1
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
Wednesday, September 1, 2004
1:30 p.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
3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Wednesday, September 1, 2004, at 1:30 p.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: Let me call to order the
workshop of the Kerr County Commissioners Court scheduled
for this time and date, September the lst, 2004, at 1:30
p.m. We've got a number of budget items. Why don't we
start with the -- the Youth Exhibit Center item. I think
that's at the top of the list, if I can find my list.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have something I
want to hand out, if that's where we're going to start.
JUDGE TINLEY: My recollection is that we
asked the Maintenance Director to try and get us some at
least starting numbers, working numbers on a possibility of
putting in a new roof, just over the Exhibit Center portion,
and that prompted, of course, the air conditioner issue,
because the air conditioner's got to come off. Where are we
on that, Mr. Holekamp?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. I -- I gave everybody
copies, I believe. There was a proposal. These are
estimates, strictly estimates, and that's what was asked
for. There was no --
9-1-04 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
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. HOLEKAMP: -- bids or anything. The --
on the existing roof, the recommendation was not a gabled
roof; it was a shed-type roof that would go from one end to
the other because of the water runoff. Their recommendation
would -- because there's really no place between the two
buildings to carry that much water. The price is -- with a
metal frame, as you can see there, is 35 --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Glenn, the shed which
way? Shed from front-to-back, or from middle-to-side?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Mid -- okay. From east to
west.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Side-to-side?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Side-to-side.
JUDGE TINLEY: From the arena to the west
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. HOLEKAMP: As you're looking at it, it
would be kind of like this. But it's really -- I went and
looked at a building in Bandera County that they had done on
their EMS building, and they used the same procedure, and it
is very difficult to see the pitch because of the way
they -- that amount of length. It's really interesting. It
didn't look near as severe as a person would think. And
it's a 1-to-12 -- 1 inch to 12 inches pitch.
9-1-04 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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You could hide it as well
by putting up a wall in the front.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, that -- it's a parapet
type thing, yeah, and it's very attractive. Very
attractive. And those prices with a metal frame was
$35,000. And if you used wood instead of the metal, it'd be
$30,000, okay? And when you get into that, we really get
into some complications with relocation of those types of --
those units that are up there. My -- my best estimate, from
the people that have been working on them, is that they're
20-plus years old. There's no numbers or anything, so when
we have to get parts, they -- they have to kind of hunt for
them and to work on them, that sort of thing. They
currently are propane on the heat side, and electricity on
the cool side inside the units, so relocating them probably
would not be advisable. Both the companies that looked at
them indicated it would be very, very difficult; very, very
expensive to move them, and then you'd still have
20-plus-year-old equipment. So, I went ahead and had some
estimates also on air conditioning which is all electric.
They're heat pumps, and they would be located strategically
to be able to blow the air in the building without having to
use the roof and a lot of duct work and stuff. So, those
estimates were between $48,000-something and $60,000, really
was the range, depending on -- on some of this stuff that
9-1-04 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
they actually get into once they start. But those were,
like I said, rough estimates. Those were not bids. So --
and the other capital expenditure would be the sound system
repair on the building, which was approximately $7,400 for
the P.A. repair. And that is for the indoor arena, the
Exhibit Hall, the whole thing, the repair. So, it really
comes to a total of right at $100,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Glenn, does this include
demolition-slash-removal of the office space in between the
two buildings?
MR. HOLEKAMP: No, I didn't -- I didn't
calculate any --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When we start taking off
the roof, don't we really affect that?
MR. HOLEKAMP: No, it'll have a roof over it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the new roof would
start on the -- on the arena?
MR. HOLEKAMP: It would start right at --
where the -- the eve of the -- the indoor arena, it would
run that way, right up against it. It would be flashed to
bring the water off the indoor arena into the current
drains.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, so the -- so that the
arena will -- all that water will all go to one spot?
25~ MR. HOLEKAMP: That is correct.
9-1-04 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: The far west side. Okay.
MR. HOLEKAMP: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you have a
rainwater --
MR. HOLEKAMP: What? I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you have a
rainwater cachement system planned into that?
MR. HOLEKAMP: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just asking.
MR. HOLEKAMP: No. No, I didn't have one
calculated into this. So, that's really where we're at on
the -- on what y'all had asked me to do. Commissioner
Nicholson had called me also, and he had somebody -- maybe
he had some input from -- from him.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I don't know
if he's one of them that gave you one of these or not, but
what he told me is just what you got here, same thing.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Basically.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Same concept,
probably about the same cost. So --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. Because I just had a
brief conversation with Commissioner Nicholson on the roof.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He -- this guy --
well, it's Danny Feller, who's in the business of metal
buildings. I think he's working on Walter Liedtke's roof at
9-1-04 wk
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Mooney currently, or something or other, and they're going
to do the same concept. Only thing I saw -- heard different
was he recited a quarter or a half inch for every 12 inches
is sufficient, but that's a minor detail.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Holekamp, on the heating
and air conditioning side, new units would have a fairly
lengthy warranty, would they not?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah, they have five years on
the compressors, and connecting units I believe is -- I
believe ten, if I can -- don't quote me on that, because
when I got into this, they said that it really depends on
the -- what we plan, on where we locate them and that sort
of thing as to what kind of units they have to push that
air.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
MR. HOLEKAMP: But these are heat pumps.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. HOLEKAMP: And when we talk about saving
energy, I talked to both companies. I called them back
after we -- I got these prices, and I said what kind of
savings can I expect over the units that are currently in
there with -- they call them R-factors or whatever. And
both of them said -- well, one of them said 25 percent. I
kind of toned that one down. Another one said 18 to 20, so
25~ I'm thinking probably 20 percent is probably a realistic
9-1-04 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
energy saving. Currently, our utilities out there is
$37,000 a year budget. Of that, a little over $6,000 is
propane. Well, propane would go away, basically, except for
a few heaters in the indoor arena that just -- some overhead
heaters. But most of that propane charge is for those
heaters in the Exhibit Hall on those big units, which would
go away, because we'd be going with electrical heat pumps.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Isn't propane cheaper
than electric?
MR. HOLEKAMP: I -- sometimes, but not right
now. We're right at $1.50 a gallon, and they're not very
energy efficiency -- not --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mean our current
ones. I know they aren't efficient in any respect.
MR. HOLEKAMP: You -- well, I didn't. They
priced everything as electrical. Because the heat pumps --
JUDGE TINLEY: That wouldn't be -- the big
charge savings is on the heat pump aspect of it.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, yes. Oh, yes, most
definitely.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did you come up with a rough
number based upon current --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Well --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- usage?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, it would be about
9-1-04 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
$6,000, $7,000 a year savings in utilities.
JUDGE TINLEY: How much?
MR. HOLEKAMP: $6,000 or $7,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. HOLEKAMP: A year.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Part of the advice I
got was that properly insulating that roof is going to make
a major difference, 'cause last I got was the insulation we
have now is -- is poor.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. HOLEKAMP: But, there again, there's so
many variables because of the -- the type of units. The
ones we have currently now are working so hard. If you put
some in that aren't working quite so hard, the energy -- the
efficiency factor really increases. So, I would like to
think we could do 20 percent better on utilities. I'd like
to think that.
JUDGE TINLEY: What about the maintenance and
repair of these older units? What's that been running? Do
you have a figure on that?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, that -- that's -- it's
been so sporadic for the last few years, as far as repairing
and -- I went back and looked at what I could and pulled out
what I could, and it's -- I imagine we're spending $1,500 to
$2,500 a year to bandaid them; you know, just keep them --
9-1-04 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
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
		MR. HOLEKAMP:	-- going. But, there again, I
don't	know	if -- is it going	to get worse? Will it get
better	? I	-- that's somethi	ng -- these air conditioner
units,	you	can have one six	years old that goes out on you,
and it	cost	s you $10,000 to	replace it, or it can be one
that's	been	there 20 years a	nd still working. So, really, I
think	the -	- the bottom line	is -- is thermostat control,
where you control your thermostat, where you don't have your
extremes. Where you control it yourself, and not let
everybody have their hands in the thermostats, and it really
can make these -- and changing filters quite frequently.
Pretty small price to pay to keep those units going. But,
you know, like these units, if we save $7,000 a year on --
on utilities, in ten years or -- or less; eight, nine years,
they would probably be paid for in the energy savings. But
I'm not -- you know, it might be about their life, too. I
don't know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're talking about
all of this, and I don't know -- the bill ran up to how
much, total?
MR. HOLEKAMP: About $100,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 100,000 bucks so the
ceiling won't fall on people when they're out there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
9-1-09 wk
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is kind of what I'm
seeing. And it doesn't make any sense. This whole thing
doesn't make any sense. I think Commissioner Williams has a
thought here that I'd like to hear about.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me jump in for a
moment. And what I'm about to say is not going to come as
any surprise to Glenn, 'cause I've sort of sketched it out
for him. Commissioner, you got an extra copy too, in case
anyone else wants to listen in. I think we need a strategy.
We've been all over this subject now for several years, and
we've been to bond issue and we failed, and we've spent a
lot of our own time and energy trying to get sources on the
same page, with not a great deal of success. Well, I
think -- I think we need a strategy that gets us from this
point in time to something that we can be proud of. And
it's kind of a multi -- multifaceted strategy, and if you
bear with me, I'll share it with you.
First -- first aspect of this is not to fund
the major improvements to the Hill Country Youth Exhibit
Center, as is being proposed. Cancel all bookings for the
facility -- probably just the Ag Barn part of it, not the
arena -- with the exception of agricultural events for which
no rental fee is charged anyhow, effective in January of
2005. Use the funds that were proposed for major
improvements to design a new agricultural facility. Create
9-1-09 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
a facilities corporation for the purpose of developing and
operating a multipurpose events center on the eastern
portion of the Hill Country Youth Exhibit property. And
also, at that time when they get formed, encourage that
corporation board of directors to engage the City of
Kerrville and the Economic Improvement Corporation to
participate in the project.
At the same time -- or at the appropriate
time, negotiate a long-term property lease with the new
facilities corporation to position the event center. Use
the savings from a reduced Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center
operation to provide seed money for the initial operations
of the new corporation till it gets up and running good.
Have all plans and all cost estimates for a new agricultural
component ready for Commissioners Court action by June 30th
of '05, thereby providing us adequate time to secure funding
prior to the end of the '04-'05 budget. To me, that's a
comprehensive plan. It needs to be fleshed out, talked
about, added to, taken from, refined, but at least it gives
us a proposed strategy to get from where we are today, which
is limbo, to something. I offer it for whatever
consideration you want to give it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can I ask you a
couple questions, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Surely.
9-1-04 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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I like this -- this
scheme. Probably needs to be fleshed out a little bit, but
the direction I think is good. If this -- if we did like
you've outlined here, at the end of it, do we have two
separate facilities there, one County facility and one
corporation facility?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we can deal
with that. We may determine later to have the facilities
corporation operate the entire thing, but I think -- what
I'm trying to create is a situation where the County
directly funds the agricultural improvements, and leave to a
facilities corporation the task of building and funding --
or funding and building an event center. Now, later, if it
makes good sense for us to get out of the business of
renting and leasing, or at the time it's completed, turn it
over to the facilities corporation for operation, I don't
have a problem with that. I think we need to talk about it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What -- have you --
have you got a ballpark estimate of what we would save in
annual costs by going this route?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I asked Mr. Holekamp
to come up with some numbers. He and I talked day before
yesterday or whenever --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- and I gave him a
9-1-04 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
little broad-brush scenario -- preview of
it refined and on paper. But I asked him
and tell us what kind of dollars we would
expending them on the complete, full oper
as we know it today. In the prior years,
much a quarter of a million dollars.
this before I got
to think about it
be saving by not
~tion of the center
we've spent pretty
MR. HOLEKAMP: I did work on those numbers,
per Commissioner Williams' request. I was -- I kind of --
it's going to be real hard to -- to separate out the
maintenance factor from one building to the other, because
sometimes two -- two operations going at one time or
whatever. But what I did is, I pared -- pared it down --
the budget down based on probably the workload of the people
that are currently out there, and the need for some of the
supplies and that sort of thing. Like, I took one -- I lose
one employee. Supplies, I -- I cut that down by about a
third, because you've still got to stock the bathrooms; you
still -- if you're going to continue a third or a half, that
does not mean there's half as much toilet paper going to be
used. So, I think when -- when you say you -- you want to
curtail the facility or the operation facility, either --
either you stop using it, or you -- because I don't know if
you can just run it a half. That's going to be very
difficult, because you still have to take down, put up
different -- for different events in the indoor arena. So,
9-1-04 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
when I did these numbers, I -- I got the Hill Country Youth
Exhibit Center budget down to approximately $84,000, give or
take a little bit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Down from what?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, that's -- all right.
Down from two hundred -- two -- 213.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 213?
MR. HOLEKAMP: 210, something like that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Down to 84, did you
say?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Glenn, I --
MR. HOLEKAMP: But some of that money that is
in that budget is going to have to go towards the -- the
booking that we do. That -- that was in that budget. I
took it out, because you can't -- these budgets, the way you
use people, they still need to be there. They just need
to -- how do you -- do you chop it up in little pieces?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Glenn, I think for
today's exercise, I think all that -- what the Court needs
to know is, yes, we can effect some savings in operational
costs. We can get into the nitty-gritty of how many rolls
of toilet paper we buy and how we do the booking in another
setting, but just for this exercise, because it's just a
proposed strategy in my mind, the answer is either, "Yes, we
9-1-04 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
can effect some savings over the next year," which helps us
get started in another scenario, or, "No, we can't."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have -- I have a
question. I don't -- I don't understand, I don't think.
And let me -- maybe -- let me say what I think I'm hearing.
And what Glenn's saying, that savings of $116,000, I don't
see how it's possible.
MR. HOLEKAMP: No, it --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're going to keep using
it for the stock show and any stock show-related events.
We're going to keep using it for 4-H uses. That means we're
going to have to keep the exhibit hall up and running, I
mean, where it's going to have utilities have to be going.
