, but I --
particularly with the supervisors, if there's more to it,
then I would certainly ask that -- next year we'll have a
better idea, after a year, what's there, and if the Court is
receptive to look at things there. I don't think it would
be, but for them, I would -- you know, let's just see where
this works out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's an
opportunity for you to give more of your workload to them,
and then reduce your salary a little bit.
MR. ODOM: Well, there's some opportunity
there -- you saw right there to -- to do that. I didn't
catch that. I'm hard of hearing, so I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I said -- the last
part --
MR. ODOM: You got a smile on your face; I
didn't catch what you said.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I said is there's an
opportunity to organize -- reorganize a little more; you can
give your supervisors a little more responsibility and
reduce your salary a little bit.
MR. ODOM: That sounds about like somebody I
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a bit more challenging
than you want -- than you want to engage?
9-3-09 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
MR. ODOM: At this time for my commitment, I
assure you, that would be more than I would want to commit
to.
JUDGE TINLEY: Leonard?
MR. ODOM: I think it's feasible, and we'll
take a look at it. And I don't see a -- I see it working
like it always has.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a good plan.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I do too.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's something that, at
least for now, that you --
MR. ODOM: I feel comfortable.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- you feel comfortable with?
MR. ODOM: I feel very comfortable with it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ODOM: Like I say, I have reservations
about those guys, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That can be adjusted if
it needs to be.
MR. ODOM: That can be adjusted if we see
more, but we'll just see.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're working off of unknown
facts. As a fact is known, we may have to make appropriate
adjustments. That's always true in every case.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The one item that we --
9-3-04 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
number we haven't plugged in is training. Based on your
research, is there additional training needed for you or
MR. ODOM: There may be some. There is not a
requirement for an engineer to do floodplain, but if -- when
I look at things, I look at State-supported type schooling
instead of this private thing. I'm not quite sure where I
need to be. If there is -- there's not much fees. When I
went to Waco, it was just staying somewhere and being
frugal. I stayed in a Motel 8, I think it was, so I didn't
pay a whole lot, but I ate some McDonald's. So, you know,
there will be some additional other than the $300. We cut
it back from $500 to $300, and so I just don't have -- at
this time, Truby's going to try to find some.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we should put maybe
-- would Truby possibly need some as well?
MR. ODOM: I want to go myself, and I sort of
think -- I think that would be a good idea. But I would
rather go through it, and I could say a little bit more
where we need to be. I thought we had it. I had some in
Waco, and I was going to take the test, but they didn't give
us a test. They wouldn't give us a test, so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, $2,000 in training;
we'll add that. That ought to be covered.
25 ~ MR. ODOM: Well, I think that's more than
9-3-04 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
enough.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think there's
that many of those kind of workshops or schools, is there?
MR. ODOM: No, should be just one. And then
you go three or four days, something like that, and then you
take a test. But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you always want to
go to the State-sanctioned one.
MR. ODOM: I want to go to the
State-sanctioned.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 'Cause they bring
along their rules and regulations.
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're not into some
private -- private group that's --
MR. ODOM: Trying to create --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- trying to put
across their issues and hopes and all that.
MR. ODOM: Those sort of things.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
MR. ODOM: Where things are trying to go.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What did we spend to
train the County Engineer to do floodplain?
MR. ODOM: Well over $2,000. $4,000?
9-3-04 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
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we had $4,000 in the
last budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why did we spend
$4,000?
MR. ODOM: Sir, you'd have to ask that
gentleman. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to make
sure that we're not cutting ourselves short; that the proper
training is there. Now, if -- if there was some training in
the past that was unnecessary, then fine. We don't -- we
don't duplicate that mistake, but I want to make certain
that whatever training is required to get you or whomever
the proper credentials or certificates so that you can do
floodplain, which is pretty darned important in this
county --
MR. ODOM: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- that we do it
right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's what
he's saying.
MR. ODOM: You know, for 13 years, I've
had -- I know that that particular line item was greater
than my 600, 611 all together, and I've been -- we've been
very frugal in where we go as far as training.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that.
9-3-04 wk
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I'm talking about other training. This past year, Leonard,
MR. ODOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And my only question
is, did we overfund last time, or are we underfunding now?
MR. ODOM: I feel $2,000 would cover it. I
feel comfortable, and I'll probably have money left in it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the question was,
is that -- the County Engineer felt that it was important to
be certified. Mr. Odom does not think that is necessary,
and doesn't -- does not think -- or it is not a requirement,
and does not think it is necessary, and has been to some
training already, I believe. So, I think that the -- that's
a part of the difference. You know, I think that there --
you know, you have to rely on the discretion of the
individual who's getting the training in these areas, and
Mr. Odom doesn't think he needs more training.
MR. ODOM: But if do I, they have a line item
called Engineering. So, you know, I -- we'll look at that.
But I -- the same person that taught that seminar taught me
several hours in the afternoon.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ODOM: And I personally talked to him,
and it's not required.
9-3-04 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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ODOM: At this point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Certification?
MR. ODOM: Certification. It may be in the
future, but we will address that as we go, as I learn a
little bit more.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You were going to
tell me something, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You were going to
tell me something?
JUDGE TINLEY: I was?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. That's
a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, where's
floodplain? Isn't that on a separate budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: 15-something.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's right after the
administrative section of Road and Bridge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I can tell you; just a
second. It's 8 --
MR. ODOM: After 600.
9-3-04 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: 84, looks like. Yeah. Is
that where you are?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It says Road Districts.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I saw floodplain, but it
was --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the old one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's around 74
somewhere.
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably -
to be on 75. 75, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There
JUDGE TINLEY: We need to
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Train
had $3,500 in training.
JUDGE TINLEY: That needs
$2,000, then.
- yeah, it's going
it is, okay. 75.
reduce that.
ing is $2,000? We
to be reduced to
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $2,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $2,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And we -- what -- while we're
at it, while we're here, the capital outlay item, are you
going to need a new computer for that?
