1
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, August 3, 2005
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
Y
3
U
~o
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Wednesday, August 3, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., a budget
workshop of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in
the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,
Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in
open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call to order this
workshop of the Kerr County Commissioners Court scheduled
for this day and time, Wednesday, August 3, 2005, at 9 a.m.
It's a bit past that now. The purpose of the workshop is to
consider and review Fiscal Year 2005-06 budget, budget
priorities and policies and order of departmental budget
reviews for that Fiscal Year '05-'06 budget. Initially, I'd
like to thank and express my appreciation to all the elected
officials and department heads for their work on their
budget requests, and -- and their set-to with me, our
discussions, and their willingness to discuss with me their
needs and -- and the things that they saw as appropriate in
their coming year's budget, and I really appreciate their
efforts. Each of those elected officials or department
heads has received a copy of the proposed budget, to the
extent that it is complete, that pertains to that
department, with a memo that indicated what is not included
because of questions reserved by the Court.
And the Court, of course, got copies of the
8-3-05 bwk
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
entire proposed budget with that memo, as well as another
memo indicating what items have been reserved for action by
the whole Court. And these are things that have
traditionally been decided by the whole Court; personnel
matters, capital outlay items, City/County operations,
nondepartmental, those things have traditionally been
reserved for decision by the whole Court. Concerning
personnel matters, if it has been received, I've not yet
received it, the personnel schedule that the Treasurer
traditionally prepares for us. I -- I would hope that we
could get that reasonably soon so that we can plug that in,
and have it include all of the obligations to the County
employees under the existing policies; the longevity, the
education and other things, so that we can clearly know what
our obligation is to the employees in connection with their
wages for the coming budget year. Having said all that,
I'll throw it open for any member of the Court that wants to
run with it from there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think a
couple issues that we ought to be thinking about in terms of
priority, because of the magnitude of the issues, and one of
them is, as I noted in an earlier meeting, the Juvenile
Detention Facility, what we intend to do about that
operation and the scope of its projected losses. And I
think we have another major issue we have to deal with, and
8-3-05 bwk
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
that is the EMS situation, our relationship with the City in
terms of negotiating an acceptable agreement with both
parties. So, those are two -- in my book, those are the two
highest priority items, followed closely behind by law
enforcement's needs and the library and so on and so forth.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. I'd like to
add one issue in that. I'd like for us to -- if we could
get a final figure on what the tax freeze over 65 is
actually going to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That has to be out on
the table and be a part of the whole picture. But I agree
with you that the juvenile facility and EMS are on the front
burner, both high-dollar issues and pressing issues. Now,
the rest of it, how you set up -- how we set up the meetings
and what we talk about in those meetings, I couldn't care
less. It's got to be done, so we just do it. But I think
that those -- those items that you've brought up are things
that we need to address, and probably address today.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When does the
process end? When's the last time we meet and vote on the
budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: September 30th.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's -- that's
true. There's no -- no statutory requirement for taking
8-3-05 bwk
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
action before then?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have to have
everything in place, including the tax rate.
JUDGE TINLEY: Tax rate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All the
advertisements, the Tax Assessor can give us a timetable we
need to back up from that date to give her the dates that
she needs for publication and so forth and so on. So, the
reality is, it has to be done about mid-September, doesn't
it, Paula?
MS. RECTOR: For my part, I would hope that
it could be accomplished by then.
JUDGE TINLEY: By mid-September?
MS. RECTOR: There's some changes in this new
legislation that's going to require an additional
publication. I have not gotten any of the information from
the Comptroller's office yet. I was hoping to get that this
week. As soon as I get that, then I'll know what my steps
are going to be in the calculation of publications.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you need at least
two weeks, don't you, to do what you have to do
publication-wise and so forth? Or do you need more than
that?
MS. RECTOR: Well, it'll depend on the
legislation that's passed and what they're going to require
8-3-05 bwk
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
as far as the publications and the hearings that need to
be -- need to be done, which I don't know yet until I get
the information from the Comptroller's office.
JUDGE TINLEY: We don't yet have the tax
roll --
MS. RECTOR: Certified values? Not yet. I
have not gotten them yet from the Appraisal District.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We are due to get that
hopefully pretty shortly.
MS. RECTOR: I was hoping this week.
JUDGE TINLEY: Would that include the -- the
impact that we can calculate the -- the elderly and disabled
tax freeze?
MS. RECTOR: That'll be in my calculations to
see what the loss is going to be for this year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. But you need the tax
roll -- certified tax roll in order to take the next step in
calculating that?
MS. RECTOR: Yes, that's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's what I thought.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I don't
differ with what's been said by others. I'd add a couple of
things that are not as high a priority, but things I think
we need to talk about early on. One is -- Mr. Trolinger, I
think, met with me yesterday; I think he met with
8-3-05 bwk
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Commissioner Williams -- is our computer situation. We need
to take a look at that and decide what direction we're going
to go. That's a very large expenditure any way we look at
it, and it's going to be this year or next year. It's
something pressing very soon, when that's done. And I think
that, in that area, I hope that -- from what he has said, a
lot of the elected officials, department heads favor going
to a new, better system, which is a more expensive option.
And I don't see any way we can do that unless there are,
this year, next year, the next couple years, personnel
reductions due to efficiencies that people think are going
to be gained by it. I just don't see that we have that
money. So, I think that's kind of a discussion of a lot of
elected officials, 'cause it's going to really impact their
workload, but it certainly is going to impact the budget no
matter how we do it. If there are no efficiencies to be
made by upgrading the system, I'd say I'm not going to be in
favor of it, 'cause there's got to be ways -- there's got to
be a reason to do it. And I think that's, you know,
something that's probably going to have to be faced this
year or next year. The other thing I'd really like to look
at early on is -- it's kind of going to sound pretty minor
when I say it, but it's mowing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't we talk about
that yesterday?