May be able to cut it a little bit, but we can't turn the
heat off. It's going to have to still be ready to go pretty
much year-round. The arena is going to continue to operate
as-is, and the grounds have to be kept up. I would be very
surprised if we come up with 10 percent savings. I don't
see why the -- I don't see how you can have savings, 'cause
you have to have a maintenance crew out there to keep the
exhibit hall open, so you -- and, to me, the only way to get
a significant savings is to shut the whole thing down except
for the stock show, and I don't know what you do with 4-H
then. That's why I can't -- I mean, that doesn't make
25~ sense. I just -- I don't see how you can cut it back and
9-1-04 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
make a whole lot of savings on the operational side. I
think we -- I think you could save some labor, probably get
one person on the setup, that type of stuff. But the actual
maintenance of the facility, I just don't see how it's going
to change.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I would say, just in -- just
in basic calculations of everything, you could probably have
a net savings of somewhere around $40,000 or $50,000 a year,
based on these numbers, if you did not use the exhibit
center and -- but you would not be receiving any rent.
There's no revenue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you are using the
exhibit hall. We have to use exhibit hall for 4-H.
MR. HOLEKAMP: True. But I'm saying from a
revenue standpoint versus expenses, and that's still based
off of dropping one employee.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, what
would be the consequences of following your Point Number 2
there, canceling bookings effective January 1?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I guess my
whole point in that was to see if we could effect savings
which could be used in another direction. Now, if we're
hearing we can't do that, then, you know, maybe that's not
part of it. But I think it certainly needs to be explored
251 and examined.
9-1-04 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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I just -- I have
a hard time seeing how you can -- kind of what Glenn said;
you can't run a scaled-back operation on the maintenance
side. I mean, you can do something on the setups and that
stuff; you can get rid of probably an employee, but I don't
see you get a whole lot of -- beyond that, a whole lot of
savings without shutting the facility down, which isn't what
I'm hearing, anyway, what you're proposing. And I think the
-- the rest of the proposal -- I mean, I think the idea of
exploring a facilities corporation is a good idea. I don't
really understand what that means, so I need a lot of
education as to what a facilities corporation is, what are
the liabilities to the County, what it means to the County,
'cause we've never done one of this type since I've been on
the Court. So, I'd like to explore that, but I don't see
how that really impacts trying to do something to make what
we currently have usable. Even if you just were to scale it
back to 4-H and stock show, you still need to put a new
pitched roof and new air conditioners on the building. I
mean, I don't -- I don't see -- and if you go with a
facilities corporation and you build another facility out
there, you still are going to have this facility. Doesn't
make sense to tear it down.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. No. When this
25~ facility needs to be replaced, this would propose -- we
9-1-04 wk
19
1
2
would fund a new agricultural complex.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me --
3
4 embodies.
5
6 that.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what it
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, I didn't understand
JUDGE TINLEY: What is the time frame between
the initiation of -- of this strategy and -- and the new
facility being turnkey, ready for use by, for example, the
4-H youth?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the ag side -- I
think Commissioner Letz can help me recall what our strategy
was in terms of the ag side. Only talking about the ag
side. A new facility -- in my mind, a new facility entails
a new barn that is really Class A; take care of stock show
and related things, and replacing the existing building for
which we're talking about a roof and air conditioners, and
rehabilitation of the arena. To me, that's the agricultural
side. Now, if I recall correctly, in the bond issue we
talked about, that was about $2 million, right? And it was
a new barn -- state-of-the-art new barn, and a total rehab
of the arena. The logistics of it is that it has to start
at such a time so as the stock show has completed its yearly
activity so that it can be ready for the next stock show, as
I recall. Was that the thrust of your question?
9-1-04 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
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, my question related to
time frame. And the point of my question, Commissioner, is
this -- this 4-H activity goes on out there year-round, and
we've got an obligation to those 4-H youth. And I'm
concerned right now, from a safety standpoint -- you know,
the issue may be that the ceiling tiles not get loaded up
with water leaking through roof and falling on somebody, but
that -- that's a potential safety hazard. And I'm concerned
about the safety aspects of it now, but I don't know what
we're going to do with all these 4-H kiddoes that we have
this absolutely honor-bound obligation to take care of in
this facility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't want to -- I
don't want to foreclose the 4-H operations or their
programs, or disenfranchise them is a better way of putting
it. I'd like for somebody to tell me which of those
programs could not be temporarily housed in the arena.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, if you're
-- so what you're talking about is a new barn, and rehabbing
the arena?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That the Court should be
responsible for?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couldn't you build the
9-1-04 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
new barn, and if it were to go this way, put the new barn on
the opposite side of the arena, and then do something with
the existing one afterwards? I mean, talking about a whole
new barn. You could leave the -- what is there in the
exhibit hall there for the time being.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think, once
again, we're going to engage ourselves in the -- in the
nitty-gritty of the thing. We need to think it out, talk it
out, point out what's good and bad about it, and see whether
the strategy works, and what needs to be done to make --
fine-tune it. It's offered today as a substitute for
spending money which later on we're going to find that we
didn't need to spend or shouldn't have spent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question, maybe
for Commissioner 1 down there in his aggressive red shirt
today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. Are you listening
to the radio again?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, he is.
Aggressive red, look at that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I thought I heard
you say at our last meeting that you were more or less in
favor of about an $80,000 new roof, and I thought I heard
you say today you're against a $100,000 new roof. Is there
-- I mean --
9-1-04 wk
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, no. If -- if
I had -- I want us to take a look at this. I think that
this is possibly the long-term solution to what we've all
been thinking. And, obviously, I don't know if we're lazy
or crazy, but we can't seem to get to Point B.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I -- I like what I'm
seeing here, to be honest with you. I like it a lot. And
we're talking about -- and I don't know what kind of bond
issue and your time frame. I think that that -- that is the
time frame we're not going to be able to figure out, is if
we was to vote for some kind of certificate of obligation or
something like that, how long does that take for that money
to come in and -- I mean, we can figure out how long it'll
take to put a building up. That's -- Glenn can tell us
that. But all those things are interesting, but if we could
move in this direction, I -- you know, I think it's the
direction to go. And I don't know about -- if we can move
in this direction, it would -- it would not make much sense
to spend $100,000 out there when we're going to -- I like
what you're saying now about building the -- another barn
somewhere else. I don't know about on that side, but
somewhere else out there, and leave that thing there. And I
understand your concern. I have the same concern, because
we don't understand the time frame, and that is frightening.
9-1-04 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
And I think Bill's right, too; some of those 4-H activities
can move over into the present arena and function over
there. But I just -- I think that we need to -- I think
that we need to take a really hard look at this thing here.
I really and truly do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't disagree with
that. I mean, I think that -- you know, I have, for the
last years, been not in favor of putting a bandaid out there
and spending a bunch of money. And, you know, if we
seriously are going to look at doing something this year,
then I would -- I have no problem with this proposal. But,
you know, I'd like to have some kind of an assurance that
we're going to really, really try to tackle this and solve
this problem this year, because --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, count me in.
If -- if we get down -- I'll tell you this much. If we get
down to having this plan in place, you'll probably see me
vote to spend some money, or to do some kind of funding
mechanism.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a couple
questions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One of -- or all of
you know the answer. Two or three years ago, when you all
were considering ways to finance creating a facility similar
9-1-04 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
to this, an event center -- multipurpose event center, you
chose to go a bond route. Was revenue bond an option -- an
opportunity? Would it generate enough revenue to pay the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's an
opportunity for the facilities corp. I don't think it's an
opportunity for us. I think that's a vehicle they can take
a real serious look at.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In my view, revenue
bond is a whole lot more palatable --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- to the taxpayer
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- than raising
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can I offer a
suggestion, so we don't get all bogged down? For -- for
us -- if we're serious about it, for us to take a hard look
at it, I'll put it on the agenda, on a regular Commissioners
Court agenda for our discussion. And, in the meantime, we
think about how we -- of the problems that might be -- we
might encounter, and what suggestions we might have to offer
to make it better, and we'll discuss it.
9-1-04 wk
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me suggest
something.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I usually have to
do all the thinking around here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: True.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why don't you put that
on a regular Commissioners Court agenda, and let's just
hammer it out?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a hell of an
idea.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much.
It's not easy -- this is not easy.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know what we'd do
without you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Don't try it at
home.
JUDGE TINLEY: I just -- in whatever plan we
come up with, whether it's a short, mid-range, long-term, I
just want these 4-H and ag people that we've got an
obligation to when we -- when we assumed ownership of those
facilities out there, that we honor that obligation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's an absolute.
9-1-09 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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: In my mind.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't disagree with
that at all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we have to
sort out our long-term obligation from perhaps some
temporary inconvenience.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Whoa, whoa, whoa.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The question is, are
we putting roofs on hold?
MR. HOLEKAMP: What are we going to -- what
about my capital --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sound system. That's it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sound system.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Permanent one?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, temporary one.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Patch it up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Patch it up, and we sure
hope it works.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just make sure it
works good enough to get Commissioner Williams through the
next --
9-1-04 wk
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm standing in front
of everybody in the hog world in January saying, "This will
not happen again."
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm depending on you
to bail me out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or you can get him
some megaphones, little tripod thing, and let him -- like
Rudy Vallee.
JUDGE TINLEY: Rudy Vallee, yeah. That'll
work. That'll work. Is that it on this issue, gentlemen?
Let's move on to County Engineer issue. I believe
Mr. Motley has furnished an opinion. If I'm reading that
opinion correctly from Mr. Motley, essentially, it says
that -- that the 1995 A.G. opinion that I think every member
of the Court is familiar with is the controlling --
controlling authority at the present time. Is that correct,
Mr. Motley?
MR. MOTLEY: There's no court cases on the
issue. And without any appellate level court cases, the --
my interpretation is, the most recent Attorney General's
opinion on the issue would be controlling. Unless and
until, you know, there's a court case on it. I didn't find
anything on that at all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, on the -- in your
9-1-04 wk
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
summary, the way I interpret it -- make sure I interpreted
it correctly.
MR. MOTLEY: I don't have a copy with me, so
-- but go ahead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It basically says that
Commissioners Court has discretion with the unit road
system, the type that we have, on hiring a county engineer
or not, if the County is -- and you have it in quotes --
"unable to employ a county engineer."
MR. MOTLEY: Unable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there's not -- and if
I'm reading this -- in the 1995 opinion, there's not a whole
lot of definite language as to what that means, "unable."
MR. MOTLEY: Well, it gives it -- and, again,
15 I --
16
17 copy
18
1~
2C
21
2~
2~
2~
2`
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You want to see my
MR. MOTLEY: Well, that's fine. I'm all
right. They -- they didn't -- the way I read it is that
they said that the "unable" means if you're unable to, for
any reason, so long as it's accurate, truthful, you know, a
legitimate reason to be unable to do it. They gave an
example, and I think it maybe was in -- you know, it was
from this fact situation where they said, what if we are
unable to hire an engineer full-time? And in this case --
9-1-04 wk
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in this very opinion, it said it doesn't matter, because
there's nothing in the statute that requires an engineer, or
for that matter, the road administrator to be a full-time
position, so that would not be a legitimate reason, is one
that they gave an example of what was not legitimate.
JUDGE TINLEY: In itself.
MR. MOTLEY: Right, in itself. That's right.
That's right. And they -- they -- I think the way that I
read it is that they're saying "unable" is -- it gives the
Court broad discretion according to this -- this most recent
opinion. It's different. This opinion is different than
any prior A.G. opinion. The one before was H-201, which was
a 1974 opinion, and the last opinion that we wrote from our
office about it was in 1992, which was before this opinion.
The DM-368 came out in December of 1995, so that's the most
recent thing on it. And it seems to say that the discretion
of the Court is broad to do so for any reason, so long --
any reason that they're unable to; you know what I'm saying?
Any reason they're unable to do so, so long as it's a
legitimate, accurate reason. And I don't know if that
answers it or not. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably as close as
we're going to be able to get.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, about as close as I'm able
to get. I going to say that's it, best I can tell you.
9-1-04 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: Not having money --
enough money to hire an engineer would be just one of those
reasons, but a good reason, wouldn't it?
MR. MOTLEY: I mean, I think finance -- if
the Court is financially -- does not have the money to do
that, you know -- of course, you know how the budgets are.
I mean, a lot of shifting and priorities and all that stuff.
But if the Court comes down to it, it boils down to they
don't have the money to do that, I believe, you know, that
they could advance that as a reason. And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What if -- what if the
Court required the engineer to have blue eyes, and we can't
find a blue-eyed engineer? Will it go that far?
MR. MOTLEY: I don't believe that's a good
reason. I don't believe they -- let me say this. And I
didn't say this in the opinion, but I believe --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm really asking that
question.
MR. MOTLEY: -- it needs to be related to the
function -- the job to be performed, certainly, and to the
organization and staffing of the unit road system. And I
think, certainly -- I mean, that wouldn't be --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you think it goes
to a specific type of engineer? Whether he be electrical --
MR. MOTLEY: No, it says --
9-1-04 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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- structural?
MR. MOTLEY: It says in the statute, Chapter
252, that it has to be an engineer that meets the criteria
the State Highway Commission would set for a district
engineer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Road-builder.
MR. MOTLEY: Yeah. And, I mean, that's the
emphasis. I think probably most engineers that I know in
the Highway Department are -- are -- what do you call --
civil engineers; just general-type engineer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, are you finished?
There's one, just, quick -- or not quick question,
necessarily. The statute -- or the Attorney General's
opinion said you can have it full-time, part-time. How
about contract? Can you have a contract county engineer?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, okay, that's really a
different issue, it seems to me, because what we're talking
about is -- the staffing of a county office is one thing,
and a contract engineer, by definition, would be outside of
that. The opinion -- you know, and I got to say, I read six
of them, and they kind of run together a little bit, but it
seems to me that what they're saying is that the engineer --
Engineering Practice Act and the Chapter 252 of the
Transportation Code sort of work together, because they
think it's important that, for public works, where public
9-1-04 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
health, safety, and welfare is involved, that we be sure
that the plans are drawn by a Registered Professional
Engineer for new construction. And they be drawn by this
engineer, and the construction should be supervised by a
Registered Professional Engineer.