MR. ODOM: We have -- we're going to pick it
9-3-04 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
up out of that O.R.C.A. funds out of this budget. That
eliminates $5,025, or whatever he had down for his. So,
that -- that's savings right there.
JUDGE TINLEY: We left the capital outlay on
the Road and Bridge for that -- that new computer; we never
did take any final action on that, if I recall.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leonard, what
computer is being used now for floodplain?
MR. ODOM: The one on his desk that he's got
right now is being used for that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that have
special software for floodplain?
MR. ODOM: He's got -- he's got some on
there. I'm not quite sure exactly what he has on it. We're
going to go through it, but he was trying to upgrade or
whatever -- he puts a lot of data in there, and I don't know
what all that data is, but it seems like he's probably used
a little -- he probably wants it faster or something. I'm
not sure what all the data is on it, but it seems to be
somewhat excessive.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: We don't need the computer. If we
get the one that we asked for, we're in good shame.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's an extra
computer out there, though, now.
9-3-04 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
25
MR. ODOM: There's one there now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm? Did you have a question,
Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have numbers questions. Do
we want to make -- continue to separate the cost for
floodplain -- floodplain administration?
JUDGE TINLEY: As a separate budget, you're
talking about?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. Or combine it with --
JUDGE TINLEY: Administration, Road and
Bridge?
MR. TOMLINSON: -- Road and Bridge?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think combine them.
MR. ODOM: Combine them?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the only reason is
that I don't see how you can separate it, hardly. I think
it's just going to be a bunch of arbitrary numbers.
MR. TOMLINSON: That is the reason --
MR. ODOM: I already have two budgets; it's
bad enough. Three budgets --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there may be some
things, you know
MR. ODOM: I don't see a whole lot of --
we're going to absorb the cost into this year, and we're
going to see where we're at into our regular 611 and 600,
9-3-04 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
and -- you know.
MR. TOMLINSON: One more. I don't -- I did
not hear a definitive amount for the contract.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: $5,000.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: For the engineering contract
services?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Professional Services?
$5,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that in Road and
Bridge budget or our budget? Should be in Road and Bridge
budget.
MR. ODOM: I was thinking there was -- y'all
added an item, I thought, in there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There probably should
be.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's a line item there for
that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is in Road and
Bridge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, Professional
Services under the Administration, Road and Bridge.
MR. ODOM: And if there's any certification
needs to be done, I'll find out what needs to be done,
9-3-04 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
25
Commissioner Williams, and I'll take care of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, very good.
MR. ODOM: Within the next year, we'll find
out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very good.
MR. ODOM: Right now, I'm trying to finish
sealcoat and finish this budget year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are you doing
here, then?
MR. ODOM: Sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are you doing
here?
MR. ODOM: Some nice voice asked me to come,
and I thought that might behoove me -- since Commissioner
Letz was talking for me, I thought I might better come here.
So --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are you in Greenwood
Forest?
MR. ODOM: We're finishing up Greenwood
Forest on the -- we'll be through today, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're nice to Len
Odom and you get Greenwood Forest fixed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There you go.
MR. ODOM: And we haven't been tarred and
feathered yet, so I think we're doing all right.
9-3-04 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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Must be doing a good
job. I haven't heard from Charlie Eller.
MR. ODOM: That's a good sign right there.
JUDGE TINLEY: You had a question, Ms. Nemec?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. We need to come to
some agreement on the step and grade for these three
employees. On the two employees for the $1,200, looking at
the step and grade schedule, we can move them to a 23.9, and
that would be $1,214, if that's okay. And, of course, with
this move, then we'll need a new job description for them.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think --
MS. NEMEC: Then, with the administrative
assistant, the $3,600 increase, it's either going to have to
be --
MR. ODOM: 22?
MS. NEMEC: -- a 21.7 or a 21.8. If it's
21.7, the increase is $3,226. If it's a 21.8, the increase
is $4,083.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tell me those numbers
again, please? I'm sorry.
MS. NEMEC: Okay. A 21.7 is a $3,226
increase. The next step would be a 21.8, which would be a
$4,083 increase.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like the first one.
MS. NEMEC: First one?
9-3-04 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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 21.7.
MS. NEMEC: And then we would also need a new
job description for that.
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. NEMEC: And I guess, when you look at
this -- moving these step and grades to the 21 and the other
employees to a 23, what we really need to look at is the
step -- the Step 1 to see if they do vacate that position,
and entry level would be a certain amount. And I think
that's pretty much in line with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you give me those --
well, it'll be in the new schedule.
MS. NEMEC: It's -- are we in agreement with
that?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
MS. NEMEC: Is that okay?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That all right, Len?
MS. NEMEC: Not quite.
MR. ODOM: Well, that's not what we agreed
to, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but -- it's a
little bit more for two, but it's a little bit less for one.
MR. ODOM: Let's make -- we will -- we'll try
it and see. And if it comes back that it feels like it's a
burden, I won't do it unless I feel it's unfair to all of
9-3-04 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
us, but particularly to the personnel that are going to be
doing a little bit more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What would a 21 -- what's
21.8?
MS. NEMEC: A 21.8 is an increase of $4,083,
which is $34,667.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And a 21.7 is how much of
an increase?
MS. NEMEC: It's an increase of $3,226.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems like a lot of
difference between those -- between one step.
MS. NEMEC: Of course, I'm just calculating
back here by listening to all of you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 21.7.
MS. NEMEC: This is according to the new step
and grade schedule that I'm looking at. This is with a
3 percent cost-of-living increase, so you got to figure that
in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, if you figure that
part in --
MR. ODOM: She's back at --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- she's back up there.
Okay, 21.7 is good, in my mind.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Leonard's
responsible to rewrite the --
9-3-04 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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Job description.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- job descriptions.
MR. ODOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For all four of you,
yourself included.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or all three of you.
Three job descriptions.
MR. ODOM: Do I have a timeframe in which
to -- sometime after the 1st? I mean, does it -- do we have
to have it 1st of October?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's going on vacation
for a while.