8-3-05 bwk
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Talked about this late
yesterday. It currently costs the City/County $48,000 to
mow the airport; that's the big mowing contract. And
there's -- if you look at the budget, there's another 20,000
for weedeating and other mowing, so you can add -- we have
$68,000 worth of mowing at the airport going on. Leonard, I
don't think he's -- I don't know that he's ever really
calculated how much it's costing his department to mow sides
of roads and things like that. Maintenance does parks. We
do a lot of mowing in this county. And I really would like
to get with the Sheriff, probably, Road and Bridge, and
Maintenance and see if there's way to consolidate this, get
some bigger, better equipment, and take on a lot more. I
believe the Sheriff has expressed an interest in using
trustees for work. Operating equipment may be a little bit
further than he wants to go. But it just seems to me that
there is a -- there should be a more efficient,
cost-effective way to get all of this mowing and weedeating
done county-wide. I mean, I bet -- I imagine if we totaled
it up, we're spending $150,000, $200,000 a year mowing. And
I think that we do have a labor pool -- you know, and I'm
talking cost of equipment and everything, you know. It's a
bunch of money.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's amazing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I'd just like to have
8-3-05 bwk
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
that discussion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you talking about
the possibility of Road and Bridge taking over the mowing at
the airport?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a
possible, yes. I think that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We contract it out now
to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We contract it out to a
third party for the big $48,000 contract. That contract can
be revoked by the Airport Board at any time, as long as it's
going to go in-house or get rebid. I mean, we can't just --
and in-house, it's a lot -- but there's also, if you look at
the airport budget, there's a lot of other mowing, you know,
of smaller mowers and weedeating around buildings and things
which aren't part of the big contract, which the -- it's
just a batwing trailer that does that, but we have this
courthouse, all the courthouse facilities, parks, you know,
and have to go -- the next step is along the roads. It just
doesn't make sense currently. We're having, basically, two
departments doing mowing. And maybe we need to stay that
way; I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe we need to
consolidate into one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. But there's a
8-3-05 bwk
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
lot -- it's a discussion I'd like to have, because it's an
area that I see of -- of potential savings. And they're not
going to cut it in half, necessarily, but I think there's
some more efficient ways to do things, possibly. That's
something I'd like to meet with them on at one of our early
workshops along with that. Today, I -- I think the first
thing to tackle is EMS, and I plan to put it on the next
agenda again, but just start a discussion on that, and
probably hit the juvenile facility -- Juvenile Detention
Facility. I think those are the two items that it would
help a lot if we can get at least a direction known on those
two. And then set up a schedule for the rest of the
workshops.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a follow-up to
what Commissioner Letz is talking about in terms of the
mowing and other things that go on at the airport. For
years, we never gave it -- gave it much thought, because the
City was actually the operator out there, and they just did
those things, and they did it whenever it needed to be done,
I guess, and put it in an airport budget, and there wasn't
any oversight, essentially. But I think it's time for us to
do that, and there -- that brings into -- for the Court's
benefit, the discussion that led us into this had to do with
separating out some of the things that were taken for
granted as part of the management contract between the
8-3-05 bwk
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
County and the City, and having an opportunity to have some
of those things bid out or explore different avenues to
reduce expenses. And, so, mowing is one of them, and
tending of the lights is another, and maintenance of the
roads is another. And so, you know, I think -- I think we
have the opportunity -- certainly, we have the opportunity,
and I think we have the ability, probably, to effect a
solution that saves some dollars out there. If we save some
dollars out there, we also save the County's underwriting as
well as the City's underwriting of any deficit expenses out
there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think the -- this
discussion is -- this isn't coming back to the Court to
start looking at this; it's Airport Board that's going to be
looking at it. It's not -- the discussion was -- and I
think it's largely due to a change in management in the City
when Mr. Patterson left. It was contemplated that a lot of
this information was going to be available this year for the
budget, and it isn't. They just -- the City just doesn't
have the numbers broken out in a way that it can
meaningfully be -- some of these things broken out. So, the
Airport Board has put on our next agenda that we're going to
really look at it and see if we can't -- we're going to
start -- I hope the Airport Board starts receiving financial
information much the way the Court receives it on every
8-3-05 bwk
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
meeting, or every meeting the bills coming in. Not
necessarily that they be paid ahead of time, since we only
meet once a month, but, you know, we know all the checks
that are going out, all the line items. That has not been
done ever, and still is not being done. And it's supposed
to be -- the City was supposed to be keeping track of this
this year, and they didn't. And I don't -- I think it was
just a management change, was the issue. Mr. Davis,
obviously -- he -- you know, blank stare when I brought up
the idea; he just wasn't aware of it. So -- but I think
there's some things there I don't -- that may or may not be
saved, but certainly have more oversight, I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We might -- might
note also, for the benefit of the Court, that we -- we did,
in effect, break through in the reserve account issue
yesterday, because in the management contract between the
City and the County, we have the right to commit any excess
from the previous budget over into the -- the ensuing year
as a -- as a mitigating -- to mitigate expense -- the
expenses of the upcoming year. So, they were originally
proposing to just transfer over $42,000, keep on carrying
that $42,000 forward, and we insisted that they use it
differently and commit it to the budget for '05-'06, thereby
reducing the commitment on both the City and the County's
part. That's a little bit of a budget breakthrough over
8-3-05 bwk
13
1 I 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 LETZ: The big difference was --
was basically the Airport Board -- it was proposed
originally to the Airport Board by the City that we keep a
reserve fund, and the County's already keeping a reserve
fund. You know, we -- you know, they're our reserves. If
there's an emergency out there, they're going to have to
come back to us, which is -- rather than just keep on taxing
the taxpayers and keeping it in another reserve fund. So,
we just eliminated or are in the process of keeping the
reserve to an absolute minimum over there at the airport,
and which saves each the City and the County almost $16,000
out of the assessment for this year.
The final thing that I think we need to do,
and this is also on the agenda for us to get into, but I
think it's really part of the workshop as well; I think we
need to go through our employee evaluations and report to
the Court. That, to me, is very much tied to budget. I'm
putting it on the agenda for Monday for us to actually set
up a schedule for this, but I think that can probably be
done during one of the early workshop days as an executive
session item, 'cause there -- and meet with all the
employees that report to us and go over the evaluations. I
believe they've all been done by each of us. That's all I
have.
8-3-05 bwk
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Looks like the
consensus I'm hearing is EMS issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that number one?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fine with me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I do have a
comment.
JUDGE TINLEY: I thought you would. I
thought you would.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number one, I think
this thing -- I mean, I've just about got a bellyful of all
of this already. It -- any time that men can't sit down and
work something out, there's something definitely wrong,
particularly government leaders that represent taxpayers and
people. And I'm wondering, and I've been wondering, you
know, what -- what is really the division, or what is really
the problem here? And I guess it boils down to that the
city government has a philosophy on how to do things, and
county government has a different philosophy. And it
appears to me that on the issue of EMS and how to fund it,
it appears to me that the City, they simply want to spread
out the cost to all taxpayers in the county, and the
County's view on it is that the folks that use the service
should pay for it. And I'm all there; I'm all over that
theory. However, we did the same thing with the fire
8-3-05 bwk
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
contract, simply spread out amongst all taxpayers, and there
are many, many folks out there that'll never use that
service. Maybe we should address that.
If the fire truck rolls to the Judge's house
out in the county, maybe he should pay for it, that -- that
same theory. I just -- I can't get past why a government
entity wouldn't look at getting the user to pay for the
service, as opposed to charging all taxpayers. I can't --
my mind just won't go that far. I guess I'm just not as
smart as some people. And, basically, I -- I see this thing
heading down the road of, "I am smarter than you. I'm going
to get one over on you. I'm going to get the best of you.
I'm going to outsmart you." And that is not -- that makes
me a little bit sick at the stomach, that a government body
would think that way. And I've been here a lot of years;
I've never seen that in our community, and it's very
distasteful, and I don't like it.
So, back to my original statement, that grown
men, especially elected officials, should be able to sit
down and talk through things and work issues out. The idea
of something being nonnegotiable, that shouldn't even be a
part of the English language, in my opinion, when it comes
to government bodies working together for the good of all
taxpayers. So, whatever -- whatever we do as far as doing
the contract -- the present contract with the City, to me,
8-3-05 bwk
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that is nothing more than a bandaid in itself. It's a
short-term -- next year we're going to go through it again,
and the following year we're going to do it again. So, to
me, it's just a -- it's a bandaid. So, I think -- I think
the way -- the long-term cure to this thing is for us to put
on the fast track an emergency service district county-wide,
commonly known as an ESD. Ingram has one; Mountain Home has
one. Very, very successful.
And you can do these things -- the way I
understand it, you can do EMS or fire, or EMS and fire. The
way I understand it also, the first step going down that
road would be -- I was told this morning that we had to get
permission from the Sheriff, and he's going to love that. I
don't know about that, but that's what I was told. But the
exciting part about it, the good part about it is that the
people -- the voters, the taxpayers in the county -- get the
opportunity to approve or disapprove. If they want the
service, they simply approve it, and if they don't, they
don't approve it. And an ESD, of course, as we all know,
can be taxed 10 -- up to 10 cents on a $100 value. That
is -- I don't remember where Ingram is right now. I don't
know if they're at the max or not, but I don't think so; I
don't think they ever went there. They started out about 3
cents, but they've been extremely -- very, very successful
for Ingram Fire Department. And a board of directors is put
8-3-05 bwk
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in place, and they run it, much like what we're talking
about at the airport. So, to me, that's not a bandaid
approach. That's a -- that's a good, wholesome way to do
this thing, and where we don't have to play pattycake with
the City of Kerrville in the ensuing years. That's all I
have to say right now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to add a
couple thoughts to what you just said. I think an ESD has a
lot of merit, and it does a couple other things too. It --
it could -- once put in place, it would forever end, in my
mind, the disingenuous argument of double taxation, because
taxpayers would be funding one entity that takes care of
those services. That would end the double taxation
argument, and we hear that all the time, so that would go
away. But it would also enable the City and the County to
back out those expenses for -- that support these things now
out of our budget, and either reduce our tax rate
accordingly, or if a need was there, commit those to other
services that are vital and necessary to be improved. So, I
think there's a lot of merit there. And the question is,
how quickly can you get that done, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, pretty quick.