Now, for -- for maintenance and upkeep of
roads done by -- at the behest of the Commissioners Court,
these opinions say you do not need an engineer for that.
But for construction -- or for, you know, drawing plans and
supervising construction on new construction of public
works, they say an engineer needs to put his stamp of
approval on and supervise it. There's nothing in the
opinion that addresses the idea of a contract engineer, but
it -- the goal is to have an engineer look at the plans,
design the plans, and supervise the work. So, it -- they
don't say that has to be in-house, if that answers your
question. That's not -- it doesn't require an in-house
engineer, but it requires an engineer.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: David, can a -- a
person functioning as a road administrator -- under the law,
can that person review and certify plans that are presented
for hydrological studies or other engineering submitted to
the County in respect to plat -- plat and other development?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I got to say, I didn't --
I researched this strictly as a Road and Bridge question. I
9-1-04 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
2F
didn't look at subdivisions on it. I think the engineer --
Engineering Practice Act must be read very carefully in
conjunction with this Transportation Code. And if you're
doing engineering work -- doing engineering work related to
-- you know, I would say if you're reviewing some
engineering data, you know, I think it would -- you possibly
run afoul of the Engineering Practice Act if you had a
non-engineer reviewing another engineer's work and
interpreting that. I don't know. And I got to say, I
didn't -- did not research that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me give you a
hypothesis.
MR. MOTLEY: Sorry, say that again, please?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let met give a
hypothesis and see where you come.
MR. MOTLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have a plat
submitted for review, and it has with it a hydrological
study for stormwater takeoff, and someone other than a
Registered Professional Engineer reviewed that plat for
stormwater takeoff and approved it. County subsequently --
Commissioners Court subsequently approves it. It later
turns out that that hydrological study was flawed. Is there
recourse against the County?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I think -- you know, I
9-1-04 wk
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think there'd always be recourse against the County. I
think all they got to do is file a lawsuit, and the County's
got deep pockets, and if you got a filing fee, a typewriter,
and some paper, you can file suit against the County. But,
in that instance, it seems to me that if the data is
expressed in a summary fashion, if it's a study -- hydrology
study that was supposed to be done, and is -- it either
meets or does not meet certain set criteria, then a person
experienced in looking at that stuff and road-building
probably -- you know, subdivisions, roads and such, and
drain off -- runoff and drainage, could probably look at it
and say these numbers either do or do not meet criteria.
Such as, maybe, something is or is not in the floodplain.
But as far as doing, you know, crunching of numbers and
engineering, I'd stay away from that.
You know, it's like the Commissioners Court,
all the time, I guess -- or all the county officials sign
off on these plats. And the act of the Commissioners in
doing so, I don't think, is -- I think it's really
ministerial most of the time. And, you know, you can turn
around and you can be sued, certainly, but whether you're
ultimately held responsible over the person who is the
hydrologist that you relied on, I -- you know, I think you
would certainly have them to look to if you were sued,
saying, "We relied on this bonded hydrologist. We didn't go
9-1-04 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
out and measure the water. We don't know anything about
water, except we know how to drink it, you know, and that's
about it." And, so, I would say that you could certainly be
sued, but whether it would be successful is another
question, you know. I'd be real careful if it were me. I'd
be very careful.
And I don't know if I could say, without
having researched it -- even if I researched it, I don't
know if I could give you a bright-line rule, but anytime
you're asking somebody who's not an engineer -- the more you
ask them to creep over into doing engineering tasks, I think
you're running afoul of the Engineering Practice Act. And,
you know, at that point, you want to have somebody in-house
or you want to have somebody, you know, if you get over the
line, on a contract or something to review that stuff for
you. And, unless it's something that's just real clear, a
test was asked -- you know, I don't know much about
hydrology, but, I mean, I know -- you know, talking about
certain velocities of water and volumes of water, and you
have a FEMA test or a FEMA qualification for insurance
purposes. It says, you know, the velocity can be no more
than this at this level. I mean, somebody can look at it
and see the velocity is plus or minus according to
hydrological calculations. But I think, other than just
reading numbers and plugging them into requirements, I
9-1-04 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
wouldn't -- I wouldn't want to see somebody doing much more
engineering than that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems -- it seems to
me that this County needs engineering work, at most, in two
scenarios. One is in a new road construction project, which
we don't do. I mean, we really -- I mean, I don't think
we've built a new road since I've been a commissioner.
We've redone a lot, rebuilt -- I mean, fixed up a lot, but I
don't think we've gone out and said, "We're building a road
through this mountain." So, I think that's a minimal usage
that we would do, and if we do, we'd probably have to hire a
contract engineer to do that anyway, 'cause I don't think it
falls under the services of the County Engineer, the way
it's currently done. The other -- in fact, I don't --
Franklin, I'll ask you. You haven't -- have you ever done
the engineering on a county project? I mean, I don't know
that we've done any county projects.
MR. JOHNSTON: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't think
we've done any county projects that would require a road
engineer, but -- so it's conceivable that we could need an
engineer there, but that can be on a contract basis. The
other area that we may need an engineer is reviewing
engineering data that we receive, which is a very -- you
know, and the only time I can see that that would come into
9-1-04 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
play is through subdivisions. I think, through a revamping
of the Subdivision Rules, we can put more of that on the
developer. And I also -- but I still think you need to have
an engineer. For me to raise my hand to vote for it,
somebody would have to say -- an engineer that says, "Yes,
that looks basically okay." But the reality there is that
we -- if you throw out the revision of plats, we do, at
most, two to three subdivisions a year. And either -- and
that, to me, we can either eliminate the County Engineer or
greatly reduce the scope of the County Engineer.
And that's another option we haven't talked
about. We could have a -- you know, based on -- and this
kind of goes back to what I said at the last meeting. I
think the current County Engineer structure we have is
doing -- the County Engineer is doing a tremendous amount of
work that is not engineer-related. Most of it is actually
clerical-related, in my mind. But we could try to find a
County Engineer -- maybe it's the same County Engineer that
we currently have -- to work on a much reduced basis, and --
you know, and keep it part-time, and keep it, you know, very
-- I mean, a whole lot less than current --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- is my idea.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, based on some
information that we've had available to us, and more
9-1-04 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
recently disclosed, our current engineer is on a part-time
basis, and in large measure, that's for an administrative
and supervisory-type situation. And, as a part-time
individual, that's not being performed in the sense that I
think the statute anticipates that it be performed. And
if -- on a part-time basis, if -- number one, I don't think
we can afford to employ one on a full-time basis. I think
that's just beyond the realm of --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you say
JUDGE TINLEY: Full-time, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: But even on a part-time basis,
if -- a number of the functions presently being performed by
the part-time engineer are really not engineering functions,
but rather more in the nature of clerical and checking
against administrative or regulatory-type standards. I
think that indicates a further reduced need for even a
part-time engineer, possibly, and it would seem to me that
our engineering functions for which we require professional
engineering qualifications and -- and activity are very,
very minimal. And, like you, I'm -- I'm -- I think we need
to shift these engineering functions on subdivisions over
to -- to the developer, because the money to be made off the
25~ project is going to be made by the developer, and the
9-1-04 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
expense involved ought to be -- ought to be his.
Now, with regard to performing the functions
of -- of what our current engineer does, if we have a set of
standards, such as Mr. Motley referred to; these are the
runoff rates, these are the velocity rates, these are
whatever, I think anybody that's experienced in -- in
knowing what those factors are can -- can put them up
against a set of standards and see whether they are or are
not in compliance. I think that's fairly easy to do.
Someone that's reasonably literate and has the ability to
understand the terminology is able to do that. Also, in
addition to that, pursuant to the Court's request, the
functions that are presently performed -- this was provided
to you earlier today, some information regarding how those
duties could be reallocated among existing personnel.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I haven't seen
that. I'm not saying you didn't give it to me, but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm looking for it
too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Keep going.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in the very back --
JUDGE TINLEY: Very back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- of the Road and Bridge
package with budget, last two pages.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you've hidden it
9-1-04 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
from us? Is that what you're trying --
JUDGE TINLEY: I haven't hidden it. That's
just the way it came through the copier.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who prepared this,
Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: This was prepared by the
administrative people at Road and Bridge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, you know, going
back to one thing you said, Judge, where I -- I think I dis
-- or I don't know if I disagree or we're slightly
different. I don't -- I hate to -- I was searching, trying
to find the right word here. I hate to use the word trust,
but I don't know that I trust developers' engineers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bingo.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you know, I -- one of
the things, I mean, I don't think is a negotiable point in
my mind would be -- like the City here, "This is not
negotiable." I want engineering data reviewed by an
engineer on a new subdivision.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, that is -- doesn't
mean it needs to be done by a county engineer. I think it
can be done on a contract basis, but that's something I want
to pay someone to look at this and say, this is reasonable.
9-1-04 wk
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I think we need to budget for that. Now, whether it's best
to do it through a county engineer, best to do it through
contract, that's -- I'm up -- you know, that can be easily
worked out. But I think it's very important to assure the
public that we're doing subdivisions properly, that we have
an engineer tell us that, yes, that developer -- that
engineering provided by that developer is reasonable and
good, you know.
JUDGE TINLEY: What is your opinion with
regard to a provision in the Subdivision Rules that permits
us to have a developer's engineering data reviewed by an
engineer or expert of our choosing at -- at the developer's
expense?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just --
JUDGE TINLEY: Just be part and parcel of the
development process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm opposed to that, and
the reason is I think it's an arbitrary thing. And I think
we are in -- will get into -- easily get into a situation
that one of our neighboring counties was in not long ago,
about having different sets of rules for different
developers. And I think, all of a sudden, as soon as -- you
know, if someone tells me that, hey, you know, Developer X
used a substandard hydrologist; y'all ought to check that
out and we require another hydrology study done, and then
9-1-04 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
Developer C comes in and we just let it sail right on
through, I think that we're opening ourselves into being
very arbitrary as a court.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I
Commissioner on that first point, that we
that's objective to take a look at it and
it's not. And I think that could be done
doing it now, or it -- we could outsource
make a deal with an engineering firm and
these over to you; when you get them, you
dollars an hour to give us our answer."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I
agree with the
want somebody
say it's okay or
the way we're
that; we could
say, "We'll send
charge us "X"
like -- I mean,
what I see as a system that kind of is built on what Dave
just said is that we, you know, have a County Engineer, but
he's paid on an as-needed basis for specific work.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, my only point is in
enforcing accountability on developers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: I would like to have those
developers who are going to profit from that project to pay
for having that accountability enforced, and not the
taxpayers at large. That's my only point. And if you
required it on every case, to have their numbers or -- or
their data, as it may be, reviewed by someone of our
selection, just as an automatic, I'm not sure how that
9-1-04 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
creates different standards. But my -- my whole point is to
load these costs on those that are benefiting from them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's my whole point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I was a developer, I'd
just say, "Okay, County, you go pick the engineer, then."
Why pay for it twice? Let the County pick the engineering
firm they want to use. And then I think we're opening
ourselves up to a whole bunch of other problems. I mean, I
just think it's -- you know, but I think there -- there is a
way to put a lot more -- based on signing off on the plat,
more, I guess, responsibility back on the developer through
the developer signing the plat and assuring -- and the
engineer signing the plat and putting their license on the
line.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that definitely
can be done. But I still think you need to go the other --
we still need to have oversight by an engineer.
MR. MOTLEY: Question. Jon, you said that if
-- if the County were requiring, you know, engineering to be
done on the project initially, and then there was -- there
were a clause that said a second opinion would be paid by
this subdivider for an engineer of the County's choosing,
you think that the subdivider would probably just go with
9-1-04 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
the	County's	choice	initially.	And you	said	if	they did,
you	felt like	that	would open -	- cause a	lot	of	other
problems. I -- I'm not sure what you're seeing there as
problematic in that scenario.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I see then that,
all of a sudden, the County's in a situation of picking the
-- the engineering companies for all the developments.
MR. MOTLEY: You're talking about, like, an
exclusive type -- kind of a buddy-buddy deal? I didn't know
for sure what you were saying. Just a group of engineers
that the County considered to be competent in their
experience or something like that. But I hear what you're
saying.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think that if the
-- you know, if the develop -- I don't think we've had a
real problem with developers in this county. I don't know
that we've had any problems, actually, since I've been a
commissioner. I think they're doing good engineering, but I
think there's a -- you know, if we just -- it shouldn't take
that much money to hire an engineer to review another
engineer's work and say, "Yes, it's good." And if it isn't,
tell us the questions that we need to ask and say, "This
doesn't look right; can you recalculate that?" And, you
know, I don't have any problem with telling -- you know,
making them go back and reprove the numbers through their
9-1-04 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
same engineer that they're using.
JUDGE TINLEY: If we see something that is
kind of glaring?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I think we
need to have an engineer telling us this is glaring, so
we're just not doing it arbitrarily.
MR. MOTLEY: I have another question. I
don't know if the -- the information that is in your books
in the budget section about Road and Bridge talks about all
the functions of the engineer, but one of the -- of the
things that's happened in my experience that is important,
or should be important, can be important to me is, when you
have something -- I guess what you would call truly, like, a
wildcat subdivision, as opposed to a subdivision where you
want to make sure that the infrastructure is sound, to meet
county standards or whatever if you're talking about a road.