MR. ODOM: Two weeks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two weeks?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you could
just --
JUDGE TINLEY: What was that you said,
Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You could just write
it while you're on vacation, sitting out under the trees
and --
COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	Fax it in	to us.
COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	-- sipping	a little
pina colada.
9-3-04 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
MR. ODOM: I don't even know if -- we're
still back in the 1800's, I think, where I'm going. So --
MS. NEMEC: Another thing is that she's
classified as an administrative assistant, and an
administrative assistant in the Nash study, it was the same
as a chief deputy, and so they put them as a 19. So, if --
we either have to do that one of two ways; change her job
title to merit a 21 grade, or move everybody else to a 21.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How about if we
change her title to Assistant Road Administrator and take
her off the schedule?
MR. ODOM: Make her exempt?
JUDGE TINLEY: That way you can do the 3,600
and just be done with it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's one way of
doing it.
MR. ODOM: She's going to be actually the
Assistant Floodplain Manager as well as my administrative
assistant, which is really that. I think it's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let me ask
Barbara --
MR. ODOM: I came to the Court last year as
far as supervisor, and we didn't do that, but -- because I
was changing things and putting more on her. But I think
that I will ask Barbara that question.
9-3-04 wk
~o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Barbara, if we follow
that suggestion to make the position an exempt position,
does that require having supervisory firing -- supervisory
responsibilities over hiring and firing?
MS. NEMEC: Not necessarily over hiring and
firing. There is certain things that -- that a position has
to be able to have authority to do in order to be exempt.
So, when rewriting the job description, there are some
guidelines to who can be exempt and who can't, you know, and
there's just a variety of things. So, we just need to make
sure that when that is being done, that that is, in fact, an
exempt position.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- what are those
things?
MS. NEMEC: I don't know offhand, but --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think it would
qualify for administrative professional exemption.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably would.
MS. NEMEC: I would think, just knowing what
that employee does and -- and the authority she has over
that department, I would think it would be able to be
exempt, just off the top of my head.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't make any
difference to me.
9-3-04 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
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's the way to go.
And you don't get into these other cross-classifications,
and you can come right in at the 3,600.
MS. NEMEC: Of course, we do have exempt
employees now that are on a step and grade schedule. We
have the Information Technology. He's exempt, but he's --
he has a step and grade. And then I believe the employee
out at the -- not the Ag Barn. Environ -- Laurinda Boyd.
She's exempt, but she's on a step and grade. The only ones
that are exempt that are not on step and grade are the
professionals, which are the County Attorney, Assistant
County Attorney, and I believe Mr. Holekamp.
JUDGE TINLEY: Court reporter.
MS. NEMEC: The court reporters here are
exempt.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's the
right way to go.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
MS. NEMEC: Animal Control, he's exempt. But
he's -- well, he's not on a step and grade. We have both.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That gets her back to
36.
MR. ODOM: Thank you. I think that's fair.
And hiring and firing, that's my job description.
9-3-04 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
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, that's you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Odom, I think
you've done a good job of trying to find a way to get work
done better and help out the taxpayers.
MR. ODOM: We'll make it work. We'll make it
work, and we'll work with the Court like we always have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Has that solved everything
with respect to the Road and Bridge issue?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One issue -- just one
little minor thing here. Who's going to craft the Request
for Proposal for engineering services for retainer? It
needs to be crafted properly, Judge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The County Attorney.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, whoever. Just
want to know who's going to do it.
MR. ODOM: Normally, under Professional
Services, there's not a bid.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Request for Proposal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just more of a notice as
to what we want, so everyone bids on the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Request for Qualifications and
Proposals.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: RFQ, that's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Is that it?
9-3-04 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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we going to take a
short --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if we're not through,
we're going to be taking a break here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a couple
things left on my list.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Why don't we take a
break? We'll recess for about 15 minutes or so.
(Recess taken from 10:24 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to
order on our workshop. Budget matters. Commissioner Letz,
does that exhaust your list?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My list is temporarily
exhausted.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have
something.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's not your
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I
JUDGE TINLEY: Go to 4.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1 com
JUDGE TINLEY: 4 comes after
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm glad
all of y'all come after 3. (Laughter.)
turn.
thought it was.
~s after 3.
3.
y'all recognize
9-3-04 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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll defer for now
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that like an
earthquake?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's been something
that's been nagging at the back of my mind. It's been
bothering me. And we were having discussions with the
Treasurer a few days ago, and I asked a question, if she
would remind us of what we did last year with salaries and
the $1,000 deal and all that stuff. We gave $1,000 to the
elected officials, and Commissioners Court was excluded.
Well, along in that conversation last year, when we gave the
$1,000 -- this is what's been bothering me -- we gave $1,000
to the elected officials, and we said, "Here's a salary
increase for the elected officials. Next year we will look
and do the department heads." Now, I don't -- I don't think
that we wrote that in stone, and there wasn't a lot of
lightning and thunder and gnashing of teeth, but we did say
that, that we'd take care of the elected officials this year
and we'll do the department heads next year.
"Next year" is now, and we're not addressing
that at all. We're coming back and giving the elected
officials another raise, and not doing anything for the
9-3-04 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
department heads. I just wanted to bring that up. That's
been bothering me, because I knew we had said that. And it
just came to my mind a while ago, and I had a visit with the
County Treasurer, and I think there's four department heads
that you -- that are considered department heads in the
system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we addressed one --
we're lucky -- in Road and Bridge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, there was five.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four left.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're down to four.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who are those four?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would be Animal
Shelter. That would be --
MS. NEMEC: Environmental Health,
Maintenance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- Environmental
Health, Maintenance, and Court Collections. At least we
need to have a discussion. I would -- I don't know that we
actually made a commitment. Of course, we couldn't, but I
don't know -- I think we need to talk about that before
we --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, we -- we made an
adjustment in Environmental Health based on the -- I mean,
some money that we had budgeted in another area for training
9-3-04 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
last year. We added -- rolled that amount in his salary, so
he got an adjustment in his.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're down to three
now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We -- oh, Animal Control,
yeah. We have three. Those three, we have not done
anything with, you're correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Those are exempt employees?