If we agree to it, pretty quick. You -- there's very few
steps you take down the road. We'll have to have a couple
of workshops and get some professionals in here to dot the
8-3-05 bwk
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
25
I's, cross the T's, and I have a couple of professionals
that are waiting in the wings as we speak, ready to do that
and get it on the ballot. We have some elections coming up,
if we could add this issue to one of those ballots.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, it will take the
concurrence and support by the City --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The City would have
to concur in wanting to do this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hmm-mm. This is
outside the city limits.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're just talking
about outside the city limits?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's okay, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was my question. Is
it -- so there would be a -- the City would run their EMS
the way they want to, and the -- and this would be everybody
else?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Actually, I
actually I kind of see it as a -- once the board of
directors is set up, they actually make that decision
whether they want to contract with the City and continue the
8-3-05 bwk
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
service and pay them, or set up their own whatever.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When you -- when you
define the boundaries of the ESD, you do that prior to the
election. This one could be the entire county, or it could
be everything outside the city limits of Kerrville or
something like that. Ingram, for example, their ESD is
larger than the city of Ingram.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you drew a line
around it, say, "This is who we're going to tax and what
we're going to spend the money on." Coincidentally, the ESD
boundaries -- not coincidence, planned -- are the same as
the Ingram Fire Department boundaries.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the same with
Mountain Home.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The same with
Mountain Home. Doesn't have to be that way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mountain Home, for
example, in a discussion with saying we'll take in buy it
too but we didn't do that. That's an option for each --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess I'm going to
wonder out loud, Commissioner. The notion -- stick with me
through this. The notion of creating, for example, a
library district, which is the same principle, has been
8-3-05 bwk
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
advanced by both the City and the County, you know, just in
general -- in general conceptual terms, so there seems to be
some interest that that might be an approach in terms of
solving the library issues. And so I'm wondering whether or
not there might also be interest on their part to be -- to
be included in the creation of an ESD that includes the city
as well as the outlying area, and do it once and for all for
everybody. I wonder if we should not explore that, I guess
is what I'm asking.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think two things; I
think it's a great idea. We've talked about it a little
bit, and I think it's a -- just because of other events, the
time is probably to push forward now, as opposed to going a
little bit slower. I think there's been some discussions
previously about doing the ESD, and the library district as
well. I mean, you know, I have no problem doing both at the
same time, really. I see Ms. Pieper in the audience. I
believe that the last date to get something on the November
ballot is September 7th?
MS. PIEPER: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I don't know if we can
get something that quick.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it would be -- that's
either.
8-3-05 bwk
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
a target date, and I would -- you know, the next week or so,
or as soon as we can, maybe schedule a workshop. Next
week's a bad week for Commissioner Williams and myself,
'cause we'll be in Austin, but as soon as we can schedule a
workshop to explore some of these ideas, and also, I think
that -- I see -- I know one -- I see two members of the
press in the audience. I would imagine the City's going to
be aware of this conversation very rapidly. If they can
send either a formal invitation to -- for them to come to
our -- you know, the workshop, or advise us. I mean, you
know, I think we should explore if the City wants to be
included in it or not. It's kind of their choice. My gut
feeling -- I -- my guess is they're not, but I have no idea.
I haven't really explored that directly with them.
But I think that Commissioner Baldwin is very
much correct; this is the long-term solution. Otherwise,
we're going to be going through this discussion continually.
If we can get it done by the November ballot, I think
that -- you know, I don't know how long it takes them to set
everything up beyond that. I would suspect we still are
going to need another year to set it up, so we're going to
probably have at least -- you know, best case going down
that road, we'll have one more year to work out an agreement
with the City of Kerrville or go to a third party, which is
our two options for the short term. I have visited with two
8-3-05 bwk
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
members of City Council, both of whom assured me that they
want to be fair -- individually want to be fair. They were
not extremely happy with the way -- you know, where we are,
either. But I reminded them that it takes three votes to
get something done over there, and three votes to get an
agreement. I told them that it will be back on our agenda
and they will probably get another proposal next week, and
it's up to them, you know, to respond.
I mean, their last response was a
nonresponse, in my opinion. We put forward a number of
concepts primarily going down towards a user-pay, and they
were silent, to my knowledge, on that point. They got
sidetracked on the 5 percent reserve and a few other items
that weren't even really part of the proposal. Those
were -- to me, the key component of our proposal was we need
to go back to more of a user-pay system, and they seemed to
ignore that in their discussions. So, you know, my view is
that -- send it back over there, but I think we need to
pursue other alternatives, because while I'm somewhat
optimistic we can come to an agreement because I think there
are reasonable people in the city, I think we also have to
be prepared for another alternative of hiring some sort of a
contract company or starting a system pretty quick. Because
I think the -- I mean, the current proposal doesn't make
sense to me, and has not, and I just can't agree with it.
8-3-OS bwk
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just following up on
what you're saying, Mr. County Attorney, is there any reason
why, in your mind, that, based on this discussion -- which
we're trying to explore a long-term solution with another
governmental entity. Is there any reason in your mind why a
task force of two Commissioners and two City Councilpersons
could not meet to discuss this and bring it back to the
respective bodies? I know you had opined on this issue, but
in a different context, on one other occasion; that's why
I'm asking.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In a posted meeting?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I don't care.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would say the City's
view is, based on their legal counsel, they will not have
two -- they will not have two City Council representatives
at a meeting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, then it has to
be posted.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was told that by two of
them yesterday, so --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Forget the question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, you know,
Commissioner Williams, my problem with that is, we tried
that, and we had Councilman Wampler and the City Manager
here, and from what I've been told, there was -- that
8-3-05 bwk
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
information was not taken back to the full Council.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my
understanding.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I don't see any point
in having a committee if that information is not going to be
disseminated amongst the rest of the Council. And I
don't -- and from talking to them, it wasn't. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I think I will be very
much in favor of having a joint meeting of the full Court
and full Council, but I don't see it as -- a committee isn't
working. We've tried that approach, and we've wasted two
weeks -- or actually, we've wasted a month. So, to me, it's
either -- we just give them another proposal, and we can
kind of lob it over there and they'll lob it back over here,
and, you know, waste a bunch of time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pattycakes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Play pattycakes. Or we
sit down at a meeting and, you know -- you know, and
reasonable people trying to figure out what's a fair
contract, and don't leave the room until we finish. I mean,
those are the two options that I see.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Where does that leave us,
8-3-05 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
JUDGE TINLEY: Other than the fact that it's
going to be on the next agenda and we'll -- we'll transmit
something at that point, obviously.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are your
thoughts on it, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I -- there's another
vehicle that can be utilized, but I don't think you can
incorporate the fire aspect into it, which would be a down
side, because I think we need to get the fire aspect of it
solved also. That's an ongoing continuation year after year
after year, issue that we've got to face, and we've seen --
we've seen that escalate pretty dramatically in the past
several years. There is another vehicle which I believe
might be available that relates to medical services by which
you can have a referendum to dedicate up to a half cent
sales tax for medical services, which would include -- I
think it has occurred in other areas; I believe Uvalde, for
one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mason.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I believe Mason was
another. Emergency medical service, as a way of funding
that operation. That might be a more palatable way to the
taxpayers to look at that kind of a situation. I would
8-3-05 bwk
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
certainly be more in favor of it if somehow we could
incorporate the fire aspect into that also, because, like
Commissioner Baldwin, if it just solves the EMS problem,
that's half of the solution, and what we really need is an
entire solution for both problems on a permanent basis.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, the program
that you're talking about, I know just a tiny bit about it.
Representative Hilderbran's office called me last night and
wanted to know if we were interested, and my phone went dead
so I didn't get through the entire conversation. I'll pick
that up today. Obviously, it takes an action of the
Legislature, so I think --
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's a referendum of
the local taxpayers, the local voters.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it may be.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think it's -- enabling
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
I think it's
JUDGE TINLEY: -- local government -- local
citizens can act on it by virtue of a referendum. Like you,
I've had some very limited conversations with Representative
Hilderbran, and I've got some information coming on that
issue and hope to learn more about it. But my present
understanding is that it was set up originally to provide a
8-3-05 bwk
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
funding method to take care of health care needs, as opposed
to general emergency services needs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that it has been utilized
to incorporate EMS solutions, but whether or not we could
fit fire under it, I don't know. I don't know whether we've
got one possible solution for both, or maybe have two.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that include
indigent health care?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I bet it does.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Think it does?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. To me, it's --
the little I know of it, it sounds like that it's geared in
that direction. Maybe not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I think the next
step, I mean, aside from discussing it again Monday, would
be to get a -- someone down here in a workshop format
A.S.A.P., because I have a lot of questions. I think one of
my biggest questions is what you do, like, with the Comfort
Fire Department situation. I mean, if we go fire. Here you
have	a --	a fire --	volunteer fire department that	covers a
huge	part	of eastern	Kerr County that is physically	located
8-3-05 bwk
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in an adjoining county. I mean, they're almost equally
split geographically. And, you know, so there's that issue,
and I don't know how you -- I don't know how you work that.