But a subdivision that is just going in -- and I know that
in the past, our engineer has sort of functioned as a
watchdog or a -- a receiving point for people who become
aware of these wildcat subdivisions; kind of funneled it to
Franklin in the past, and I don't know if that's a function
that -- that could be just somebody else in Road and Bridge
or what. That is a -- that's an important function in my
dealings in the past with Road and Bridge, is that, you
know, that's where I become aware of things, usually, is
9-1-04 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
through the engineer having reviewed it, and then we usually
go out and make an on-site inspection. Typically, we know
about it and look at these things and see if we have a
violation of the Subdivision Rules or not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a good point. I
think it's something the County Engineer has done, but I
think it's also not an engineering function; it's more
keeping your eyes and ears out, and I think that -- I would
imagine that the Road and Bridge supervisors and
administrator are able to do that. And I have not -- I
don't know if there's some training that could be learned as
to what -- you know, to educate them as to what our
Subdivision Rules are so they would be able to identify that
situation. Again, I don't think that's an engineering
required function, but it does need to be done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one more
question of David. If the Court were to take an action,
David, and eliminate the County Engineer's position as we
know it today -- and I'm speaking now -- my question is
under the -- the various road unit law -- unit road law that
you reviewed. If we were to take that action and eliminate
the engineer's position, and -- which is currently a
part-time position, and hire a consultant on an as-needed
basis, is our action, in your mind, defensible under the
existing law?
9-1-04 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
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I think, strictly by the
A.G. opinion, DM-368, and really the conclusion of the
information -- the opinion I wrote for the Court, I'd say
that it depends on the reason that you are unable to hire
the person.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think there's the
key word, "unable" to hire.
MR. MOTLEY: You know -- and, you know, in
the previous versions of the law, before it was codified, it
said if you were unable to do so for any reason. And the
research I did said that, even though that "for any reason"
language has not been retained in the new code section in
1995, that it should be read as still being in there,
because when they put it into the code form, it was a
nonsubstantive revision or codification of the other law, so
it should be read as being in there, unable to for any
reason. But it does say in the conclusion of DM-368, for
any reason -- you know, for any reason the Court chooses to
do so, so long as it is a legitimate, you know, true -- I
can't remember the exact language, but an accurate, true,
legitimate, actual reason to do that. And the only thing I
know is they tell what is not a good example, which was the
not, you know, having an engineer full-time and saying
because there's not a full-time requirement. You could have
a part-time engineer, so that --
9-1-04 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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Reading from the
second -- from the last part of your summary, If the
Commissioners Court is to have a county road administrator
instead of a county road engineer, they possess the
discretion to do so if the reasons determined by
Commissioners Court for not employing the engineer indeed
reflect factual conditions under which the County is truly
"unable" -- you used the word in quotes -- to employ an
engineer. Would that action be defensible? Would our
action be defensible?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, the Court would state the
reason that they believed that they were unable -- this --
my interpretation of what the Court would do, they would
state the reason that they are unable to do so, and if that
reason is -- is actual, true -- you know, actually true,
whatever you want to call it, but if it's a correct and true
reason, you know, it's supported by the facts, I think you
would be defensible. You know, I can't -- I can't say, you
know, any -- it does say in this opinion, DM-368, that the
Court is not required to have a county engineer in all
situations in a unit road system. It says that. So, the
idea of shall -- shall have an engineer, the old cases --
excuse me, the old A.G. opinions were of the opinion that if
one is available in the county who meets the requirements
and you don't hire him, then you may have messed up. That's
9-1-04 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
what the old A.G. opinions say. And they go back and forth,
by the way, since 1940-something -- or 1952; they go back
and forth. That's what the old ones said at some time.
The new ones say that the Court has
discretion to do that. They don't set a bright-line rule
about what is able and what -- or a definition of what is
able and unable. They say that if the Court says they are
unable to do it, and they state a reason that is true -- and
I'm -- I'm going to say assuming that it's related to the
job and the duties of the job, certainly, then I think you
would be defensible. And I really -- there's not more of an
answer that I can give you legally, on the legal end of it.
I mean, there's going to be the policy end of it for the,
you know, executives to decide if they're able or not, and
why they're able or not, and if it's a truthful "able or
not" reason, I guess is the way I would look at it. And if
you do that and all that bears out, I think it's defensible.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Have we pretty well wrung that
one out, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to go back to, I
guess, the information provided by Road and Bridge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And as I'm going through
this, I don't know -- about midway through, there's a
9-1-04 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
position schedule, and am I to take it that the
recommendation from, I presume, Len is that if the County
Engineer position is deleted, that those adjustments are
requested in salaries -- in remaining staff?
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, what does that
mean?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That means that we don't
save any money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't have to -- I
mean, I haven't looked at that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You do not have to
approve it, I know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And you don't
have to give as much.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I understand that.
But, I mean, as proposed, it -- it doesn't save any money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we would -- in
other words, we would be taking the entire salary that we're
paying the present County Engineer, and just spread the
entire --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I take that back;
that's not true. We do save money. We save in floodplain.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What?
9-1-04 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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The floodplain amount,
which is about $20,000. It looks like we probably save
about $20,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do we pay the
engineer, 15?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thirty -- 24 -- $24,465
right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It used to be 15. And
is that being spread out amongst the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- the new --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The request is $20,000
addition to the Road Administrator, a little less than
$1,000 to two supervisors, and a little less than five to --
JUDGE TINLEY: Admin. assistant.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the admin. assistant.
Which is roughly $26,000, $27,000 in increases. That's
slightly more than the engineer's salary, but then the
floodplain is rolled in automatically, and there's no
contract --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How is it rolled in
automatically? Who's going to do that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in the -- on the
last page. It's done by -- mostly by a combination of the
Road Administrator or by the administrative assistant out
9-1-04 wk
52
1 there.
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: Well, who's been
trained, other than the County Engineer, at this point to do
that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you'd have to
train -- some additional training would be required.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so too. What
did we spend this year on training for the County Engineer?
Seven, ten thousand bucks? Reinvent the wheel here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's a one-time --
one-time fee. Right now, we're paying an engineer to do a
lot of clerical work. I mean, in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand your
opinion. I don't necessarily agree with that, because in
order to write a letter, you have to know what you're
writing about. So, if he's writing a letter critiquing a
plan, he's writing a letter on the basis of his knowledge as
an engineer. So, you know, I can sit down at my computer
and I can write all sorts of letters; I can write legal
briefs, but that doesn't make them a legal brief that would
stand up anywhere.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the current county
Engineer isn't a civil engineer.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Judge. I
didn't mean to get in your territory there.
9-1-04 wk
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- and so, you
know, which is -- well, it's neither here nor there whether
he's a civil engineer or not, but most of the type of work
that's required is civil engineering-type work. But the
reality is, the County Engineer currently does not do
engineering specifically for the County. He reviews
engineering. And I think, under the engineering practices,
you know, you don't -- I guess you can get by with having a
-- a non-civil engineer review civil engineer-type work.
Now, I don't know the details about that act, but, you know,
I don't think that -- I think you can -- I just don't think
most of that work needs -- you need an engineer to do it.
And I think you can train somebody to do the floodplain
administration part of it.
But, by looking at the monthly reports that
the County Engineer did at our request, a whole lot of that
is dialogue with the public, and very little of it is going
out there and actually doing engineering on-site for a
project. It's a lot more administrative, and that's what
I'm trying to -- I think it's a poor use of a relatively
high-level individual to do. Now, I don't have a problem at
all, if we can work out a deal with the current County
Engineer, on keeping a part-time county engineer, but on
a -- either on an hourly basis and no salary, or on a much
reduced, you know -- you know, or very reduced salary, and
9-1-04 wk
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
then kind of on a contract basis. You know, I think there
is some benefit there, but I just do not think the taxpayers
are getting their money's worth paying the County Engineer
almost $50,000 a year for what he is doing. I think it's a
misuse of funds -- "misuse" is not the right word.
JUDGE TINLEY: Inefficient.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Inefficient use of funds.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, you were talking
about savings. I believe at the bottom of that position
schedule, there's a calculation. I -- I assume the number's
been calculated correctly, but that indicates over $38,000.
I didn't notice that when we were looking at it a minute
ago. I just --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't either. Well,
there are significant savings.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. There's some real
numbers there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, as Commissioner 1
said, we don't have to approve the requested amounts,
either.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's true. Those
savings could increase if those -- if -- if those numbers
that are requested are adjusted downward, as far as that
goes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We need to ask
9-1-04 wk
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Odom, is this non-negotiable?
MR. ODOM: Life is negotiable, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well --
MR. ODOM: I was asked --
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further for the Road
Administrator?
MR. ODOM: I was asked to give you a number.
I gave you a number. I showed you $38,000. Now, you can
try and make me bleed orange, but everything in this life --
my religion, my family, my reputation are not negotiable.
All other things are.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Pretty good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well-spoken, Mr. Odom.
Well-spoken.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that a John Wayne
line?
MR. ODOM: Sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Was that a John Wayne
line?
MR. MOTLEY: That's a Leonard Odom line.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was an Aggie
line.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just read that
somewhere recently.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else here?
9-1-04 wk
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, can we
decide something?
JUDGE TINLEY: Can we lawfully do that today?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, we can't make the
decision, but we can come to a consensus of some sort, I
think. Or is that the same thing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I just -- I don't
want to come back and do this again.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Don't want to start
over again.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you know, my feeling
is -- I'll get it on the table first. I think I've already
said it, but we can either greatly reduce the salary of the
County Engineer and greatly reduce his duties, or eliminate
the position and do it on a contract basis. That's my
feeling.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree with you,
and I prefer the contract basis, I think.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's probably my
thinking, the contract basis.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I could probably be
convinced on a contract basis, if that -- if we're able to
structure one that encompasses his work and gives us the
protections I think we need.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does that fit your
9-1-04 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
needs, Mr. Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to hear from
one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Mr. -- yeah, I'm a
contract guy. But I've kind of gone beyond that already.
Would Mr. Odom be the person that would make sure that the
engineer came in and did the readings and make the
assessments and --
JUDGE TINLEY: He'd be the one that would
individually recommend to the Court that we need to refer
this to an engineer if it's a matter that he thinks requires
that attention, I think. Or if a member of the Court -- for
example, if Commissioner Letz were to see something in a
subdivision that he really had a serious question about,
obviously.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you don't see --
you don't see the requirement of an engineer possibly before
it even gets into this room?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I've modified the
way I think these work.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, just on the last two
pages, under the Subdivision Rules, I think that under
Review of Plat, where -- the Number 3 item, Review of Plat,
and it says Road Administrator, Administrative Assistant, I
9-1-04 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
think the Commissioner for that precinct needs to be added
there so we're brought in --
MR. ODOM: Which one?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- early on that.
MR. ODOM: I believe we have you on
preliminary plats, and then on the final.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I want to be in --
the first time I see the Commissioners on the list is down
in sign-off on final plat.
MR. ODOM: No, it should be preliminary.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, has to be by our
Subdivision Rules.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I need a
clarification.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they need to be
in there anyway on the first plat. Let me finish my
comments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then, after 4, it says
check to see that all documentation has been received. I
think you need to have another item there, which is review
documentation. I think that needs to be done by the
Commissioner, Road Administrator, and possibly a contract
engineer at that point.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would see in that
9-1-04 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
process -- and I think you're probably saying the same
thing -- that somebody's got to have the responsibility to
say, "Take that over to our contract engineer and tell him
to bring back a letter saying everything is okay or not
okay."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that person is
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I do too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My clarification -- I
need a clarification. If we're talking about a contract
engineer, are we talking about restructuring a situation and
trying to work out a contract with the existing engineer?
Or going out for an RFP for all these services? What are we
talking about?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Professional
services, I -- I'm guessing you don't need an RFP. But, in
my estimation, we can contract with anybody, giving a
preference to Kerrville people, just like an attorney that
wanted the work.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would like to have us
not really do a -- necessarily do an RFP, because I don't
think you have to. But I think get a relationship and an
hourly rate negotiated with an engineer, whether it's the
current engineer or a different engineer in town, and we use
9-1-04 wk
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
one engineer so we can build a relationship with that person
or company.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I see it almost like
contracting for legal advice. It might be a small retainer
plus an hourly rate. Well, in the case of lawyers, it
wouldn't be a small retainer, but the engineer might be a
small retainer.
8
9
10 aspect.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: I would hope not in the legal
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the reality of
that situation is, then, if we did -- even if we did an
RFP -- or even if we didn't do an RFP, and we follow along
the lines of what Commissioner 4 is talking about, we might
have a basic contract with an engineer -- could be the
existing engineer or another professional engineer -- for
services, so that we are first in line when we need our work
done, and he bills us the existing -- he will be billing us
for his or her work at the existing rates that engineers
would charge any other client. Am I correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Negotiated rate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then those
numbers would supplant these numbers that have been proposed
for incremental advances to do all this work; is that
25 correct?
9-1-04 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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, then, we're --
then we are really -- then we are really mushrooming out the
whole bit. You know, you got a lot of dollars out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, 'cause I think we
only do -- I mean, I don't think we've done -- averaged
three new subdivisions that need engineering and hydrology
studies, you know, since I've been a commissioner. Now, we
may take a new one and redo the replat ten times, so we look
at it a whole lot, but there's just not that many new
subdivisions going in. So I think that the -- you know,
you're looking at -- on the subdivision side of it, I can't
see -- maximum, 15 hours a year. And even at a -- you know,
at $100 an hour -- or $200 an hour, that's $3,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We kind of thought the
same thing, though, on the floodplain.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thinking -- I mean,
that was kind of the same kind of conversation when we
brought the floodplain back over here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there was a lot
of -- there was a whole lot of administrative work that was
being done, that needs to be done and will be done, but it
doesn't need to be done by an engineer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, it appears to
9-1-04 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
me that if we go with this plan here, that we are spending a
couple of thousand dollars more than what we're spending
right now. Then if we add on an engineer, which, you know,
is 2,000 more dollars, maybe, I mean, we're -- to me, we're
going the wrong way with our spending. It seems to me that
we need to take these numbers that Mr. Odom has laid out
here and whack them back and make an offer to him. That's
my opinion. And that may not be something that we can do in
this meeting today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I would agree with you,
Commissioner. The -- insofar as what direction we're going,
before we even attempt to make Mr. Odom bleed orange, if we
use the numbers as he's submitted them, we start with a
savings of $38,000. Now, to the degree that we can make him
bleed orange, as he's indicated, that number will go up.