MS. NEMEC: Some of them are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Barbara, how long has it
I want to say three years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three years?
MS. NEMEC: And I'd like to offer a
suggestion on those employees. It's easy to skip over those
employees, 'cause we usually just do employees that are on
step and grade and elected officials. But, really, I think
that those employees are employees of the Commissioners
Court. They're under Commissioners Court, and whenever
elected officials or department heads want to give
increases, we need to provide an evaluation on the employee
to get them a merit increase. And I think that, probably
with these employees that are under the Commissioners Court,
9-3-04 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
evaluations should be done on them for recommendations on
increases, just like you do your other two employees. And
that way, all the employees, whether they're exempt, step
and grade or whatever, they're all treated equally, and the
only ones that you address year-to-year is the elected
officials, which are separate from them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, does that mean we're
going to do evaluations this year? Or we're doing an
increase this year? Or both?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we're going to -- I
think we need to do both. We don't -- we don't take care of
the evaluation issue like we should. Never have. And --
but we should. Now, we've already evaluated our
administrative assistant within six months of employment
here, which is a good thing. I mean, I'm glad -- we should
be doing that. But the other departments -- and she's
right; those departments do come directly under
Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we should do
the evaluations.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't take care of
that like we should. That may be a good duty of the
administrative assistant to trigger our remembrance.
9-3-04 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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And provide us with
the review forms.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Review forms and that
kind of thing. But, in my mind, I think those people need
to be addressed before elected officials this time, because
we said we would.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I seem to recall --
you're right, we did mention it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or say it. I'm all
right with it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, want to hit
Maintenance first?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It appears to me, based
on overall other salaries, that the Maintenance Supervisor
is quite a bit lower than it should be.
JUDGE TINLEY: I would agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The current salary is
$26,337. That job -- I mean, look at the responsibility and
things of that nature, and I think that the -- there's a lot
of responsibility. A lot of dollars are affected by the
decisions of that position.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Isn't his salary
split with two different budgets?
9-3-04 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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm looking under
Maintenance.
MS. NEMEC: Under Maintenance, the salary
there is $26,337, and under the Extension Office -- well,
I'm sorry, the Ag Barn, it's $13,795.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I
thought.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, okay. I was in shock
when I saw it here. So, it's -- his total is at --
JUDGE TINLEY: 39-something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a lot better.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MS. NEMEC: And that is an exempt, so you
could add just a flat amount, whatever you wanted to.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Did you have a specific
proposal in mind, --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I propose that we give
$1,000 to each department head, and $1,000 to the
Commissioners Court. And then -- I don't know what that
does to the overall budget. I don't know if we can afford
to go on and include all the other elected officials or not.
I just don't know.
9-3-04 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
JUDGE TINLEY: An across-the-board raise --
increase to all elected officials over and above that is
what you're talking about?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I just
don't --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
all elected officials get $1,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
what, we're down to three? Did we sa
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
heads.
Where we are today is,
Right.
And do -- would the --
Y?
Three department
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Three department
heads, $3,000. I spill that much on a Saturday night. But
-- or used to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would say, based on the
salaries and the -- a little bit of equality, I'd probably
say $1,500 for Maintenance and $1,000 for the other two.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if we
ought to get into -- I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or $1,000 apiece is fine.
$1,000 for each is fine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we ought to
9-3-09 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
keep it uniform.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uniform and fair. And
that's my proposal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we have the
numbers on Animal Control and Court Collections?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where are we?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: $29,082.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Marc Allen is
$29, 082 .
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Court Collections is
$32,228. Those are last -- just with the cost-of-living.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I'm cool with
keeping it uniform.
JUDGE TINLEY: But your initial proposal is
essentially catch-up, to include the folks that were omitted
last year?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Those three named individuals,
plus the Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I had a baby
paradigm here. Just add those three to what we originally
9-3-04 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
agreed to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't take away the
$1,000 from the elected officials.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just add the three to
what we had originally agreed to do over and above. That's
my proposal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any problem.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, and the
reason --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I like those
increases, but I need to say again that I'm opposed to
the -- to both the $1,000 for elected officials, as well as
to the 1 percent merit increase.
JUDGE TINLEY: What do we have presently in
the budget for the merit increase pool that we established?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought we put in
$10,000 last year.
JUDGE TINLEY: I know we put in 10 last year,
but what do we got recommended for this year, I think is my
question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The only proposal out
there, Judge, was the one I floated, which was a 1 percent
9-3-04 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
of base pay -- you know, of the base payroll, which Tommy
submitted; I asked him. Somewhere -- which would put us
somewhere around $50,000 system-wide. Is that still
correct, Tommy? Correct estimate?
MR. TOMLINSON: That -- that's very -- that's
a guess. That's not an estimate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's a guess. That's not
really an estimate. And I don't know -- I don't know how
many -- I don't know how many dollars we're talking about.
I mean, I can't make that assumption without -- we have so
many people on our payroll that aren't Kerr County employees
that it's hard to make a good estimate without knowing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe the better approach
would be to fund the merit increase pool under the
Nondepartmental again this year like we did last year, and
utilize that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would -- my preference
is to figure out -- I mean, to give it to the department
head or elected officials, at their discretion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that approach
better. And I don't know why it would be difficult to -- to
plug in a merit line. We know what the base is for the
employees. It's -- a line item's already there; 1 percent
of that. Any departments that don't -- are not eligible, as
9-3-04 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
Tommy points out there's some we would not include in that,
then we should not include them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you'd -- you look
at -- I mean, you go through and identify those departments
to -- you know, might be easier than doing them all. But, I
mean -- I mean, it's the County Clerk, District Clerk,
Treasurer's office, Maintenance, Extension. The Sheriff's
and all that would be excluded, except for his --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only employees I'm
really concerned -- I got four 12's there that need to be
brought up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: County Attorney's office.
You know, I mean, some of them are -- you know, not trying
to bypass it, but they're real small offices. There's
really hardly -- it's not enough to do anything with it.