We'd have -- well, it used to be in Commissioner Williams'
precinct; now it's in mine. There's a portion of far
southeastern Kerr County that's handled by the Castle Lakes
Fire Department. So we have -- I'm sure you and I, we
have -- Junction handles part of -- for fire, anyway -- of
west Kerr County. So I think there's hopefully someone that
comes in and can explain. Do we have to dissolve those
entities and come up with new fire departments? Which
doesn't seem efficient at all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which the same
make a county-wide -- or are they cut out of the referendum
and all that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's lots of
questions, and I think, you know, the -- it seems it would
be almost simpler early on to tackle EMS, and maybe then go
fire the next step. But it may be easier to do it all at
once, but that's the kind of thing I would like to ask
someone who is, you know, more knowledgeable. So if we
could -- Commissioner Baldwin has some people that he could
bring to the Court that we could discuss this with, I'd say
8-3-05 bwk
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
as soon as we can have an open date to do a workshop on that
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When we established
Mountain Home Emergency Service District, probably one of
the guys you're talking to, the expert from Austin, came
down and met with us, and in about two hours he had it all
laid out, "Here's what you got to do," answered all the
questions, and they were off and running. One other -- not
critical, but I think important aspect of going to ESD's, we
need to be sensitive that the volunteer fire departments
feel a little bit threatened by such an action, and their
principal concern is, right now, most of their income comes
from donations, and they're afraid that when people are
taxed, they'll say, "Okay, I'm paying tax; I won't need to
make any more donations." And their -- the fire
department's concern is that their gross income will be
smaller. I don't think we've -- we've seen that happen in
Ingram or Mountain Home. I think the contributions come in
at about the same pace they always have, so -- but if you're
talking with fire departments, that's one of the first
things they'll bring up to you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other side of that,
though, I know from talking with Comfort Fire Department --
I mean, it is harder and harder for them to raise money. I
8-3-05 bwk
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
mean, Hunt's been very, very fortunate, I know, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just a bunch of rich
people out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wasn't going to say
that, but -- but there are -- I know that the -- I think
most volunteer fire departments are having a harder and
harder time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I know my two
are.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And then one other
thing. The cost to of providing fire protection in
Kerrville South is big; it's about as big as all the rest of
the county put together. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bigger.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- this would solve
that problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, it would.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And other areas around
the city. I mean, there's, you know, Kerrville South's the
biggie, but you also have out along Highway 16 and the north
side, both sides of the road. I mean, those areas are not
covered by volunteer fire departments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're responded to
by the city, right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But the city
8-3-05 bwk
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
contract, as I know we're aware, only provides one truck.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is -- for a
structural fire, is really just not enough, so they have to
wait. The city sends their one truck, and then volunteer
fire departments come in from somewhere as a backup. And
that's -- you know, we've had some bad situations because of
that, and because the city contract doesn't -- it's kind of
a bandaid in itself, because it doesn't really provide full
fire protection. It's a partial fire protection contract.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson
referred to the formation of the Mountain Home ESD. That
gentleman from Austin made himself almost instantly
available, and he was very, very cooperative, very
knowledgeable, very helpful in the formative aspects of that
district. I think the quicker we get rolling on this thing,
even if it's the early part of next week -- we can't post
for this week, obviously; we're a little late on that. But
the two of y'al1 are due to be in Austin?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wednesday, Thursday, and
Friday. But don't we have a workshop scheduled Tuesday?
JUDGE TINLEY: We do on Tuesday, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we schedule
this as part of that workshop?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think there's a workshop
8-3-05 bwk
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
scheduled in the afternoon. We might be able to tack this
on the end of it, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who was that
gentleman?
JUDGE TINLEY: With regard to the VFD's, I
think the ESD's have the ability to contract with volunteer
fire departments within their jurisdictional area, and you
have that versatility. Those, of course, would be some more
issues that we'd want to get resolved, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you could
potentially --
JUDGE TINLEY: Leave the volunteers intact.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The ESD would be able to
raise money, and then the ESD would provide the funding to
the volunteer fire departments.
JUDGE TINLEY: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then you'd create new
fire departments in areas where you need new ones.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: ESD has the ability
to do it itself or contract to have it done. It becomes the
umbrella, actually.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That sounds like a -- a
win-win for volunteer fire departments, to me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It has a lot of
potential.
8-3-05 bwk
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they decide they want
to -- you know, if they want to change their boundaries and
things, there's a -- in fact, there's a place to accommodate
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just take a drive out
to Ingram sometime and look at Ingram's fire department.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've seen it. It's
amazing.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
long-term solution. What a
meantime?
BALDWIN: Blow you away.
LETZ: It's amazing.
BALDWIN: It is amazing.
WILLIAMS: So, that's the
re we going to do in the
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's on Monday's agenda
for us to hammer out another counterproposal to the City.
And I'm -- you know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that
there's going to be a lot of hammering. I like -- I wasn't
here, but I like the basic -- I mean, I like what y'all sent
over there. I like the counterproposal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like it too. I think
that it's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sensible.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's sensible. I think
8-3-05 bwk
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
there's a few things you have to modify. I think one of	the
things I was going to chuckle in my -- internally, is their
current proposal has us paying for half of a fire truck,	and
I'm wondering if -- I'm just thinking, so we're going to	buy
half a fire truck for one year, I guess, under their	
proposal. But, anyway, so --	
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What I was kind of	
dismayed about when I got -- over the weekend when I read	
the article in the paper, was -- was the response of one	of
the City Councilpersons to our proposal that said, I	
believe -- I believe I'm quoting it correctly -- said	
it's -- the County's proposal is unworkable. And I find	
that interesting, because there was no -- there was no	
explanation as to why our proposal was unworkable. So I	
guess I'd kind of like to know what's unworkable about it	so
that those issues can be addressed and we can figure that	
out. If we can get to the bottom of that, that would be
nifty.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've given you a
piece of paper that -- I don't think we want to get into too
much detail, but I just wanted to explain it in case the
explanation on -- in the print is not clear enough. I also
wondered what that "unworkable" meant, so what we've got is
EMS being partially funded by collection of fees, and then
the $400,000 that fees don't cover is being funded by
8-3-05 bwk
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
taxpayers, with Kerrville taxpayers paying about 200 of it,
and county-wide taxpayers paying about 200. So, I -- and
we've talked about before about raising the fees to where --
where it is revenue cost neutral, revenues equal costs. And
if -- if that's the part that's unworkable for the City,
then this suggests that there's another way to go, and
that's have a two-tier rate structure. If the call is out
in the county, one set of prices would occur, and if the
call is in the city limits, or either Ingram or Kerrville,
another set. What I've outlined here would make it revenue
neutral -- revenue cost neutral for the County, and if
Kerrville chooses to stay with their current partial
user-pay schedule, then they -- we could have two rates.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's pretty -- I am
very close to the same spot. I believe I visited with
Commissioner Baldwin briefly about it, asked him to do --
check on some things, which I think he has. I'd go a step
further than that. This is where I think the proposal that
-- you know, directionally, what I'd probably propose on
Monday is just that -- I mean, I think that -- I can't
understand why we don't have the ability to tell the City
what we want them to charge for the customers going into the
county. I mean, but I think the next step of that is that
we take over the billing and the collections for that --
everything outside the city as well. And there are some
8-3-05 bwk
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
companies that I understand -- and Commissioner Baldwin has,
I know, made some calls yesterday; there are companies that
do just that. So, all we would ask the contract for the
City would be -- would be that they provide the service.