Now, the next issue is, to offset against those savings,
what are you going to -- what are you going to incur in the
cost of contract engineering? And I don't think any of us
know that, except, based upon Commissioner Letz' experience
with a number of subdivisions and what he sees having to be
submitted for review to someone to keep our own comfort zone
adequate, it doesn't appear like it's going to be anywhere
close to $38,000. Isn't that what I heard from you,
Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- and the wild card
9-1-04 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
is if we get a whole lot of new subdivisions, you know, and
that's just something that's unknown. I mean, I just -- my
familiarity with the Subdivision Rules, I think five hours
of engineering time is sufficient to review that data and
see if there's a problem. If there's a problem, you know,
you may need -- you may -- it may cost a little bit more,
but I'd say -- I'd recommend probably budgeting $5,000 or
$10,000 there just to be safe. I think five would be
sufficient, maybe six or seven thousand or somewhere in
there. I think you double what you think, and hope that
we're in line. But, I mean, I don't know -- in my precinct,
there are no subdivisions that are immediately on the
horizon that I'm aware of. There hasn't been --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably not at the
moment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there hasn't been
in -- I guess The Reserve started -- there hasn't been one
this year, I don't think. The Reserve is the only one
that's fairly new.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got two on the
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We've wrung that one
out pretty good. Let's see if we can't get you wound up
before we take a break, Mr. Odom, on your wish list.
MR. ODOM: Capital outlay?
9-1-04 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
JUDGE TINLEY: You were asked to prioritize
your capital outlay items.
MR. ODOM: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's before the Court, the --
the hand-held stuff.
MR. ODOM: That is actually not capital
outlays. That's called -- for GASB, we call it something
else.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we don't use that for a
priority list. You're starting out with distributor and the
chip spreader.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Now, what I tried to
explain to the Court before, what I did want to -- at this
point, I think we could use municipal loan. It wouldn't be
an outlay of capital in this budget year -- this new budget
year. And you see on the back side of this that I have an
amortization sheet where the payment will be picked up in
October of '05. So, those -- that is the way to do it. The
new distributor is going to be available. That brand-new --
that thing runs over $100,000 -- $120,000, $140,000 maybe.
And I'm -- we're picking -- have the ability to pick one up
for $48,000. So, that's the reason I put up -- it's either
now or I miss it, and it has a capability of shooting
20 feet. Now, variable-width chip spreader goes with the
distributor. If I don't get the distributor, I don't need
9-1-04 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
the chip spreader. But my problem is, that Flaherty is
coming apart, and we don't know if we can finish the
sealcoat program this year. That's --
JUDGE TINLEY: This summer?
MR. ODOM: This summer. We've already had it
down in August, and we had to have the pulley assembly made
by a machine shop because there was no parts. When Flaherty
built this back in the '80's, they said they went out and
just started picking up parts and put everything together,
and there is no -- there were no parts. It's obsolete, so
I'm going to have to do -- we're being pushed to make it
work. We've done --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like a must to
me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, you need to
defend more on the bottom end of your list rather than the
top.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think, in my
mind, if that is your number-one priority, you get it.
MR. ODOM: That's my number-one priority. We
got to keep sealcoat going.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that.
MR. ODOM: Then two -- two is the broom. If
I get the chip spreader and all, that is part of it. And
9-1-04 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
we're having a problem now with the old broom. We wish to
keep it just as a backup in case I need it. So, that --
that is my second priority.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: We get --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Go down to Number 7.
MR. ODOM: Number 7? 8-cubic-yard dump
truck. I would -- I always need it, but if I looked at the
priorities of things, I'd push that back to number 7. I
need that. I need to continue that. If I can't get it this
year, then it will be next year; I'll be coming to you next
year with trucks. And the trailer for skid loader, I need
to do that. However, if I look at the scheme of things,
that was the bottom of it. And it's only $4,500, but I
bought one and I was told the wrong data, and I have a skid
loader in itself that exceeds the capacity of the trailer we
bought, so I can't use it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to talk about
Number 6, Leonard.
MR. ODOM: Number 6 is a water truck with
tray. We have a problem with the two tankers; that's the
yellow trucks that we use, and we cannot hold water in them.
And I'm -- we've been trying to repair and repair them. We
can't seal them. They'll leak down to the point that we
can't even prime it; we have to find a water hose to fill it
9-1-04 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
up to do it. That is a backup that the fire departments ask
us about. And, you know, I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I'm
getting to.
MR. ODOM: That's right. And now there's an
opportunity to pick one up that's got 10,000 miles on it
that's coming from the city of San Antonio for $27,000, and
it's like a brand-new truck. They have a system. That
system was a system I set up when I was system manager for
streets and drainage, and that system is -- is dollars or
years. And it has hit years, not dollars, and hasn't been
used.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's defer Number 7
till next year, and go with the rest of this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What size is that
water tanker? I'm in favor of it.
MR. ODOM: 2,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh?
MR. ODOM: 2,000 gallons.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's available to
fire departments?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. That's -- that's the
reason I'm trying to do it that I have that backup, 'cause
I -- why send something out there that can't get water in
it?
9-1-04 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 WILLIAMS: Well, I'm in favor of
that. I just wanted to know that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Len, I agree. I think
the bat wing needs to go. Only other question is on the
roller. The one we have is in bad shape?
MR. ODOM: The one I have is -- it's
deadline. That's the one that the brakes went out, and it
went -- went over --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I thought.
So, basically, the items -- well, 1, 2, and 4 will give you
what you need for quite a few years for your sealcoat
program?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. But
don't -- the chip spreader -- I mean the
is -- that Vermeer is gone, and that has
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well,
not saying -- I'm -- I agree, you need t
MR. ODOM: I need that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: What about
small item.
the other thing --
chipper. That
just happened.
yeah, that's -- I'm
hat.
I agree with Dave.
5 -- well, that's a
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I agree. I think
you can delete the dump truck till next year, delete the bat
wings, spreader, and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go through Items 1
9-1-04 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
through 6? Is that what we're saying?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And 8. Leave 8.
MR. ODOM: Now, the bat wing was just a wish.
If I had my -- you know, I've looked at it next year too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you add the
trailer. I think it's a -- it's a safety issue to the
County using an un -- overloading the trailer. And they use
that skid loader a lot, so I think --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're only
deferring the dump truck and the bat wings?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cuts $52,000, about 20 --
little over 25 percent.
MR. ODOM: And if we do that municipal loan,
we don't have to pay for -- I'll be paying for it for the
next four years. And --
JUDGE TINLEY: But you won't pay anything for
this year.
MR. ODOM: That's right, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ODOM: And then next year, for the next
several years till it's paid off, I'll just reduce my
capital outlays.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
9-1-04 wk
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So it comes to about
$74,000, one plus the two little items up top?
MR. ODOM: Is that question directed to me?
I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, more than that.
That's wrong.
JUDGE TINLEY: What I've done, Leonard, is
take everything from the top down through the 190,600. Have
you got yours in front of you?
MR. ODOM: I have this in front of me. All
right, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Then I've subtracted
the 50 -- I took 190,6 and I subtracted out 52,5 for the
dump truck.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I subtracted out 2500 for the
office equipment -- computer. You say you're going to pull
that out of O.R.C.A. money?
MR. ODOM: Well, I'm going to ask the Court
to do that. I think that's the way to do it, and just save
the 2500 for next year. Just not spend it at all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, I pulled those two
out, and I come up with 135,6.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How'd you do that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Took 190,600, took out 52,5
9-1-04 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
and then 2500.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you not take out
the 21, 6?
JUDGE TINLEY: Didn't have to. It's not
included in the 190,600.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. I
got you.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a supplemental wish
list.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got you.
MR. ODOM: We're taking 190,600, taking 52,5
and 2500. Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm.
MR. ODOM: 136,6.
JUDGE TINLEY: Got it.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
MR. TOMLINSON: What's the number?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 135,6.
MR. ODOM: 136,6.
JUDGE TINLEY: 135,600.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Works for me.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think I'm catching
on. Anything you put on the wish list is -- is dead. If
you really don't want it -- I mean, if you really want it,
don't put it on the wish list. Is that right?
9-1-04 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 WILLIAMS: That makes a lot of
sense.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Have any of you ever
proven --
MR. ODOM: If you don't ask, you don't get.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's right. I think that's
got -- got your capital outlay items, doesn't it?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Why don't we take a
break for about 15 minutes? We'll stand in recess.
(Recess taken from 3:03 p.m. to 3:20 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to
order. We've been in recess. Let me note that, for
contingency purposes, I posted another workshop meeting for
Friday at 9 a.m. so that we'd have that available to us if
we needed it. If we don't, that's fine; we don't have to
use it. But if we need it and don't have it posted, we're
up a stump. Our Treasurer indicated she would take no more
than three minutes if I would give her a bit of time.
MS. NEMEC: Thank you, Judge. I am going to
hand out to you all -- I know you probably don't want to
hear this, but it's the holiday schedule for the past ten
years. You can just -- I didn't have anything to do, so I
thought I'd do that.
9-1-04 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 BALDWIN: What did we do wrong
MS. NEMEC: Well, I have gotten some phone
calls, and I want to share those with you, and -- or the
reasons behind the -- on the last page, you'll see the
2004-2005 proposed schedule again. And, just so that y'all
could make some decisions, that's why I just listed the
holidays that had been approved before. And if you'll look
on there, some years we've had 12, some years we've had 13,
and some turn out to be 11, and the reason for that is
because of the way Christmas holidays fall sometimes. So, I
don't -- I heard the comment that we didn't want to give 13
this year. We were going to go another holiday. I'm asking
you to look at the schedule and see that some years, let's
give the 12, and on the years that it falls -- the way the
days fall, it's going to be 13. Not just be set on 12, 13,
or 11 days per year; to look at the -- the reason behind
giving those days. On the 2004-2005 holiday schedule -- my
error -- I did not include Easter holiday, which we have
always gotten, so I'm asking that to be approved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that make it 14
for '04-'5?
MS. NEMEC: No, 13. This will make it 13,
and I'm asking again for Martin Luther King Day for reasons
that I have had several calls from employees and elected
9-1-09 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
officials. Employees are just questioning why that
holiday -- or why they do not get that holiday. On the side
of the elected officials, the attorneys' offices are closed,
the banks are closed, the City's closed, the title companies
are closed. Everyone is closed, and we're here working, and
so that's the reason behind their request. So, I get the
calls and I present to you what -- what is relayed to me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the change? I
know you said a whole lot of words just then, but what --
what's the difference between this one and what we did the
other day?
MS. NEMEC: This one includes Easter.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: And I think y'all probably --
y'all just didn't see it on the schedule, because I just
forgot it and left it off.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that all, Easter?
MS. NEMEC: Easter and Martin Luther King.
JUDGE TINLEY: We drew a line through Martin
Luther King the other day when we added --
MS. NEMEC: The half a day on the 23rd. And,
you know, that's -- that's entirely up to you all. I
haven't heard anything about the 23rd, but I have heard
about these two days, and so that's why I'm presenting them
to you all again.
9-1-04 wk
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
20
21
22
2~
2~
2F
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 23rd of December?
MS. NEMEC: 23rd of December, half day.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We have to do Good
Friday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. My preference would
be to add Good Friday back, but leave Martin Luther King
off, and make it 12 and a half days, but I can go with 13 --
it goes to 13 and a half. Doesn't go to --
MS. NEMEC: Right, if you put the 23rd in
there. That's why I didn't put it in there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to ask a
question again. Have any -- any significant number of
employees spoken to you about a floating holiday; i.e.,
their birthday?
	MS.	NEMEC: No.
	COMM	ISSIONER	WILLIAMS: No?
	MS.	NEMEC:	Not to me. Maybe to their own
department	heads or	elected	officials. But I usually get
calls on -	- on the	proposed	holiday schedule and the holiday
schedule once it's	adopted,	but I haven't been asked that
question.			
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I find that
interesting.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff, does a
holiday drive up your overtime costs?
9-1-04 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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. But -- well, yes
and no, okay? We do not pay overtime on the holidays; we
give them a comp day. That's the only comp time that I
allow them to build up, so they can take that day back off
later. Now, if they quit, you're going to have to pay them
for that comp, but otherwise we give it to them off.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Barbara, in reality, even
though you're showing, you know, 11 or 12, in reality, there
actually should be probably 11 and a half, 12 and a half, to
13 and a half, 'cause even though we don't -- never called
it a holiday, we pretty much --
MS. NEMEC: That's what it was.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what it was.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Christmas Eve?
MS. NEMEC: Day before.
MS. UECKER: Not for everybody.
JUDGE TINLEY: I knew we were going to hear
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. For most, it was
13 and a half.
MS. UECKER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Save yourself some trouble and
make a recording; we'll plug it in for you.
MS. UECKER: What?
JUDGE TINLEY: The child support spiel.
9-1-04 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
2~
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The three minutes is
gone. I agree with Commissioner Letz' proposal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is, again?
Tell me?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Add Easter and cut
M.L.K.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Add Easter and cut
out M.L.K.?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How did -- tell me
again how M.L.K. got back in there.
MS. NEMEC: Because I have had a lot of
calls.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the reason?
MS. NEMEC: Well, I think -- I think the
K.I.S.D. does have school on that day. There's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But banks are closed.
MS. NEMEC: Banks are closed, title companies
are closed, law firms are closed, the City is closed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, see, that's a
major plus, in my opinion.
MS. RECTOR: And the Appraisal District's
closed.
MS. NEMEC: Yeah.
MS. RECTOR: Our business about comes to a
9-1-04 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
standstill, 'cause we have no banking to do; we can't call
the Appraisal District. The State's closed. Our regional
office in San Antonio is closed.
MS. NEMEC: Federal holiday.
MS. HENDERSON: All courthouses in the 198th
and 216th but Kerr County's been closed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say again?
MS. HENDERSON: All the -- Kendall, Bandera,
Gillespie -- I take that back; Gillespie I think is open,
but Kendall, Bandera, Menard, Mason and all them are closed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can put Martin Luther
King Day back and take a day off Christmas.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're all wrong.