MR. ALFORD: That's what I started to say.
What about when you got one employee? It's $23,000; you're
talking about $230. It's pretty cut-and-dried. Either you
do or you don't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd -- I think I'd rather
see some kind of -- you know, do what we did last year. All
departments with more than five employees get 1 percent this
year they can use, and next year we'll look at all the
smaller departments and just do a case-by-case, 'cause
otherwise you'll miss the small departments. I think you --
9-3-04 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
you know, and -- or we can try to do it all this year.
Either way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you can do
elected official or department head's budget, based on the
base salaries paid, excluding the department head, excluding
the elected official. And you could also put a few of those
dollars in -- in the pool -- discretionary pool, and the
smaller departments can justify their request.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That may work.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, something I
don't understand is, what -- why wouldn't -- why would you
want to put, using your example, 1 percent of the base in
there? Why wouldn't you just put two steps, whatever that
amount -- just put the -- put that number in there, and let
them figure out how to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The one answer that
pops in my head is because the discretion of the department
head, they may not choose to give a merit to all of the
people in their -- in their department. And they may choose
not to do that for their reasons, and their reasons are
valid.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a -- that -- that
argument supports Number 1's idea better, because Barbara
9-3-04 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
would have to go to the departments and look at what the
step -- what two steps is for each of those departments, and
just add that as a -- as a number to each of their budgets,
or Tommy would add it to the budgets.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're talking about
just converting -- just converting two steps across into a
dollar figure?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and give that
increase. That would --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's okay.
MS. NEMEC: I'd like to make a suggestion. I
think y'all are doing it very hard.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Barbara, come up a
little bit. The air and the fan's going, and it's hard to
hear you back there.
MS. NEMEC: I would like to see us go back to
the way we used to do merit increases, and I think it would
solve a lot of the problems that we're having in trying to
determine how to do it. During the budget process, which
we're in now, the elected official comes in with evaluations
and says, "I've got three employees that I need merit
increases for. I want to give one merit -- one step here,
two steps here." And listen to all the merits that all the
elected officials or department heads are recommending, and
25 ~ then go from there; see what that dollar figure is, and see
9-3-04 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
if we can afford to do that this year. If not, go back to
the elected officials and department heads and say, "Okay,
there's not enough money to do that. Can you -- the ones
that you're giving a one merit to, can you -- or two, can
you just give them one?" Or something like that. That way,
we can plug it into the budget, and it's a set figure, and
we know what it's going to be. We don't have to go through
the year wondering if the $10,000 is going to be used, or if
one department gets here before the other one, it's all
going to be taken up already, and then the others aren't --
so I'd like to see it go back to discussing it through the
budget process and approving it, and plugging in those
numbers at this time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can you -- could you
foreseeably accomplish that between now and the time we have
to finalize this budget?
MS. NEMEC: Well, I'll tell you what, if the
elected officials want their employees to get merit
increases, then you're going to have to give them a cutoff
date. And I'm sure they'll -- if they don't make it in by
that date, then they'll have to wait till next year. But
I'm sure it can be accomplished. I've got the step and
grade schedules all run already. I mean -- yeah, the step
and grade schedules all run with a 3 percent. I can get
with whoever wants to recommend merits and help them, let
9-3-04 wk
88
1
2
3
them know what those figures are going to be. So, I'll --
I'm available for that if -- if that's what it takes. I
just think it's much easier.
4
5 be -- t
6 up fron
7
8
9 plan --
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Evaluation and a
MS. NEMEC: And recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- for the future, as
opposed to us just kind of picking a number out of the air
and throwing it out there. I think she's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I think the only
thing I would add to that -- I don't -- I think that's
probably a good plan -- is that you have to -- well, I need
to -- I will look at kind of what's going on in departments
as well as individual, you know, performance in that
department. I think they're related. Just -- you know, so
if -- you know, someone who has -- you know, who's had no
change in employment in a number of years, or a number of
employees in a number of years, to me, and is, you know,
working and not asking for more is more inclined to get a
merit increase for their employees than someone who's added
a bunch of personnel -- I know we haven't added that much
9-3-04 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
personnel in the past few years, so it may not be an issue,
but I'd like to try to focus this in our overall direction,
and try to improve productivity at the same time. Not just
keeping status-quo. But that's just -- I mean, that's just
how I'm going to look at it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Me too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I think that's --
I mean, that's -- it makes a lot more sense to have a plan
and justification than it is all of a sudden giving a pool
of money away.
MS. NEMEC: We used to do that years -- years
ago; that's the way we did it. And that way, come budget
time, we know what the figure is. You don't budget too
much; you don't budget too little.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you think you can
accomplish it in time to give us a bottom-line number, fine
and dandy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll need to have those
numbers by our next workshop, which is going to be the end
of next week, I think. Isn't that about --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you call a
workshop? I did not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know.
MS. NEMEC: Would you all like me to contact
9-3-04 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
each department and let them know that if they have any
merit increases, that they'll have to have an evaluation to
this Court on a certain day?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's do part of it
this way. There are, oh, three elected officials sitting
here right now. What do they think? What --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The --
JUDGE TINLEY: Ladies first.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Linda, what do you
MS. DECKER: Wow. Well, I think that's what
I've said all along, and I think that's what Commissioner
Williams was saying. You know, that's -- there's a little
bit of variation where this would be more of a concrete
amount, rather than, you know, giving 1 percent to each
elected official, which would still be my preference, but
I'm -- I'm okay with the other. As far as bringing
evaluations in here and giving them to the Court, there
again, I don't think you -- y'all don't want to do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I do not want to
do that. I thought we were talking about what you evaluate,
give it to her so she knows what dollar figure we're talking
about.
MS. DECKER: Maybe what she's saying, then,
9-3-04 wk
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is get your evaluations done, make your decision, and come
in here and say, you know, this is what you've decided. Is
that --
MS. NEMEC: Yeah, that's good. Sure. And if
-- and if, then, the Court has questions on, "Well, why do
you feel this employee deserves two steps?" Then she has
the evaluation to share that information with you at that
time, if it comes down to that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about you?