The County will pay the City for that service, and then we
will handle all the billing, all the collections and
everything, and we'll keep all that revenue. And what we
pay the City will be offset close to 100 percent out of what
we collect. And that's the direction I'd go, which means
that we'll be using a whole lot less of the city service,
too. We will not be using the billing department. We will
not be using a lot of their collections, so it would reduce
the cost to the County quite a bit. And if the City wants
to absorb -- you know, like I say, the intent of our
proposal was to try to fix a system to make it better
throughout the city and the county. If the City doesn't
want to discuss that, well, then we can just try and make it
better for the county.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's where I think the
mod -- the change in proposal hopefully will come on Monday.
But I don't see any big difference in the -- our
counterproposal back to The city.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we ready to jump
into juvenile detention?
8-3-05 bwk
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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can we postpone it
just a little longer?
JUDGE TINLEY: Two or three years, maybe?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I'm ready.
JUDGE TINLEY: Go for it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess -- when I say
I'm ready, I guess we're just talking about the basic
strategy on how to approach this thing. And I don't have --
the Auditor's not here, so I can't get a fix on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Williams,
can I interrupt for a second?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see -- I just -- I see
one, two, three -- I see several county department heads
here. Are we going to get into individual departments
today? I mean, I -- they're welcome to stay if they want to
listen to EMS and Juvenile Detention Facility, but I don't
see -- I just want to free them up if they -- if we're not
going to -- I know Len usually has things to do. If we
don't need Len here, he'd probably just as soon go somewhere
else for a while.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see us getting
into individual departments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not today.
25 I COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see us setting some
8-3-05 bwk
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
budget meetings and basic ideas, and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way I see
it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- I'm going to go eat
lunch. Y'all can sit here the rest of the day if you want
to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyone that doesn't want
to stay --
MS. UECKER: I would like to kind of get a
feel for what the schedule's going to be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's one of the
things we want to do, is set a schedule.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we do that
first, then get into Juvenile Detention? I just hate to see
people sitting around when they have things I know they
could be doing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we have set some
dates and times for workshops, but we haven't assigned what
departments we do what days.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, in that
connection, I'd like for us to attack -- we can talk about
this later, but I'd like for to us attack -- I use the word
advisedly -- the Juvenile Detention Facility as probably the
first one out of the barrel -- in the barrel, and then work
our way through the other departments. Accordingly, I think
8-3-05 bwk
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
that one's going to take a couple hours or more -- two or
three hours of discussion of various strategies, options,
and so forth before we get a handle on exactly what it is
we'd like to do, so I'd like for that one to be number one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And so that would be
Tuesday?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine with me,
sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Tuesday, I'd also like
to ask the Sheriff, Maintenance, and Road and Bridge to
discuss, if they're looking collectively at mowing,
tractors, what we have -- even what we have, and just report
back to us, and kind of as to, is there something that they
think we can do to make things work a little bit better?
'Cause that's kind of a joint -- and then go into Road and
Bridge, Sheriff, and Maintenance probably as the first
couple of --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Put all those
together into one?
JUDGE TINLEY: Are we going to try and get an
ESD workshop on next Tuesday afternoon also?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, if we can.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's no way you'll
be able to do all that.
25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm-mm.
8-3-05 bwk
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to bump the ESD
to the following budget workshop on Wednesday, the 17th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff, Road and
Bridge, and Maintenance you're talking next Tuesday?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know if we'll get
all of them in. I'd say I'd like to have a report back in
the beginning from all three, and then just go with probably
the Sheriff and Road and Bridge, and that should be enough
for that day.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you wanting those
individual departments' budgets on that day also? As well
as this mowing issue that you're talking -- mowing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think just one of them.
I don't think we can handle Sheriff and Road and Bridge in
the same day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, okay. Which one
do you want to tackle?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do Road and Bridge.
Len's here.
MR. ODOM: What time?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Road and Bridge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's at 1:30? 1:30.
MR. ODOM: 1:30.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What day? Tuesday?
8-3-05 bwk
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Tuesday, the 9th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9th. And then maybe
Maintenance after that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Same day? Tuesday?
Maintenance?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's probably
enough for that day.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, we're talking on Tuesday,
the 9th, the mowing issue, which is going to involve the
Sheriff, Road and Bridge, and Maintenance, the Juvenile
Detention Facility, Road and Bridge Department budgets, and
Maintenance budgets. Is that what I'm hearing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One thing on the mowing
issue, you know, I don't know what y'all think about -- I
know the Sheriff had mentioned he would like to get a
trustee work program kind of going, and I see that really as
a separate item than his normal budget. That's something --
you know, I'd like to hear about that as well if we have
time, because that kind of ties in with the mowing,
potentially. Or not -- you know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe we should do the
Sheriff's budget as opposed to Road and Bridge.
8-3-05 bwk
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that's fine. That
makes sense. Do the Road and Bridge the following --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take out Road and
Bridge, put them in Wednesday, the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 17th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- 17th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do them in the morning?
Do the workshop in the afternoon?
JUDGE TINLEY: The ESD workshop?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want that in the
afternoon?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to keep that
separate from everything else we're doing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I say do it in
the afternoon, and that's all we'll do in the afternoon.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1:30.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What else do you want
in the morning? Do you want Road and Bridge in the morning?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MR. ODOM: Tuesday morning?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Wednesday, the 17th.
8-3-05 bwk
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wednesday, the 17th.
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We need to devote --
MR. ODOM: -- I'm lost.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- some time to --
JUDGE TINLEY: We scratched you on Tuesday,
the 9th --
MR. ODOM: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- and plugged in the Sheriff
instead. And we've moved you to the morning of Wednesday,
the 17th.
MR. ODOM: What time in the morning?
JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to start at 9:00,
I think.
MR. ODOM: 9 o'clock?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We could take
Information Technology on Wednesday, the 17th also.
JUDGE TINLEY: We need to do that one --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty quick.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- earlier.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Which one?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I.T.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wednesday morning,
the 17th. And then Road and Bridge. And when are we going
to be ready to talk about the library, Commissioner?
8-3-05 bwk
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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's been no
movement since we last talked.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Next year, huh?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we've got the entire
City/County situation that we're going to have to revisit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably don't like that
reminder, but there it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Linda, do you have any
preference for -- since you're here?
MR. ODOM: In reference to what, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, Linda.
MR. ODOM: I can't hear any more.
MS. UECKER: No, not really.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yours usually doesn't
take that much time. If you want, I think we can probably
do it that same morning of the 17th.
MS. UECKER: 17th?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MS. UECKER: I want to go before Maintenance
and the Sheriff, though, so you don't give them everything
and give me what's left over.
JUDGE TINLEY: Too late.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You want to go first
8-3-05 bwk
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
before the Sheriff?
JUDGE TINLEY: You're already too late.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Probably ought to
schedule library and Animal Control in the same workshop,
since both of them got to do with joint County/City things.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think all of the City/County
things should come in one -- one session.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: After these, why don't we
just let the Judge plug the rest of them in so we don't miss
some?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We still got the
24th. We haven't even talked about it yet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. The rest of them
come in on the 24th, 'cause most other departments won't
take that long.
MS. RECTOR: I won't be here on the 24th.
I'll be in Austin.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who said that?
MS. RECTOR: Me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Paula. Put you down for the
morning of the 17th?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to say,
no budget for next year for you.
MS. RECTOR: That's fine. No money for the
County.
8-3-05 bwk
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be nice.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On second thought...
JUDGE TINLEY: What time would you like?
MS. RECTOR: Gee, I have a choice?
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll put you down for the
morning of the 17th.
MS. RECTOR: Okay.
MS. UECKER: And I'm down for the morning as
well? Okay.
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only	thing, just make
sure, Len --	Len? On the 17th, though,	we do want to
discuss the m	owing issue that morning.	
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:	I thought they were
doing that on	the 9th.	
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: I me	an the 9th, I'm
sorry. We're	doing the mowing, but not	the rest of your
budget; just	that one mowing topic.	
	MR. ODOM: On the 9th?	
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah	.
	MR. ODOM: At 1:30?	
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: No,	morning.
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:	9 o'clock.
	MR. ODOM: That's okay,	guys. I'm an Aggie.
	MS. MITCHELL: No, on th	e 9th is at 1:30.
	MR. ODOM: Wednesday at	9 o'clock is what you
8-3-05 bwk
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
said; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the 17th, we're doing
your Road and Bridge budget. Wednesday, the 17th.