They're all wrong, but --
MS. HENDERSON: Well, we're right. But, you
know, how do we explain that to them?
MS. NEMEC: Why are we going to take a day
off Christmas if we put Martin Luther King back? Because
it's 13 days?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- I mean, we can
do 13 and a half days, but --
MS. NEMEC: I'm not -- I mean, I'm not
proposing the 23rd half a day. I'm just --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's reality, what most
have done.
9-1-04 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
2~
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't get the idea
of December 27.
MS. NEMEC: That's a federal holiday; the
banks are closed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: December 27?
MS. NEMEC: Well, actually, no, the banks are
not going to be closed on December the 27th, but it is a
federal holiday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because the 26th is a
Sunday.
MS. NEMEC: Right.
MR. MOTLEY: What's December 27th?
MS. HENDERSON: Monday after Christmas.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The oil companies
are opening.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gas stations are
open, right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They get 11
holidays.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is the Hunt Store
open?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm sure it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: You hit on the barometer.
That's it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If they're closed,
9-1-04 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
I'm closed. Well, I still want Texas Independence instead
of Martin Luther King, but obviously can't have it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You haven't been
successful in that argument since '96 and '97.
MS. NEMEC: '96-'97, we put it in there.
MR. MOTLEY: I used to work at the State, and
they -- they had three holidays, and could you pick two of
them. Of course, that's not probably efficient for an
organization our size compared to the State, but between
Texas Independence Day and Emancipation Day, I think Martin
Luther King's birthday, and maybe even L.B.J.'s birthday or
something, you could pick, like, two of the four. Any two
you want, but you pick them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if, as the Tax
Assessor/Collector, who handles licenses, is saying that
everything's closed and she can't conduct business in her
office, that doesn't make a lot of --
MS. RECTOR: I'm not saying I can't conduct
business, but when taxpayers come in and I need to call the
Appraisal District for information, they're closed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's what I'm
saying. If you can't conduct business, the majority of what
you do -- a lot of what you do, it doesn't make a lot of
sense to be sitting there twiddling your thumbs.
MS. RECTOR: Most everybody else is off, so
9-1-04 wk
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
our business is very slow.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we're saying
the same thing.
MS. RECTOR: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 13 and a half doesn't
seem that bad, really.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, that's fine.
MR. MOTLEY: There's been an effort in the
past to try to coordinate County holidays with City and
school, and I think it's getting better. I think Barbara's,
you know, trying to get that accomplished. Everybody tries
to observe the same holidays where feasible.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Since you've exceeded your
three minutes, we can't even check the consensus here.
MS. NEMEC: Right. I'll just go ahead --
JUDGE TINLEY: You used up your time, so we
are where we are.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thirteen sounds like
a good, round number.
MS. NEMEC: Thirteen and a half.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thirteen and a half.
MS. NEMEC: Thank you.
MS. UECKER: Where's the other half?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The day of the Christmas
9-1-04 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
dinner when most offices close.
MS. NEMEC: The 23rd.
JUDGE TINLEY: But which the child support
office is open, and open late to take care of the parents
who need to have the ability to come get their child
support.
MS. UECKER: That is not what I meant. The
last couple of years, we haven't had to do that. What I was
trying to say is my office has never closed the half a day
early just because -- if there was a holiday on the 4th or
whatever, we've never closed half a day on the 3rd just
because. So there. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: You were using the child
support argument last year.
MS. UECKER: I have had -- no, not last year.
Year before.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, excuse me. My memory's
fuzzy, I apologize.
MS. UECKER: So, put that in your pipe and
smoke it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, while we're on
-- while we're on employees' days off and other things
related, I want us to close out the merit pool discussion.
And we have a merit pool in the current budget, and I'd like
to see us refund that to the tune of 1 percent of salaries
9-1-04 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
29
2`
to be used at the discretion of the department heads --
elected officials and department heads.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's on the table.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say it again?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One percent of
payroll in a merit pool to be drawn down by elected
officials/department heads. We have to make some special
concessions for one-person or two-person departments and how
that works, but essentially they'd be limited to 1 percent
of their particular departmental payroll.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this 1 percent
going into some pot that's sitting way off over here in the
corner?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We could allocate it
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or is it going into
each individual department?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whichever the Court
thinks would be the better way to do it. I'm amenable to
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why is it we've
stopped doing that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we --
MS. NEMEC: Why did we stop doing that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know; I asked
9-1-04 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
you first.
MR. TOMLINSON: Never started.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We never did that? We
never put money in your budgets to give --
MR. TOMLINSON: One time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure we did.
MS. NEMEC: One time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Last year we did it
in a pool -- no, a pot. This year it ought to go in the
department budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And why is it we --
was everybody afraid to say, or what's the deal?
MS. NEMEC: Okay. The reason we stopped
doing that was because we would leave it up to the Court to
tell us when we could give merit increases, and y'all have
been adjusting salaries for the past year trying to get
everybody to where they should be, so that's kind of just
been left on the back burner. I think that really is the
reason.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like the idea. I
like the idea. I don't -- I don't know how you put it in
place and make it work, you know, 1 percent.
MS. UECKER: It's been done off and on
several times.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One percent or what?
9-1-04 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
MS. UECKER: It just hasn't been consistent.
It just depended on the Court; it depended on the budget.
MS. NEMEC: And --
JUDGE TINLEY: My -- let me make sure. Are
you talking about that for a one-year's allocation?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's all we
can do, is allocate one year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, no, it affects --
you're moving them up one step forever.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I understand
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or one grade forever.
MS. UECKER: That's the way it's always been.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that may be the way it's
always been, but if you put 1 percent in and you use that to
move somebody one step, that's not a merit for a single
year -- for a single year's budget. I mean, you're --
you're plugging somebody in and they're fixed to go.
MS. UECKER: Are you saying, then, that those
two people that -- let's just take them as an example,
'cause they're the only ones I can think of, the last ones I
can remember, those two people in Road and Bridge that were
given a merit because of the flood. Do they lose that at
the -- they're going to lose that at the end of this budget
9-1-04 wk
86
1 year?
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't happen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it didn't -- it
never has happened. The Judge is saying it should happen.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it should happen. If
you're going to plug in a merit -- a merit line item in an
annual budget, it ought to be good for that year. And --
MS. UECKER: That's called a bonus.
MS. HENDERSON: You'd have to do that in a
lump-sum bonus.
that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't want to do
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, that's a bonus.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, is
this -- is this 1 percent on top of the 3 percent? Or is it
2 plus 1?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One on top.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a 1 percent pool
for the department, for example. How many you got in your
department, Linda, for example?
MS. UECKER: Seven.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, seven
employees. Whatever that base salary for that -- those
seven people is -- not you, but seven; just the base, not
9-1-09 wk
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2?
29
2~
the rollups -- 1 percent as a discretionary line item for
her to determine where it is given.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, that's 7 percent
of her base budget. She could choose to give that -- the
whole 7 percent of her base budget to one person.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not 7.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, it's -- there's
seven people.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, it's 7 percent
of her base payroll.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it's 1 percent. If
her base payroll is $140,000, its $1,400.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My premise is still
valid. She could choose to give all of that money --
MS. UECKER: Right, to one person.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Or spread it out
over all of them.
MS. NEMEC: As long as it's done within the
steps.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Long as what?
MS. NEMEC: As long as it's done within the
steps of the step -- of the grade schedule.
9-1-04 wk
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2~
MS. UECKER: You can't give half a step.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How is this
different than what we did last year? We put $10,000 or
$20,000 aside.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nobody used it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My recollection is
we only had one -- one department head come in and ask for
some of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so. I didn't
know we had one. I thought nobody used it.
MS. NEMEC: I used it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Barbara used it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Safety program.
MS. NEMEC: My safety coordinator.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's one difference
in there. I wouldn't want to add it into our department
anyhow, because officers and jailers and dispatchers have
both the longevity and an educational. I would not want
that figured in. Now, the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We just exclude the
Sheriff's Department, then.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Except for the five or
six clerical that would fit in with the rest, to where if
you want to take 1 percent of those five or six, that's
fine. But don't put back in one percent of my 96 employees,
9-1-09 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
because jailers and deputies and dispatchers are not going
to be eligible for that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Sheriff.
Just saved us a ton of money. Thank you very much.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're welcome.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, he's -- he has a good
point. He's got another -- another policy in place for the
educational.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that's for the merit
portion of it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right; they earn
that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Educational.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: By their educational.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. You're
correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would 1 percent --
with seven employees, can -- could you spread that around
to --
MS. UECKER: No, it would have to be two and
a half percent for you to be able to give everybody a
one-step raise.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
9-1-04 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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So you couldn't just
give it to all; it would be one person.
MS. UECKER: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wouldn't make sense
to do that.
MS.
MS.
MS.
one person, is wha
suggest that it be
1 percent.
UECKER: You could give them --
RECTOR: Give a step.
UECKER: Yeah, probably be one step to
t would it amount to. That's why I would
a little more than 1 and a half -- or
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, let me ask my
question --
JUDGE TINLEY: Give you $1,900.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- please.
JUDGE TINLEY: $1,800. $189,929 are your
deputies. Be $1,899 with --
MS. UECKER: That would be a little bit over
one step for one person, so it would only include probably
one person. So, I would -- my suggestion -- or I would ask
that it would be a little bit more than 1 percent.
MS. RECTOR: I agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's your question,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hell, I don't know.
9-1-04 wk
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
MS. UECKER: 'Cause, you know, the reason I'm
saying that is, right now I've got two people in mind, just
to be honest with you, that I would like to give a merit
COMMISSIONER
MS. UECKER:
increase this year, if they
there's nothing that says t
them. You know, I'm pretty
COMMISSIONER
8
9
10
11
12
13
BALDWIN: Wouldn't you --
Just because you give a merit
fall back next year, you know,
zat I can't take it away from
smart; I can figure that out.
LETZ: I think --
JUDGE TINLEY: Good. That would allow you,
under current classification schedules, to have a one-step
increase for at least two of your people.
MS. UECKER: What?
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
JUDGE TINLEY: At the high end, one step at 2
and a half percent is $754.
MS. UECKER: One percent would?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, 1 percent of your total
of -- of your deputy payroll.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What are we trying
to do with this? What's our objective? Making merit moneys
22
23
available?
24
JUDGE TINLEY: Let the departments --
MS. UECKER: Make it a part of the budget
25I process, and to --
9-1-04 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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's not my
question. Are we trying to rate better performance? Are we
trying to reward significant --
MS. UECKER: Exactly. We're trying to
encourage --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Motivate and reward?
MS. UECKER: Motivate and reward.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I don't have
anything against it, but I'm getting a little concerned on
our bottom-line budget, because we haven't talked about
that. We're already talking about a 1 and a half -- I mean
$1.2 million deficit this year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we still -- we're
still talking about things. So, we're giving a pretty
healthy COLA. We've done a lot of adjustments in the past
two years on getting people's job descriptions and salary
level. I'm just -- I'm just afraid we can't afford it right
now. Plus, a lot of y'all weren't here at the end of the
last budget workshop, where we're faced with a very
difficult year next year on anything that's going to be a
carryover expenditure item because of the way the rollback
rate's established, and we -- because that building will be
paid off, and it's going to put us in a real problem
potentially next year, along with the 65 and older, that cap
9-1-04 wk
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we put on earlier this year. We're going to start getting
that impact next year, so we need to be a little careful
about spending money. So, I'm just --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you attribute that
type of thinking to your background, by any chance? Or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The water I drink.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- to the -- your head
is just getting squarer and squarer. And redder.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Redder.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And redder.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MS. UECKER: That would allow for one step
for two people. And I know that you've given -- you've --
or you've tentatively allowed for more than one step for
several other people with no questions asked. Did we have
the money then, or last week and not today, or what?
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably.
MS. UECKER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I think this is
one of those things --
JUDGE TINLEY: We keep looking over the fence
into somebody else's back yard to see how their grass is
growing.
MS. UECKER: Well, you try not to, but right
is right.
9-1-04 wk
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is one of those
things that I think -- I mean, nobody up here is jumping for
joy over this thing, so it would be one of those things that
we put off to the very end. Run -- run all the other
numbers first, the things that everyone is excited about,
and then if there's extra bucks when we come back, we add
that in at the end.
JUDGE TINLEY: The Auditor has mentioned that
we need to make a specific approval or allocation of the
Alternate Dispute Resolution moneys.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. We -- we've agreed
to -- I think, tentatively, to fund that -- that process
with -- with the revenues that we collect for the previous
year.
JUDGE TINLEY: What account number are you on
there?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's -- I'm -- I'm estimating
revenue collection about $10,000, and we have a balance of
17,6, so we need to budget at least the total of that, which
is around $28,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And --
MR. TOMLINSON: So, when we know what that
amount is, we can remit that to -- to that organization.
JUDGE TINLEY: What number have you got
plugged in, and what account is that, now?
9-1-04 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
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have anything plugged
in.
JUDGE TINLEY: For the expenditure side.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have anything plugged
in for expenditures at this point.
JUDGE TINLEY: Where is it?
MR. TOMLINSON: Let's see. Let me find it.
It's -- well, I have a different printout than you do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What fund is it?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's 41 -- no, I'm sorry,
it's 40. It's on Page 105.
JUDGE TINLEY: And it's your recommendation
we need to budget approximately $28,000 there?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. That -- that would
expend the fund balance, plus the estimate for '04-'05.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page are you on,
Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: 105.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $28,000?
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there a requirement that we
expend that as we get it? Or --
MR. TOMLINSON: No. No, we -- this is the
only thing we can use this fund for.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: And --
9-1-04 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
JUDGE TINLEY: And they need those funds?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, and they need them.
So, there's no reason to keep them in the fund balance.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come to the
Ingram Lake Estates Road District. You were just talking
about the tax rate there, weren't you?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I just want to remind
the Court before someone forgets that we do have to
establish a rate for -- for that road district.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we need to be sure and
plug that into the agenda item, the establishment -- the
setting the Lake Ingram Estates road tax rate.