MS. PIEPER: Well, the thought that's running
through my mind is, I come in here and present it, and then
my employee may or may not get it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Correct.
MS. PIEPER: It's one of those that falls
back on whoever has the gift for gab again.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again?
MS. PIEPER: The way I'm -- I'm hearing it is
that I come in here with my employee evaluation and I
present it to y'all, and it's basically whoever has the gift
for gab. Either I get my employee's merit increase or I
don't.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't want to see
your evaluations. I don't want to make that judgment call.
9-3-04 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
But, by the same token, I don't want you to come in, and/or
go to Barbara and represent that every employee in your
department is eligible for a merit increase.
MS. PIEPER: Right. I understand that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, somewhere in
between there is where we ought to be. All I hear Barbara
saying is, let's handle it in an orderly fashion, with a
recommendation supported by an evaluation and the department
head's recommendation, and she -- she will convert that to a
dollar figure by reason of the steps involved and tell us
the dollar figure. Am I hearing you correctly?
MS. NEMEC: That's correct. That's correct.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I
don't want to see those evaluations either, because they
don't tell me what I need to know to make a decision.
They're arbitrary and -- and subjective. What I would want
to know is, what has the employee done to improve service or
increase revenue or cut costs or improve work environment?
Those kind of things. Not a checklist of traits that
doesn't -- that doesn't provide me any information to make a
decision with.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we improve the
evaluation form to include those things that you --
MS. DECKER: I don't think that you can
compare every department, Commissioner Nicholson, directly
9-3-04 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
93
related to the budget process itself. You know, I think you
have to look within the functions of the duties of that
office. You know, just because a performance may not save a
County dollar doesn't mean that it does not merit an
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what he said,
though -- he said improve service. He said one of the
criteria was dollars, but he also said that, you know, if
you have someone --
MS. UECKER: Well, that's -- that's what the
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't want -- I mean,
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the Commissioner's
comments boiled down, bottom line -- and he can correct me
if I misstate him -- rather than saying, "This employee does
a good job of doing this employee's job, and therefore ought
to be entitled to a merit increase," that shouldn't be the
criteria, because the employee's hired to do that job, and
should be doing a good job. However, we're looking for
something above and beyond. Increased service to the
public, cost-saving measures, productivity increases by
virtue of their activities, things that fall outside of
their normal routine job function requirements.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me -- but there's
9-3-04 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
another side of that, in my -- and I -- and I agree 100
percent. But -- but you can see -- I can see where Rusty's
department or Road and Bridge Department -- Rusty's
department, let's say that he has a guy that goes into a
house fire and saves some lives. You know, that's above and
beyond. Or Road and Bridge, you know, puts a plan in to
stop and help all little blue-haired ladies fix flats,
whatever the issue might be. But Linda's office may not
have that ability. I mean, they do a certain job, and
how -- what would they do that would be above and beyond the
call of duty?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll give you an
example. There's only been one merit increase granted that
I can recall since I've been on the Court, and that was in
the Treasurer's office. And the Treasurer came in and said,
"Here's this employee that helped us organize this training
program -- administration program to -- to improve our
worker's comp experience, and here's the evidence of what
that produced for us." She also said, "Here's the
checklist, the appraisal form." I don't need the appraisal
form. She's told me all -- all I need to know to know that
that employee deserves a merit increase for the
extraordinary effort she went to, to -- to improve
government.
25 ( COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
9-3-04 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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think another way
is, like, in Linda's office -- or Jannett's would be equal,
or Paula's, probably. You know, someone who's, in their
mind, gone out of their way to learn other -- additional
jobs -- I mean, you know, know everyone's job, always
willing to help, you know, always polite to the public,
someone who just really, you know, is exceptional in the
way --
MS. UECKER: As compared to maybe another
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As compared to the rest
of your staff. I mean, if -- you know, numbers tell us that
everyone is not going to be exceptional. And we don't --
you know, but if there's someone who is exceptional, we'd
like to try to reward that person. Which --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Linda, just out of
curiosity, is -- well, without revealing any names or
anything, what is your criteria for making that judgment
call?
MS. UECKER: What is my criteria?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, for -- in terms
of evaluating an employee to get you to the point of
recommending a merit.
MS. UECKER: Well, basically what Jonathan
said, is you know you're going to have employees that are
9-3-04 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
more helpful to the public, which, again, reflects on not
only me as the elected official, but county government as a
whole. And then you're going to have those that are going
to -- you know, when someone comes in, they may look down
and act like they didn't see them, or where somebody else is
always going to be the first one up there to help. Or if
the court needs something, or if the deputy -- or if the
Sheriff's Department needs something, that person is always
going to be eager to volunteer and eager to do what needs to
be done, because we're all working for the same result, as
far as law enforcement. The Sheriff isn't the only person
in law enforcement. I'm -- I'm a branch of law enforcement
too, as is the court. So, we're all trying to work
together, and to make the end result a conviction and a fine
and court cost paid. You know, there's going to be
employees that make that happen much easier than others.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. UECKER: I don't know if that makes a lot
of sense, but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But that sounds like,
to me, that's just part of their job, though.
MS. UECKER: It is. It is, but there's going
to be some that try a little bit harder.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
9-3-04 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
MS. PIEPER: You know, some that will pick --
try to pick up the phone on the second ring rather than the
third or fourth.
JUDGE TINLEY: First ring.
MS. UECKER: Like, I've got a couple -- the
two that I've got in mind will go --
MS. PIEPER: They have to have time to reach
it.
MS. UECKER: -- will go to a person who's
maybe a little bit far behind and say, you know, "I've got
some time right now. Can I help you do this?"
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That makes sense to
me.
MS. PIEPER: Right.
MS. UECKER: That's the one example -- that's
the one issue that I'm going to use this year to make that
decision.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That one makes sense
to me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like Barbara's
plan.