JUDGE TINLEY: At 9 a.m. On Tuesday, the
9th, is the mowing issue that you're going to be -- mowing
and other maintenance issue.
MS. UECKER: At 1:30, though.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it's in the morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: No. No, the Tuesday one is at
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm
sorry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who's on second?
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And everybody else will
be on the 24th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All the others.
MS. UECKER: I know this might not be a
proper time, but can I tell y'all about a piece of
legislation that passed that may or may not affect us?
JUDGE TINLEY: Budgeting?
MS. UECKER: It may, I don't know. But it's
very interesting, though. House Bill 633 will now allow a
county employee to retire and go back to their same job
without losing retirement benefits after January lst.
8-3-05 bwk
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 BALDWIN: Just like the state.
MS. UECKER: Like the state. Mass exit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you can retire, get
your retirement benefits, and then come back to work?
MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: State does it a lot, a
lot of employees.
MS. UECKER: Yeah, state does it all the
time, and it really ticks me off, but, you know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that something
that's already passed? On the governor's desk?
MS. UECKER: It's already been signed by the
governor, and it's effective January the 1st.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We shall do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you're saying -- what
you're telling me is our retirement costs may be going up.
MR. ODOM: I don't think they get benefits
after that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I'm
saying. You can get benefits.
MS. UECKER: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: Oh. Is that --
MS. UECKER: Like, you could retire -- for
instance, I'm eligible to retire right now. If I retired
8-3-05 bwk
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
right now, I could get retirement and go to work for you
full-time.
MR. ODOM: But your -- your retirement --
MS. UECKER: And still get retirement.
MR. ODOM: But the retirement would start
her on a maintainer?
MS. UECKER: Heck, yeah.
MR. ODOM: She'd probably be pretty good.
JUDGE TINLEY: You cannot continue, in the
new employment, to accrue additional retirement benefits?
MS. UECKER: Yes, you can.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right, now juvenile
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, okay. I think
we got -- we've got to take a look at several options. We
know what's going on out there now, and we know that we
don't like particularly the red ink that that's engendering,
so I think we have to take a look at some options. As to
whether or not we scale the operation back, and if so, to
what extent, whether or not we change the formats and go
only preadjudicated as opposed to pre and post-adjudicated,
whether or not we leave the current management structure the
8-3-05 bwk
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
way it is, or whether we explore other options. And I think
there are probably two or three different strategies that we
need to take a look at, and all of them are going to be --
take some time to kick around. So, I think we're going to
need all the information we can get from Mrs. Harris. The
County Judge is going to have to give us some input, 'cause
he represents an element in terms of juvenile detention, you
know, Juvenile Probation Board. So, I -- you know, that's
all I wanted to say in terms of just kind of a review, but
we have to look at all these options. It's going to take
some time to do it. I know Mrs. Harris has put together two
or three different scenarios; 64 beds and preadjudicated
versus -- and post, and so forth and so on. But I want us
to look at all of them.
You raised some interesting questions in the
past in terms of -- of what is our obligation in terms of
underwriting the cost of the juveniles in this facility from
another county. We need to talk about that issue, not so
much in terms of what the obligation is, but what, in fact,
is a statewide practice, whether it's a kid coming in here
or one of our kids going another direction to some other
facility. So, I think we just need to know about it. We --
I can tell you, for one, I'm not willing to -- to engage in
a budget for the ensuing year that has as much red ink
attached to it as we have experienced over the last six
8-3-05 bwk
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
months, so we have to figure out what the option is that
gets us to a point where the Juvenile Detention Facility is
viable, and that the red ink is reduced to the lowest
possible point, or some break-even is on the horizon.
That's my speech.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I basically agree with
everything you said. I mean, I think the -- the hope in the
current budget was, and the projection was -- and I think it
was a projection we were provided by Ms. Harris -- was that
the facility would be a lot fuller and doing a lot better
than it is. And, for some reason, she chose not to give me
a copy of her proposed budget, so I really have no idea what
she's proposing; I've never received it. I mean, it's
obviously in the book here, but I know there's some other
stuff that was provided, earlier documentation that she, as
I understand it, gave to some Commissioners; I think the
Judge may have got it, but all the Commissioners were not
provided with that by her. So, you know, I have not -- I
think you've been given a lot. You're also liaison, so
that's fine.
But I -- my bottom line is that it cannot
continue to operate at the deficit level it's operating at.
It's -- and other than, you know, projections that I think
are unrealistic that I've seen, those are based on 100
25 ~ percent occupancy, which we know we're not going to ever
8-3-05 bwk
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have; nothing is ever 100 percent full. And even if it's
100 percent full, it still has a deficit. So, to me, we
look at the situation. In my mind, we're probably going
more towards a preadjudication facility only, changing
management structure, and probably trying to find another
use for part of that facility. And that's just from what
I've, you know, looked at it right now, but I'm willing to
listen to other options. That's just kind of the direction
that I've arrived at based on the discussions this Court's
had previously.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All those should be
on the table for discussion, every single one of them, and
they're all options. They all have merit, and there maybe
some down sides, and we need to explore that as well. Do we
need to be talking in terms of 64 or 48 beds? Do we need to
be talking in terms of 24? Do we need to be spread out over
two buildings, or can we consolidate into one building?
Could the second building be available for other county
uses? I would suspect that it could, and these are things
that need to be out there. Does the management structure
need to stay the same as it is today, or can it be folded
into another department? All those are viable questions
that deserve some answers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the only thing I
would add to one of your statements, because it appears
8-3-05 bwk
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
there's going to be -- or there may be a building available
for some use, I don't think we need to limit that to county
use. I know the City continues to need space, and there may
be others in the -- outside the county or the city that may
need space and want to use part of that facility for a
purpose.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That may be very
true, Commissioner. I only mentioned the County; I hadn't
thought about that aspect of it. But I also know that the
County spends money renting facilities all over the -- all
over the lot here, and maybe that building offers an
opportunity to be restructured and we can stop renting and
we move them into our own facility. So, I just think we
need to talk about it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's also -- well,
nevermind. That was -- what I was going to say was not
going to be a correct statement, so I won't say it.
Luckily, I caught myself.
JUDGE TINLEY: I gather that before we get
into those specific issues, from Commissioner Williams'
comments, that he wanted Ms. Harris available?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's
necessary for her to be, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: And also probably the Auditor.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's
8-3-05 bwk
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
necessary for Ms. Harris to be available and the County
Auditor to be available, you to be available, Probation
Department be available, County Attorney to be available. I
think we explore this thing top to bottom, inside and out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to try and put
that together for later this morning or this afternoon?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought we
scheduled it for the 9th.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We did, but if you want
to -- if that's not going to be enough time --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's up to the Court.
I don't care.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we should try to
get all of the people that the Commissioner has mentioned at
least down here so we can explain what we want to pursue, so
we don't waste time on the 9th. I think this is what we
want to have presented back to us so we can make a decision
and move forward.
JUDGE TINLEY: What I'm -- having heard that,
what I'm thinking is maybe we need to take a short break and
see if we can rattle these folks up, get them down here,
tell them what our general conceptual thinking is and what
we expect them to bring us and be available with on the 9th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I may be redundant
8-3-05 bwk
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
here, but what I would like to see before we get to that
decision-making time is the various cases. Case one,
continuous renewal. Case 2, cut back to preadjudicated --
whatever they are. I'd like to have a little time with that
so I can understand it before we .get into that meeting, so I
think Ms. Harris is probably the only one that can provide
that to us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's an excellent
point. And probably, among us, there's probably only two of
us that have the various scenarios. I'm sure the Judge has
them, and I have some of those scenarios. I may not even
have all of them, but I have some of them. But none of us
have them in a spreadsheet form where we can take a look at
it and make that kind of comparison to see, you know, what
it's all about. I'd like to see that evolve, if at all
possible. And -- but, you know, I think the first step is
to get the folks in and tell them what we want to examine.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the scenarios that
I've got -- the last scenarios I've got are what's in your
budget book, and if we need that expanded upon, why, we need
to give her that direction. But those are the last
scenarios that I got from her.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, maybe we should --
maybe we should recess until 11:00?
25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah. And I'll get on
8-3-OS bwk
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
the horn, see if I can rattle these folks up.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think, before you
recess --
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- what I've got
here in the book is the business-as-usual case, I presume.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not doing anything
different than we're doing now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What tab?