MR. TOMLINSON: I have -- I have calculated
what the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. But that's something
that -- that Ms. Mitchell needs to be sure that we get
included on our agenda. Notice how I shifted that from me
to her?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, I did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I
wasn't going to ask you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
JUDGE TINLEY: Another
here is the KARFA. There was some co
I noticed it, Judge.
knew you did. I
Mm-hmm.
item that I got on
mmunication from 9-1-1
9-1-04 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
relative to KARFA. I'm not sure how that relates to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it was
related to this -- well, directly related to it, anyway,
unless they were going to -- that was more about their
pagers and that type thing.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think 9-1-1 is
reminding KARFA that they don't have any obligation to
provide them financial support for their communications
equipment. It went on to say this doesn't mean we're going
to stop giving you some help, but we don't have any
obligation to. They're going to deal with that tonight in
the KARFA meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me fill you in a
little bit, let the -- fill the Court in a little bit about
my visit to Elm Pass Volunteer Fire Department last night,
and -- and my conversation with Danny Smith of Center Point
with respect to the KARFA proposal for the grant moneys for
communications. My Elm Pass people didn't know anything
about it, and so my purpose in visiting with them was to
find that out, and to elicit their support for it or
concerns about it, whichever. The bottom line was, I ended
up giving them a bunch of questions that they needed to
satisfy themselves about. What's it all about? What's it
going to cost? Who's going to own it? Who's going to
9-1-04 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
maintain it? What are the ongoing costs every year
hereafter? None of which they'd ever talked about.
Center Point Chief thought he remembered a --
some kind of discussion in a KARFA meeting a couple months
ago, but he couldn't seem to recall exactly what that was
all about. Which, I guess, brings me to the bottom line
with that. I don't have any feelings that it's not good,
but I'm wondering, in light of my experience with Elm Pass
and Center Point -- and I don't know what your experiences
are with your fire guys -- I'm wondering if, rather than our
funding a line item of that for a grant match, if we just
spread the money across our fire departments and give them
the benefit of using those funds, or the other $1,000 or so
for that purpose. If they choose to participate and support
it, let that be their decision, instead of making a decision
for them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I -
recollection was that for us to expend -- to
those funds, every volunteer fire department
that they wanted -- or, you know, a majority
like that, that they -- that's what they all
they don't want it, I don't think we should
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well
- my
not distribute
had to sign on
or something
wanted. If
do it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, hopefully we'll
be able to increase the volunteers' budget by $1,000 or
9-1-04 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
$1,500, something like that, which we try to do every year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And go ahead and do
that. Go ahead and add on $1,500 to each department, and
then let them decide if they want to take that $1,500 and
apply it towards the KARFA program.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's really what
I'm saying.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Procedurally, will
that work if they all got together to say, "Yeah, let's put
up this 10 percent matching"?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. I'm
just trying -- I'm explaining what Bill's saying, is all I
was doing.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My question is, is
that a bona fide matching? Can they do it, or do we have to
do it, to put the matching funds up?
JUDGE TINLEY: The Auditor has some thoughts
here.
MR. TOMLINSON: There -- sometimes those
matching grants require a funding from the governmental
entity.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's --
9-1-04 wk
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2~
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: "I don't know" is
the answer.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's sponsoring the grant
application. So, if those individual departments have the
money to match with, that might not -- that might not do
what they want to do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Question. If it was their
desire to use, say, $1,500 apiece, could we transfer that
over to a grant match line item in their budget from each of
their respective --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- line item accounts, and
then Kerr County be the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- sponsoring entity?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's fine. If the -- but
we would have to know at -- at what point we couldn't -- we
couldn't fund their -- their invoices up until this $1,500.
In other words, we don't want to -- if somebody comes in
with insurance bills and -- and expenses that exceed their
$11,000 now, plus the extra $1,500, we don't want to spend
into that $1,500 until we know that -- that they don't want
to use the $1,500.
JUDGE TINLEY: You can just flag each one of
their budget accounts at $1,500.
9-1-04 wk
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
29
2`
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Most of them submit -- I
mean, one bill knocks out the whole -- whole thing.
MR. TOMLINSON: So, you know, I just don't
want to overspend those individual line items before I know
that they are going to use it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can put it in the
individual accounts, and not fund any of them till
December 1st. And then they have until December 1st to let
us know if they want us to put it in a separate account and
do the matching.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It may be a moot
point. They may not be able to meet this hurdle of majority
or most of them saying that they -- they prefer to buy the
equipment rather than have the funds.
JUDGE TINLEY: KARFA has a meeting tonight,
though.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They may talk about
it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know who's
affected by it. They tell me that there are some in the
south and east part of the county that have the same
problem. Ingram is not -- they don't have these blind
spots. Hunt and Mountain Home certainly are, and it's
recent anecdotal data that supports it. Not long ago -- a
9-1-04 wk
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2~
few weeks ago, there was a serious injury near Camp Stewart
on 1340, and Lifeflight was called out. And Lifeflight was
lost over on the South Fork, and the First Responder could
not make contact to tell them that their helicopter wasn't
there; that they heard it a while ago, but can't get in
contact with him. So, that was a mess.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there's
definitely areas in my precinct that don't get good
coverage, but I don't know where you'd put a new tower or
anything that's going to help much. I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I had an interesting
discussion with David -- Marrs, is it? -- over here at
Advantage Communications yesterday. I called him, 'cause I
wanted to know more about what he's working with them on and
how he sees it. And he's still working on it, and he didn't
have his numbers and all that together, but he was -- he was
indicating that there would be repeaters put on -- for the
most part, he thought there would be repeaters put on
existing towers, and maybe in the western half via tower,
but no sites have been chosen. No towers have been
selected. No costs have been assembled and all that kind of
stuff, so it's still kind of in a nebular form. So, when I
went out to Elm Pass last night, they admitted to knowledge
of -- most of you say there are some dead spots, and they've
experienced some too. A thought just occurred to me. Maybe
9-1-04 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
it's better for us to give it to them in their budgets, and
if they sign off and they're satisfied, then they can use it
that way.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's defer this and
see if we hear anything from KARFA tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably a good idea. Health
Insurance Consultant. We don't have a handle on that yet,
and I think we got in our first proposal earlier today.
MS. MITCHELL: It was e-mailed.
JUDGE TINLEY: On the -- on the solicitations
that we made. So, you know, we're really not in a position
to do anything meaningful there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Victim's Rights Coordinator.
The District Attorney of the 216th furnished a letter in
support of the Victim's Rights Coordinator, and also gave us
an explanation about his inability to fund out of -- out of
seizure funds, because by contract he's committed to give
those proceeds to the Narcotics Task Force. But the letter
that each of you received a copy of is in support. There
was also a letter of support furnished by the City of Ingram
Marshal's office, as I recall.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: And were there any others,
9-1-04 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
Mr. Motley, that you're aware of?
MR. MOTLEY: No, sir. I talked to the
Sheriff. I think the Sheriff's in support of it. I have
not talked to police; as a matter of fact, I've not met the
new police chief, but the one from Ingram -- from the
marshal --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. MOTLEY: -- I think Roland's in favor of
it. By the way, I came today really for the purpose of
being here because I was unable to be here at the last
meeting when you considered this -- what I'm calling a
modified supplemental budget request. I just wanted to -- I
had to be out, and I wanted to be here to, I guess, be a
resource if you had any questions about what I submitted the
last time. Somebody told me that one of the Commissioners
observed that it didn't add up, and I added it up on my
trusty calculator, so I think it added up. But this was
just to try to do this thing in the halftime deal for the
first nine months of the fiscal year. I think we can find
$5,000 in the current budget if we transfer it. I don't
know if we can do this -- I haven't talked to Tommy -- from
this budget year to next budget year, so-to-speak, to fund
it, but we're going to have $5,000 at least surplus in one
line item, and we -- we can do that, I think, pretty easy.
You know, I'd say certainly we can do that.
9-1-04 wk
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: The way that it operates, if I
understand it correctly, is at the end of this budget year,
whatever's not used in any budgets comes back into the
common till, and then you just start over from -- from
baseline with the new budget. Correct?
MR. MOTLEY: I think that's correct. I don't
know how much y'all get back in at the end of the year. I
figure it's a pretty small amount. I'm saying I know I at
least have $5,000 to put into the General Fund next year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. MOTLEY: But we -- you know, we'd be --
we're still interested in doing this, and I think it's a
good thing. And, you know, I have more data and such if
y'all need it, but I can explain this. If -- if it requires
explanation, I can do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It sounds like the -- the
victims rights -- most are in favor of it. And, as I
understand it, this is a partial funding for the year, with
the idea that a grant will come in the third quarter of the
year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There seems to be
some strong sense that there -- there's AACOG money out
there; is that correct, Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, what the deal
9-1-04 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
is -- and we've pushed for this for several years. The
grant stuff just never got in on time. There is some AACOG
money specifically for a victims coordinator, and all the
prosecutors and myself, and even the new police chief have
talked about this. Everybody agrees it's needed, because we
all have to have somebody individually, you know, in our
departments right now doing it, which has worked for years,
but there's just a great need for one person to do it. But
that grant time period is coming up. You know, I think
there are some people in this county that are definitely
pushing to apply for that grant to fund the whole program,
just like it's done in Kendall County year after year. And,
until that time, you know, we're making it with what we have
to do, but it is a needed position. I hope this Court
supports it when we go to applying for the grant. But I
think it can be funded totally by the grant.
JUDGE TINLEY: The proposition, as I
understand it now, is a proposal to -- for the Court to fund
the Kerr County Crime Victims Coordinator on a part-time
basis for three-fourths of a year. Three-quarters, until a
grant would be available through AACOG. And, obviously, at
that point, the County would be the sponsoring agency for
the grant.
MR. MOTLEY: That would be a 90 -- I mean an
9-1-04 wk
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: 80/20.
MR. MOTLEY: You've got it right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A lot of that 20, I
think, can be an in-kind type deal, like office space. What
JUDGE TINLEY: And equipment and things of
that nature, yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But my only thing -- and
I'm not trying to -- to knock the program; I support it
1,000 percent, you know. We've needed it for years. But I
would like to personally see what happens to the grant,
'cause if the grant doesn't come through, is the County
going to be able to -- to at that point fund that entire
department year after year after year? You know. That -- I
don't know what the State's going to do with a lot of their
grant money. Everything's up in the air, as Commissioner
Williams can say, over a lot of the AACOG grants in getting
shuffled around of moneys. And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's been a
reduction in state -- in funding.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But it's one of our --
in our Community Plan, which was just rewritten, it's been
now put as a number one priority for Kerr County to get a
Crime Victims Coordinator, one person that handles it all
the time. And I think we stand a real good chance of
9-1-04 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
getting that grant through AACOG.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems to me that we're
probably at a point to fund it. If we get the grant, it'll
continue. If it doesn't, there's going to have to be a real
good, close analysis to see if it's worth it, or to go back
to the way it was done before. I mean, that --
JUDGE TINLEY: Your sense is to get it
started on -- on a halftime -- part-time basis, and
hopefully it can be picked up on a full-time basis in June
or July?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And whoever this
part-	time	person is	-- I guess	Mr. Motley's	the	one that
hires	that	person --	needs to	be real aware	that	this is
a -- you know, if it's not -- we don't get the grant, it'll
probably start being phased out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My sense is that
it's one of these things that would be desirable to have,
nice to have, but it's not broke and doesn't require a fix.
And it does put another body on the -- on the local
government payroll, and I think we've already got too many
bodies on the local government payroll. So, while I'd like
to have it and wish we could afford it, I don't support it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I support it. I think
it's one of those things that is not only needed, but when
9-1-04 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
you start evaluating what government does, and particularly
local county government, what they do is -- you're dealing
with people. And this is one of those areas where you're
not only dealing with people; you're dealing with hurting
people. And if -- if we have -- if this Commissioners Court
or the City Council has a function at all, it's to take care
of this kind of issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I think that we
ought to go for a grant and see if we can't get some new
ambulances. Go ahead. I just thought I'd throw that in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think there's value
in the position, and I think that we have a good opportunity
of getting grant money to fund it. So, what we're really
talking about is, if this funding part-time -- I'm not sure
we can figure that out. Right, Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, that's what you'd
be talking about if you fund it. Be a part-time person.
Most of that first year is probably going to be spent going
through training. There's a lot of state training and all
that for several months. And, like I said, right now, every
department has a person that is a Crime Victim's
Coordinator.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "Every department"
meaning?
9-1-04 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
JUDGE TINLEY: Every prosecutor's --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Every prosecutor,
sheriff's Office, police department. We all have to have a
Crime Victim Coordinator liaison in our department, and I
have a female investigator that works directly with crime
victims. Now, when it was a real serious one and trying to
get some of the funding, we have the forms we give them to
help and get back their costs of medical, and we try and
talk. We don't deal with them as much as a victim would
probably like to be dealt with, you know, keeping them
informed of everything, but we do help them get all their
forms filled out, sent in to Austin, which is one of the
major components of that. Now, when we had one -- the big
capital murder case in Mr. Letz' precinct, the Crime
Victim's Coordinator that is full-time that knew the victims
from Kendall County stepped in and took care of that, and
has helped with those victims. It's kind of like we did
with the S.A.N.E. program, went out for a grant to keep it
going, because it's definitely needed. Whether the Court
wants to fund it for part of a year, or we just wait until
grant time and see if we can kick it off that way, you can
look at it two different ways. If it's already in
existence, being partially funded, that could help get the
grant even a little bit more secure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
9-1-04 wk
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If it's not, we're just
going after the grant and seeing what happens. It's a
position that is seriously needed in this county to take
care of this county. I think you have one prosecutor that
says -- and the judges that we've talked to; we've talked
about trying it in Kerr County. So, you probably have a
prosecutor in the 198th that's not too worried about
committing to it, because it's not going to affect Kimball
and -- and Mason and Menard counties. It's going to be for
Kerr County, okay. They still do it the way we currently it
in those other counties, so he may not want to donate to it
out of his account. Bruce, I can understand his explanation
for it; it's something that the State will help us do, and
just kind of wait and see. I don't know what the Court
wants to do on it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the -- the initiation
of it on -- on a part-time basis indicates a commitment to
that type of program. I think that, plus our Community Plan
prioritization of victims' rights as being a number-one
priority, I think all of those will -- will be pluses in
getting the appropriate grant funding. But, by the same
token, I -- I think if we -- if we do it on a -- on a
part-time, phase-in basis, whoever's involved in that
process needs to be made aware that -- that the pendency of
the future of the program is tied to the grant funding.