MR. ALFORD: Can I say something real quick
on this? Under the old deal, we used to have -- y'all keep
talking about evaluations. We used to call them
justification. That way, it kind of -- why we are
9-3-04 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
justifying asking for a raise. I asked for one raise this
year for my employee, simply because we're taking on J.P.
stuff. Our percentage this year -- remember, y'all, we're
getting a bigger piece of a smaller pie, which means we're
having to work harder to get the money. So, that's what I'm
talking about. He's gone above and beyond; more duties,
going out and trying to get more of what we have. And I
classify that as a justification.
JUDGE TINLEY: Rather than a change in job
description, because he's, in essence, assumed additional
duties. Because it's the same work; it's just --
MR. ALFORD: Broader.
JUDGE TINLEY: Wasn't there before.
MR. ALFORD: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty didn't get his
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right, I didn't.
It was my turn. Personally, I think most of y'all know I
don't believe in merit raises for law enforcement. Our job
descriptions and everything say, "and any other duties
assigned." Okay? And I think that takes care of it. We
evaluate them every six months; we counsel them, and if they
aren't doing their job, they're going to go somewhere else
and work, is the way I look at it. The only thing I have in
9-3-04 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
this budget -- and I misstated a while ago. I just looked
at it. I've got three positions that are 12's, and those
are the three that I would like to see at least get a
one-step or however Barbara can work it out. But the
problem I have right now in contemplating that as a merit
increase, two of those three positions are open right now,
because one transferred to another department in the county
where they went up to a 14, and I have that. It's -- I
can't go in and evaluate to start them out above that 12.1.
That's where I have a -- I have a problem. I'd like to see
those lowest-paid ones, those 12's -- that position get
moved up a little bit to where we can do something.
MS. UECKER: That's what they talked about
doing next year.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Next year, but what do
MS. NEMEC: What you do right now is, if you
have an employee that has the experience that that job
requires, you come in --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Come in and ask for a
12.2?
MS. NEMEC: You ask for them to be moved up.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have no problem with
9-3-04 wk
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
those 12's.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Otherwise --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're having the
same conversation we've dealt with a little bit last year,
about the problem of the working poor, people who are on the
County payroll that -- that make -- whose salary is so
little that they may qualify for public support. Probably
-- and the 12.1's, the 12.2's, those kinds of salary levels
are probably all in that category. Probably there needs to
be a -- a structural change. We may need to, you know,
establish minimum salaries, and -- and call them 12.1's and
12.2's, but move them up to getting paid a respectable pay
raise. That's not something we can solve between now and
October 1, but it's probably something that deserves more
16 attention.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does. Barbara's
plan. How quick can you give us a number?
MS. NEMEC: As quickly as the officials get
with me. When do we need to come back to court? We'll just
make sure it's done at that date.
MS. NEMEC: Y'all are saying the end of next
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It will be, at the
earliest, end of next week, and likely the following week.
MS. UECKER: Give us a deadline, Barbara.
9-3-04 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
week or the following week.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: End of next week, we'll
have --
MS. NEMEC: If we can have -- I'd like to
have everything by Wednesday, myself.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next Wednesday?
MS. NEMEC: For them to have it to me, so
that I can present it to y'all by --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Monday's a holiday, and
today's Friday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's all right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That gives them one day.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's enough.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They know what we're
talking about; that's okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd say Thursday. And
the reason is, we're going to have to meet -- when do we
have the airport meeting? Tuesday or Wednesday?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have to look in my
book. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Either Tuesday or
Wednesday, so we're not going to probably come back in --
our next workshop will be, at the earliest, next Thursday or
Friday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me go get it;
9-3-04 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
102
that's important.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know it will be either
Tuesday or Wednesday, so it will be Thursday or Friday, next
workshop.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm gone noon Thursday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it'll probably be --
and then Monday's Commissioners Court. I would recommend
we -- we do a workshop in the afternoon of -- our final
workshop the afternoon of our Commissioners Court meeting,
and get this -- get them in to you by Thursday. And that
afternoon, we'll hash out these final couple of items, and
that way, we can turn it loose to the Auditor and the Tax
Assessor a week from Monday.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And when we review
those proposed merit increases, I think it would be
extraordinarily helpful if that department head or elected
official was here to justify them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they have to be
here to justify it. I don't think -- I wouldn't consider
one if they don't come.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, the
next Airport Board meeting is Tuesday afternoon,
September 7th, 3 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, we may
schedule a workshop for Monday.
9-3-04 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
JUDGE TINLEY: Monday afternoon, 1:30?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A week from Monday
afternoon at 1:30. And then --
MS. NEMEC: If they give them to me Thursday,
that will give me Friday to get them together.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get them to you, and
we'll finish it the afternoon of -- whatever that Monday is.
Not next Monday, a week from Monday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 13th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 13th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the day of the
regular Commissioners Court meeting, I think.
MS. MITCHELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you suggesting we
don't need a meeting next Friday?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I think -- I don't
see any reason to have two more workshops. I think one.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you think that's
our last meeting?
JUDGE TINLEY: Workshop, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it has to be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well yeah. Yeah, it
does. That's why I asked if you're sure we don't need to
have one on the 10th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I really don't think -- I
9-3-04 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
mean, we're -- we have a little bit to do; Extension
facility, and we have a little bit with the City.
Everything else is done.
MR. TOMLINSON: I have an issue. It's back
to the Ag Barn. The hundred -- $150,000 is -- is more than
your repair, and it does increase the value of the property,
so I would like to see this go into --
JUDGE TINLEY: Capital Outlay?
MR. TOMLINSON: -- Capital Improvements in
the Fund 70 budget. So -- it's a permanent improvement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree, yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excellent.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For the reasons we
talked about earlier.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: So, I -- I won't put it in
the -- in the Ag Barn budget, itself.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excellent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, that's good. I
think we have one other issue -- I'm sorry. Go ahead, Dave.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The fire issue,
volunteer fire departments.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's it. KARFA
had their meeting Tuesday night or Wednesday night --
9-3-04 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
105
Wednesday night, I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, today's
Friday. And we had wanted to hear from them, if they had a
choice between getting $15,000 matching for communications
equipment or getting a raise this year, which would you opt
for? And they talked about it and unanimously opted for
improved communication equipment, so I'm proposing that we
leave that $15,000 matching money in.