JUDGE TINLEY: 22.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 22.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this the --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That 2 million, 357
requested.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm, yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do I find anywhere
in here what the projected revenues are?
JUDGE TINLEY: These didn't get -- are they
in a different format?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's part of the
problem.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We need the projected
revenues in each of the scenarios, as well as the
8-3-05 bwk
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
anticipated expense.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, in my working here that
I -- maybe there was some miscommunication between
Ms. Mitchell and I. I thought all of this got in each of
y'all's budget books.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, we can --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. My apologies,
gentlemen. I thought they had got into each one of y'all's.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was that you
just handed Ms. Mitchell?
JUDGE TINLEY: That was some -- 11 residents,
one building; 24 residents, one building; 60 residents, two
buildings.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, good start.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that the budget
that Mrs. Harris turned in? Her request that a couple of
members of the Court got and the rest of us didn't?
JUDGE TINLEY: What I had asked her to do was
to give us various scenarios, and I told her that I was
going to hold her portion of the budget open until I got
those scenarios. We got the first one, the
business-as-usual that we've heard referred to, and I waited
until she pulled that in before I put together the budget
books. And it was for that reason that I thought that
information -- same information got in every one of y'all's.
8-3-05 bwk
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
Obviously, it didn't. It was a miscommunication between
Ms. Mitchell and I. I don't know if -- I think these are
the most recent ones.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: We can certainly inquire of
Ms. Harris if these are the most current, or if not, make
sure that we get the most current ones.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or we'll get those in a
few minutes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I Just want to
mention one other thing. A couple weeks ago, I think it
was, a -- a person from Nashville, Tennessee, who is in the
business of juvenile jails contacted me and said, "I
understand you all are in the jail business now; didn't used
to be." We talked a little bit about it. I gave him some
idea of what the scope was, and he said, "I might be able to
help you." And I think he's probably going to try and visit
Kerr County and talk in a little more detail about what
we've got, and I don't know what he means by help us, but
it's worth finding out. We can -- if anybody can help us,
we can use some help.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So he may visit us
sometime in the next couple weeks. We're waiting to hear
from him.
8-3-05 bwk
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll stand in recess
until 11:00.
(Recess taken from 10:15 a.m. to 11:01 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order
to our Commissioners Court workshop that we recessed at
approximately 10:15. I was unable to make contact with the
Auditor; he is out-of-pocket. We have the other parties
here present that the Court wanted to be here. On Tuesday
afternoon, August the 9th, we have another workshop
scheduled that we will want to be -- at that workshop, we'll
want to be discussing the alternatives available for the
Juvenile Detention Facility, and the Court wanted the
various players that are involved to be aware of the
information and things that the Court was going to be
interested in having available to it at that meeting.
Ms. Harris is here, who is the administrator of the Juvenile
Detention Facility. Mr. Stanton, the Chief Juvenile
Probation Officer. County Attorney's here. So, you
gentlemen let these folks know what you're going to want to
be looking at.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've had several
discussions with Ms. Harris and she's presented several
25 ~ scenarios, and I want to thank you for all the hard work
8-3-05 bwk
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you've done. I hope that it doesn't go for naught and we
can find us a -- finding a solution.
MS. HARRIS: Me too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I expressed before
you got here my personal preference in terms of this budget
season is to find a method and a manner in which we can,
one, continue to operate a juvenile detention facility,
perhaps not of the magnitude and scope that it is today, and
in the process, take care of our obligations, and in the
process, find a way to cut the red ink down to a minimum.
This is the same thing in theory that you and I spoke of in
your office as recently as last week. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can I ask you a
question?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When you say "take
care of our obligations," what do you mean by that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we have an
obligation to take care of, in some manner and fashion,
juveniles who are --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- picked up off the
streets and have a problem and are facing incarceration and
rehabilitation. And we have that obligation whether we do
it here or whether we pay to have it done someplace else.
8-3-05 bwk
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
That	is	an ongoing	obligation,	in my	mind.	You know, others
may	not	agree with	that, but I	-- we	fund	the Juvenile
Probation Department, and have since Hector was a pup, so I
guess we have an obligation to do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And who is Hector?
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hector is a little
bitty guy. In the course of trying to get a handle on this,
we've looked at several different scenarios. Ms. Harris has
provided us with four: 11-resident, one-building scenario,
which I think is now in front of everybody; a 24-resident,
one-building scenario; and a 60-resident, two-building
scenario. And I have -- and I don't know if anybody else
has it -- I have a 76-resident, two-building scenario. And
I also have some facts and figures that I have asked -- and
this comes as no surprise, I think, to anybody -- I had
asked Mr. Stanton of the Probation Department to pull
together, because he too has some knowledge in this field,
and I think all of this needs to be explored.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just -- I have a question
on the three -- the copies I just received of Mrs. Harris'
proposals. Is there any distinction, Ms. Harris, between
preadjudicated and postadjudicated in these? In the 11, 24,
and 60?
MS. HARRIS: The 11 is pre. The 24 is pre.
8-3-05 bwk
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
The 60 is pre and post.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pre and post?
MS. HARRIS: Yes. And the 76 is pre and
post.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Somehow, I didn't
get the 76 --
JUDGE TINLEY: Me neither.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- scenario.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't either.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've had that in my
file. I'm not sure that's a -- that's -- the 76 has been in
my file. I don't know whether -- that's not -- that's not
what the Judge passed out to everybody this morning.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I only need one
number. What's the projected deficit on it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's what we
need to get to here. It ain't good.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh. I thought maybe
that was a magic number.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Haven't found that
magic number just yet. In these scenarios is the best
estimate of revenue and expense, and I think, while it's a
little cumbersome to look at in the way we have it in front
of us, I think we need to try to organize this into some
spreadsheet operation so that we can compare the apples,
8-3-05 bwk
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
hopefully, with the oranges and get the oranges out of the
pot, and what is the best for us to do. I asked Mr. Stanton
to do some work on it as well, and Ms. Harris is aware of
that, and he too has come up with some scenarios. I'm sure
the Court's going to want to talk about those. And I'm not
sure whether or not that now's the time to pass all that
out, or if we just want to examine the ones Ms. Harris has.
I'll be guided by whatever it is you'd like to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to get as much
of the information out as we can today, and then maybe
review it quickly, and then maybe come back more in-depth
after some time to digest it.
JUDGE TINLEY: And if there's going to be
more information developed, why --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- we should have it, you
know, as much in advance of the workshop --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is a --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- on Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is a result
of -- of some earlier discussions that Mr. Stanton and I
had. And I don't have an extra copy, Becky, but we'll see
that you get one, okay? Kevin, you may have an extra copy.
If you do, you can provide it -- okay, great. I think the
Court ought to realize -- I just gave him one.
8-3-05 bwk
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: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Judge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the Court
ought to realize that we're going to a basic obligation;
that regardless of what we do, whether we do it here or
whether we do it someplace else, if you turn to the bottom
sheet in Mr. Stanton's, you're going to find out basically
what your obligation is. If we have "X" number of kids that
we have to take care of equating to the certain -- these
dates, number of days, you'll see that whether we do it here
or we do it someplace else, we're in the tank for close to
$300,000 -- $280,000, $300,000. Is that correct?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so we've got to
come to grips with that. That's going to be there. That's
base line. Now, the question is whether we want to take
care of our children -- take care of them here or someplace
else, and if so, how.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me make sure I
understand that, Bill. If we did not have the juvenile
detention facility and we were contracting with other
counties to take care of our children, in addition to what
the State pays us, we got to spend another 300,000 a year?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my
understanding, that if we had -- 2,217 days equates to how
8-3-05 bwk
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
many kids over the course of a year?
MR. STANTON: If we -- these numbers are
based on 2004, the kids we locked up in 2004. If we
contracted with any of the following counties that are
listed on the sheet, plus having additional -- having to
hire two officers to do transports back and forth, it would
cost -- the most expensive placement would be in Hays
County; it would be $284,317. And the least expensive would
be Atascosa County, which would cost us 279,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 164 days?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's if we can transport to
any one of these three facilities.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Those are the three closest
facilities.