9-1-04 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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, the one thing it
JUDGE TINLEY: At least for the first year or
so.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One thing it also would
help on having a part-time basis right now is then you would
have one person, you know, already that can start getting
that grant ready to prepare and permit -- or submit a grant
to AACOG shortly, where -- where the way it is currently is,
who's going to submit the grant? Who's going to -- we don't
have anybody that can really spend all the time gathering up
all these stats. So, you're -- you're doing a lot more than
just the victim's deal right off the bat.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who's going to
prepare the grant?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The person -- the
part-time person, if they want to keep their job.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The part-time person.
That, or Motley's office.
MR. MOTLEY: I think I'm ultimately
responsible for that. Whether I get some help or not -- I
might have done it before, but -- you know, so I think I'm
going to be responsible.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have two questions.
One, do we have any idea how many years this grant's going
9-1-04 wk
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to go? Is it one of those three-year deals, and then -- and
then we're on our own?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's a year-to-year
grant.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, it's renewal
each year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it could run 10
years or 15?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It could run -- yeah,
till eternity.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I got a feeling
this is one of those long-range deals, too.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because people like it
so much.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think if you get it
established, it's renewable.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Then my other question
is, the comments that Bruce made on there about his money's
going to 216th Drug Task Force, it's my understanding that
their funding is drastically being cut by the State. Is
that going to affect us? Are we -- is there something that
we need to -- we need to address in this budget? If not in
this budget, I don't want to talk about it any more.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We had a Board of
9-1-04 wk
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Governors meeting this morning.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it going to be
addressed in this budget?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I hope not. Okay?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me too.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It shouldn't be.
There's -- it's before the House and in Washington right
now. There is a possibility of cutting the funding for all
the task forces statewide or to Texas by 36 percent, which,
if this happens, it could end up being -- cutting the
Narcotics Task Force by up to 50 percent. The State's going
to look at -- and there's some other plans in there to look
at making that money up. But the bad part of that is, it
could come back on local entities to fund 100 percent of
their officers' salaries, or -- or entities doing their own
Narcotics Task Force there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's going to -- it's
going to change. It's going to cost somewhere. The biggest
problem you have with that is their grant period runs June
to June, so we don't know what's going to happen. We could
come back at June and say, "Commissioners, we got a
problem." If we want to keep working our guys, you know,
somebody's going to have to fund these -- these positions.
Or the County's going to have to start their own, or City
9-1-04 wk
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and County go jointly or apply for other grants somewhere.
I just -- nobody knows at this point. And that was as of
this morning in our meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Apparently nothing we
can see on the horizon.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Rusty, very
much.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the part-time
amount we need to put in, if any?
MR. MOTLEY: What -- how much to fund it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, this is -- again, this is
an estimate. I think it's better than the first one. I
came up with $12,418 for the County. That would be funding
100 percent, a halftime position for nine months. And those
are estimates. I understand that the -- the 216th D.A. has
some office space that we possibly could use. Not really
sure where we are on furniture, office space, file cabinets,
that sort of stuff. I think we'd have some surplus stuff --
MS. UECKER: I've got file cabinets.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I could probably
provide some.
JUDGE TINLEY: $12,000?
MR. MOTLEY: $12,418 is what I came up with,
9-1-04 wk
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
if we take $5,000. If $5,000 of my surplus this year goes
into next year's General Fund, $5,000 out of that.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we can't do that. No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, are we at $12,000 or
are we at $17,000?
MR. MOTLEY: No -- okay. Right, then 17.
17, 4.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's going to cover nine
months of operation?
MR. MOTLEY: Hmm?
JUDGE TINLEY: That'll cover nine months of
operation?
MR. MOTLEY: That's the way I calculated it,
part-time, half salary with no --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Benefits.
MR. MOTLEY: -- retirement and no insurance.
A laptop, a cell phone with pager, travel, office supplies,
training education. That's $17,418, is the way I figured
it. I don't know of anything else I left out.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Also on there, on the
training, I do send my officers still. I always send a
couple of them, and if it would help, we could probably help
with the training issues. I don't know what funds he's got
in there. Because -- because I can send two a lot of times.
JUDGE TINLEY: $18,000?
9-1-04 wk
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MOTLEY: $17,418, 17,5. Whatever --
that's what I would calculate to do it for nine months, a
part-time deal.
JUDGE TINLEY: $18,000?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, y'all are big on rounding,
but that's about right.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm curious why --
this really doesn't mean anything, I guess, but I'm just
curious. Do we want to house that person at the D.A.'s
office?
JUDGE TINLEY: Put them out next to the
County Attorney, but that's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Downstairs.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Does that handle it on
the crime victims -- okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm with you. I
don't understand that either.
JUDGE TINLEY: Unless somebody has something
on City/County projects, I'm at the end of my list.
Commissioner Letz, have you got anything now -- between now
and 4:15 that you'd like to talk about on City/County
projects?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't believe so. I
think -- I mean, airport. We'll talk about that at our next
9-1-04 wk
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there some differential in
the funding issues?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, nothing different,
but it's -- it'll go to the Airport Board between now and
then.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I do have -- I
do want to have a conversation about something.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As far as City/County
relationships are concerned, what I would like to do -- I
mean, this -- in my mind, this thing has gotten way out of
hand. Whatever this thing is. I mean, I'd like to -- I'd
like to identify what that thing is, and I don't know how to
do that. By me going to the coffee shop and listening to
the group of doctors talk about it, and Bill and I going and
playing golf and talking about it, you never get to it. The
only way to get to the -- figure out what that thing is, is
to sit down with those men, look them in the eye and have a
visit. I don't know of any other way. So, what I -- what
I'm going to propose is -- is I would like to put together a
dinner here in the courthouse, in our -- one of the new jury
rooms over in the new courthouse, like we did a few years
ago -- couple of years ago. Get a restaurant to come in and
9-1-04 wk
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cater dinner, and invite the policymakers from the City of
Kerrville to come over and have dinner with us.
Now, they can -- if they want to charter
buses and bring staff over here, I don't care. That --
that's fine; we'll feed them too. But my thing is, I'd like
to see us sit down at the table and look eye-to-eye with the
policymakers of the City and find out what this thing is,
what this problem is. And, again, if -- if I'm the problem,
I want that pointed out, and I want to apologize and get it
out there on the table and get it dealt with. If Bill's the
problem, I want him to confess that up and get it out there
on the table, and let's deal with it. If they're the
problem, I want them to cough it up and get it out there.
We need to get through this thing. This is not hurting me
and it's not hurting you. It's not hurting whatever his
name is that runs the City; it's not hurting him in any way.
It's hurting the taxpayers of this county, and that is a
bad, bad thing. We're not being -- we're not being good
leaders by letting this thing go, I'm telling you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't think it's
going -- I don't think it's been let go. I think there's
been ample -- you know, certainly, through the press up to
now. But I have a call in to one of the City Councilmen
basically saying, you know, we want to talk. And, so,
that's what we've been saying for the last three months.
9-1-04 wk
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
But I think your -- your proposal is great, and we need to
do it, because they haven't responded to any of these
individual requests. They've --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe if we break
bread with the brethren type thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a great
idea. And I think the last time -- I think they paid the
last time, so we ought to pay this time.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Only 40 percent.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the -- I
think Commissioner Baldwin's point is valid, and I think the
suggestion that he makes with respect to our having
one-on-ones with the -- with our brethren on the other end
of Main Street, I think, should be limited to the
policymakers. We're the policymakers of the County, and
they're the policymakers, and I think that's where it begins
and that's where it stops.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And see where it
takes us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I agree, but I
also -- we're different than the City. They are
policymakers only. We are policymakers, and we're also
implementers.
9-1-04 wk
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that is -- that is
part of it, I think. And I've talked to the City Manager
about this. They look at us as -- he looks at the City
Council. Well, I look at myself as City Council and City
Manager combined.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that,
Jon.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think that the City
Manager -- if they want him to be present, I have no problem
with him being present.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have a problem
with that either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather not have the
whole staff from the City here. Costs too much.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's their deal.
But the people that are elected officials, that the name is
on the line, where the rubber meets the road -- is that how
you said it? -- is the people I want to deal with.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so do y'all want
to have supper or not?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay with me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, do you have any
9-1-04 wk
122
1~ thoughts?
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2F
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to ask the first
question my son always asks me when I invite him for dinner.
What's for dinner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably fajitas.
It'd just be my guess, just right off the top of my head.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know why he does that.
I think he's rude for doing it, but he does that to me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I think he's
pretty smart.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We had fajitas last time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm all for issuing
an invitation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you going to put it
on the agenda for us to formally do it, or just going to go
ahead and do it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me -- let me
remind the Court, there's going to be a joint meeting of
Council and the Court under the -- at the invitation of KEDF
on September 9th. We can -- we can extend an invitation for
what you're talking about at that time. Or we can do it
differently, but we're going to -- we're going to be
together, if we choose to attend, as posted for September 9.
Am I right, Judge? Or will be posted.
9-1-04 wk
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: I believe that's correct.
We've got -- both the Council and the Court's invited to
both executive committee and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The full board.
JUDGE TINLEY: The full board meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When is this?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: September 9.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Today's September 1.
When are we getting an invitation?
JUDGE TINLEY: Week from tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I hadn't heard of this
before.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I hadn't either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think that's a
totally different thing. It's not at all what we need to
discuss --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- for joint projects.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, we wouldn't be
discussing those other things there, I understand that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what I'm going --
I guess the best way to handle this thing is let me snoop
around over there and find out when's a good date for them,
and I'l1 poll you guys as well, and then I'll bring it back
and we'll make an agenda item and do an official deal from
9-1-04 wk
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that point from the whole Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we can leave it in
your capable hands --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I believe so.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- for now, Mr. Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I believe so. I've
got another question. Judge, I've got some paperwork here
that I'm not -- that I don't understand what it is, and I
just have one simple question. It's dealing with the
juvenile system issue. Let's see. This letter from Bob
Henderson, which he's the financial guru -- I take that
back. It's from Tom Spurgeon. He's the attorney, if my
memory serves me. It says here, in -- in the alternative
ways to -- for -- to get the funding out to the Juvenile
Detention Facility, this one sentence in here, it says a
notice of nonappropriation. Notice of nonappropriation.
That's in his notes. And then we get -- I assume this
letter from you --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- is to us?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And is this that
notice --
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that he refers to?
9-1-04 wk
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's two different
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's two different.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can I broaden my
question to two notices?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Define what those are.
JUDGE TINLEY: They deal with the provisions
under the lease arrangement on the Juvenile Detention
Facility, and the technical requirements each year under
that lease as to the appropriation or nonappropriation of
funds by, first, the Juvenile Board -- which, of course, the
Juvenile Board, other than being in existence, doesn't have
a big, fat budget, as you well know. And then the County --
Secretary, under its lease with the -- with the facility,
that corporation.
to the County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is that?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's from the Juvenile Board
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, I mean, is it --
is it one of the requirements of -- of an agreement?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Okay, that's
what you're telling me.
9-1-04 wk
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it's not what he's
referring to as a notice of nonappropriation. I mean,
that's what it appears to me. I'm just trying to --
JUDGE TINLEY: There are two different ones.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: If -- if he's referring to two
of them, that's one of them. But there are two of them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Obviously, one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's because there is
only one. But there are a total of two that fall under the
technical requirements of the legal documents concerning
that facility and the lease to Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all, thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've got to leave.
MS. UECKER: Can I -- just one quick --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we going to meet
Friday?
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got it posted for Friday
morning. It's up to you guys.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I'll see y'all
9-1-04 wk
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Friday morning. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nine something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll be here.
JUDGE TINLEY: 9 o'clock.
MS. UECKER: Judge, I have just have one
little thing I need to talk about, two minutes -- two and a
half. Jack Furman and I were renewing my errors and
omissions and our theft policies -- now, wait a minute --
and I realize that, by statute, I was -- I had -- I've been
underinsured for counties of our population size. I'm
supposed to be insured for theft to 20 percent of the annual
money that you handle, but not to exceed $100,000, and that
20 percent comes to much more than $100,000, so we've had to
increase ours to the limit of $100,000. So, I think that's
going to increase the line item for Bonds and Insurance, and
we don't know for sure. We're looking for some -- the best
price from some insurance companies, but I think we probably
need to raise that to about $3,700.
JUDGE TINLEY: But you don't know at this
point? Is that -- isn't that what you're saying?
MS. UECKER: No, I don't. I know it's going
to be higher; I just don't know how much. And, based on
what the policies -- the other policies cost, you know, I
think we can cover it with 37 rather than 32 -- or 3,261.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We surely want you to
9-1-09 wk
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1°
20
21
2~
2~
2~
2~
be bonded.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do we do about
that right there? Did Tommy automatically write the numbers
down? Or --
MR. TOMLINSON: That's what I
JUDGE TINLEY: He did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You wr
JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else,
did.
ate it down?
what he did.
gentlemen?
We'l1 stand adjourned.
(Budget Workshop adjourned at 4:26 p.m.)
9-1-04 wk
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1~
1E
1f
1f
1!
2c
2
2.
2
2
2
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR I
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 6th day of October,
2004.
JANNE~~TT~~ ~~PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY : 1~:~!'XM ------------
Kathy Bar ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
3
4
5
9-1-04 wk