JUDGE TINLEY: Grant match item, rather than
an increase in each of their allocations?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. The only --
the only other possible fly in that ointment is that 9-1-1
-- emergency 9-1-1 served notice that they can't expect --
may not be able to expect to receive funding for other
communications costs in future, but I think they did get
some commitment that they would get it for the remainder of
the next budget year. That's funding for the cost of pager
service and some pagers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Was -- was the KARFA
meeting unanimously attended from all the fire departments?
Do you know?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I didn't ask that
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I have no idea
9-3-04 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
how -- how strongly attended those meetings are, if they get
a real good attendance at all of them or not. That, to me,
is -- as long as it was a majority of them.
JUDGE TINLEY: The ones that I attended
sometime back had pretty good attendance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they usually do.
I just want to make sure we don't just have "unanimous"
meaning two.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I agree. I
think it's important that they all buy into it in the plan.
I don't have any problem with what you're suggesting, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have a problem
with it either, except, I agree, I want to make sure that
everybody's there. But we put -- what is it, 13? How much?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $15,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $15,000. Put $15,000
in the budget. Now, what if they -- something real weird
happens, that they don't get the application in on time, or
even the State says, "No, you don't get the money." Then, I
mean, we need to agree here of what we do at that point. Do
we -- are we going to give them -- then give them $1,500 out
of that, and then turn the rest of it back in? Or how is
that going to be handled?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course it's a good
9-3-04 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
107
point. I brought it up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And another point
connected to that good point is looking ahead after they get
the grant. Is that going to be something they're going
to -- the maintenance and all that stuff that goes with it
on an ongoing basis, is that something they're going to come
back to Commissioners Court for, or are they going to look
to their own budgets to take care of those items? If
they're going to look to their own budget to do it, which
I -- I think they have to, then I favor putting it in their
budget now. They can expend it. They could make it -- and
that makes it their commitment, once they take it out of
their budget and give it for this grant thing, unless
there's some kind of grant requirement that says the County
has to do it. That way, then they're committed to it, and
they know that those dollars in the future are going to be
committed to it as well.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we've --
I've talked with Danny Feller, the president of KARFA, about
that, and he doesn't know the answer either. He believes
that the -- well, they won't know till they select a
contractor, but he believes it'll come with a -- the price
will include a maintenance agreement for some period of
time. And I would agree with you that, when that time
expires, that it'll be up to the individual fire
9-3-04 wk
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
departments, probably through KARFA, to fund any maintenance
or extraordinary costs. They can come back to us if they
want to, but -- but I don't want to buy this thing forever.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who owns this?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's another
question.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
own the current equipment?
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
NICHOLSON:
LETZ: Cou
WILLIAMS:
NICHOLSON:
WILLIAMS:
We do.
my does?
County does? Do we
No.
We will own the new
equipment?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The best thinking
they have so far from -- advice from -- is it Advantage
Communications?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that they can
solve the problem with two new towers, and by putting new
repeaters on two current towers. And that's -- that's not
exact, but that's the concept that they would follow. And
that the -- the two new towers will be purchased with grant
money, and that the County would own them. We might want to
go back to KARFA and say, "We don't want to own them; KARFA
9-3-04 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
has to own them," but I don't know if they have the kind of
organization status to own assets.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: May have to be the
individual fire department.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: May have to be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, then again, you
know, the reason I was concerned about the time frame thing,
because he made the statement in here the other day that
they had -- a site had not been chosen. That may be the
biggest hurdle of all. I tell you, people -- I hear -- I
get a lot of complaints, and I hear a lot of people talk
negative about how many towers are going in and how many
towers are around here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I hear you, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That may be a
difficult thing to do.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: After -- after my --
our discussion in here, I was driving home and I started
noticing towers for the first time. You know how you don't
notice your surroundings? Must be 15 of them between here
and my house.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Popping up like
mushrooms.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Drive to Junction with
9-3-04 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
25
that in mind; they are everywhere.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One thing they may keep
in mind if they own them -- that's why we opted in the
Sheriff's Office radio system not to -- is the maintenance
of owning a tower. It's got to be painted every year or
two. It's got -- the lights have -- it's unbelievable. And
then, if they don't own them, then you've got to do what the
Sheriff's Office had to do, which is lease space on them,
which then you're going to have a -- like we have, a yearly
rental fee from the landowner and from the owner of the
tower itself, and it can get into pretty substantial dollars
year-to-year just to maintain, before you get into
equipment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's exactly why I
brought it up the other day along that line, because the
ongoing expenses can be significant.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we leave it
like this; that we're budgeting the grant, but we're not
agreeing to own or maintain any equipment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that statement
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if we agree to the
9-3-04 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
111
real clear in the grant.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we'll be looking at the
particulars of whatever that proposal is at the time when we
authorize the expenditure of that money, and we can hang
whatever attachments we want to on it. That would be one of
them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just -- I'm kind
of unclear about what volunteer fire departments can own and
lease. Do they have power to lease a piece of property, put
a tower on it, all those kinds of things?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The volunteer fire
departments do have that ability. I don't think KARFA has
any ability.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably not.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You know, you used
to be an attorney for KARFA. Can they own assets?
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. Nonprofit, sure.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: KARFA's a nonprofit?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, sure. I formed it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'd better
doublecheck it, then.
JUDGE TINLEY: Check it out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. That's it?
9-3-04 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
You're done? I'm done.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We done?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're done.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now we'll come back to you.
Have you got anything else for this trip?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Could we
get that light bulb fixed right up there, please?
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll put that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the next two weeks?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- in the next workshop.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two weeks.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think so,
Judge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nothing today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Four? You through? We'll
stand adjourned.
(Budget Workshop adjourned at 11:26 a.m.)
9-3-09 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
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 23rd day of September,
2004.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: ____ _ ~ijt~______________ _
Kathy B k, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
9-3-04 wk