MR. STANTON: Those are the three closest,
yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And, again, the
State -- C.P.S. pays us a per diem for each child we have in
the --
MR. STANTON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No?
MR. STANTON: We don't receive any money from
the State for --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pre.
8-3-05 bwk
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
MR. STANTON: Well, we receive money from the
budget to pay for preadjudication, postadjudication
services. Along with what the County provides us in our
county budget, we use that money to pay for those services.
But none of the -- none of the -- the figures that we get
from the State are based on the number of kids that we
detain. They're based on population rates, is what they're
based on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- but it is accurate
that it's going to cost us -- the base line is $300,000 it's
going to cost the County?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So the question is,
to what extent, then, do we want to continue taking care of
our youth here? How many of them can we take care of here,
and what's the cost going to be? And whether or not we
should include in that mix youth from other counties,
whether that should be surrounding counties only, perhaps on
a preadjudicated basis only, or whether or not we expand our
facility as it is today offering different treatment
programs and taking in youth from other counties. Those are
the questions. The ones that the -- the information that's
been given to you today, and I have one other that I'm going
8-3-05 bwk
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
to share with you, is based on Mrs. Harris' best estimate of
costs -- revenue and costs.
And you'll note that on the -- based on 11
residents, which is a totally preadjudicated situation, the
expense load is, by her estimation, about a million, 118,
and revenue is significantly poor, 379, leaving 700,000-plus
deficit. If you look at the 24-bed scenario, with the
necessary employees to take care of that, you're looking,
again, at an expense load of about a million, 2, about
almost a million, 3, with revenue just over 800,000, with a
projected bottom line loss of 485,000. If you look at the
60-bed scenario, you're looking at a -- a base line cost of
2.39, 2.4 million; you're looking at revenue of just under
2 million for, again, a $428,000 deficit. If you're looking
at the 76-bed, two-building full load, which is really not
in front of you, but I'll give it to you, you're looking at
total expenditures of 2.6, and revenue anticipated of 2
point -- almost 2.5, and the loss projection so far is
122,000 deficit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: None of these
situations, I believe -- and, Becky, you can correct me if
I'm wrong, but I don't believe any of these particular
scenarios ramp us up, so to speak.
MS. HARRIS: No, sir.
8-3-05 bwk
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: And by that, I mean
getting us from wherever it is in terms of census today up
to the level we need to support and provide the most revenue
and cut the expense load. None of them project us ramping
up. Now, there's one other scenario that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, before you
leave those, just to make sure, the proposals provided by
Ms. Harris, they are anticipating a 100 percent occupancy?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're based on --
they're based on a full load.
MS. HARRIS: The 76-bed scenario would be
full capacity, both buildings.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, of your numbers
here -- I'm looking at the 24. It says 24 residents, $83 a
day times 365.
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that's basically 100
percent full every day.
MS. HARRIS: Yes, that's correct. Of 24
residents, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It doesn't ramp up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I hope it's not -- I
mean, I don't know what the number is; I would suspect
it's -- 80 percent is a realistic number for occupancy.
MS. HARRIS: 11 is your realistic, because
8-3-05 bwk
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
that's what the average preadjudication population is. So
your 11-bed scenario, strictly on preadjudication, that is
the average number of pre's that we -- that we keep. And
that's over the last three years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I'm saying, though,
if we went up to a -- whatever the scenario is, you can't
count on it being full every day at that level. I mean --
MS. HARRIS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just like a hotel.
MS. HARRIS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're going to be -- if
you're at 80, 85 percent occupancy --
MS. HARRIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that's where you're
going to be. You're not going to ever be 100 percent
occupied for all the time.
MS. HARRIS: Correct. So, the 60-bed
scenario that you have in front of you gives you a very
realistic population of maintaining 60 kids, especially in
light of a lot of information that I picked up at the
post-legislative conference and some other information I've
picked up in the last few days.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't you share
that with us, Becky?
MS. HARRIS: Okay. In the post-legislative
8-3-05 bwk
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
conference that was held in Austin in July, T.J.P.C. --
you've heard me talk to you about the Level 5 money, the
reimbursement for kids that are classified as Level 5, and
depending on where that child fell in that classification,
they were paid a minimum of $80 up to a maximum of $115.
That's no longer going to occur. The maximum amount of
Level 5 reimbursement that T.J.P.C. is going to pay on those
kids is $85. Sex offender kids that have to be registered
as sex offender kids, T.J.P.C. will pay a reimbursement of
$115 a day for registered sex offender juveniles. Now, the
number of juveniles that qualify to be registered sex
offenders is minuscule in the state, and those that are
registered sex offenders, 99 percent of those go on to
T.Y.C. They do not go into a postadjudication facility.
So, by us carving out a niche for substance
abuse and sex offenders, we're right in the prime stage to
receive an increased population in those two offenses,
because I was on the phone with Vicki Spriggs this morning
for 30 minutes, getting a feel if what I was hearing out in
the field was correct, and she said that I was correct.
Juvenile offenses -- juvenile crime is on the increase.
We're now starting that pendulum swing like we see every few
years. You'll see juvenile crime increase. Juvenile crime
is increasing, especially in sex offender offenses, and I've
already shared with you that more juvenile sex offenses are
8-3-05 bwk
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
occurring at a younger age, and that crime is increasing, as
well as substance abuse drug offenses. Gregg County, which
is Longview, they took regional contracts, pre and post.
They closed two weeks ago. Roy K. Robb will be closing at
the end of this month, because it's turning into an adult
residential treatment.
I don't know if you remember a group -- a
private corporation group; their adult division is called
C.S.C.; their juvenile division is Y.S.I. They were the
managers and operators for the facility in Colorado County
at Eagle Lake. They were the operators for the Canadian
facility. They were the operators for Dallas County's
postadjudication facility. They were also the operators for
Bowie County. Approximately -- I would say approximately
two months ago, T.Y.C. discontinued their contract with
Y.S.I. and the Colorado County facility; they pulled out all
of their T.Y.C. kids, which decreased Y.S.I.'s population by
500-some-odd kids out of that facility. Colorado County is
in dire financial problems, and they're looking for an
operator. Gregg County, like I say, closed their facility.
Now all those regional counties will be looking for a place
to put their kids.
Bowie County, their Juvenile Chief Probation
Officer incurred some administrative difficulty about three
weeks ago and was put on administrative leave, but he has
8-3-05 bwk
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
been reinstated as of last Tuesday night. And part of that
discussion at Bowie County, they were looking at -- at their
financial situation, too. They are in financial trouble.
Garza County has a T.Y.C. contract. Come September 1, Garza
County will lose all their T.Y.C. kids. Garza County is
going to be suffering as well. So, this conversation that I
had with Vicky this morning indicates that juvenile crime is
up; there's going to be more juveniles, and there's going to
be fewer beds.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question I have, and
really not to you, Ms. Harris; it's really probably to the
Judge or to Kevin. What happens when there's no beds,
there's no place to put the kids? Like, if you don't have a
place where you can reasonably assign a kid -- or Kevin,
whoever does the actual placement -- what do you do then?
Just let them out?
MR. STANTON: Are you talking about pre or
post kids?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Post.
MR. STANTON: Post kids, there's always a
place for the post kids. I mean, we can always find a
facility to hold post kids. If not, we can always hold them
over into -- in a preadjudication stage pending placement in
the post facility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess what I'm saying,
8-3-05 bwk
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Ms. Harris is painting a picture, if I understood what she's
saying, there's going to be more and more facilities that
are closing, and at some point there's got to be -- I mean,
if they're closing, there's not going to be -- they're all
going to be full. Everything that's out there is going to
be -- the main ones are going to be full, and those are
going to either charge more or charge the same or charge
whatever. But --
MR. STANTON: Well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the adults, when the
prisons get filled up, they just kind of open the doors, let
a bunch of them -- that's what they've done in the past. Is
that the same, what they do with the juveniles?
MS. HARRIS: No. If T.Y.C. were to fill up,
if they were to get to full capacity, then T.Y.C. once
again, like they've done in the past, would contract out to
juvenile facilities for their overflow.
22
23 Williams.
24
25 a day.
MS. HARRIS: I don't know, Commissioner
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A lot of beds, at $40
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many facilities
does T.Y.C. operate? Eleven, did you tell me?
MS. HARRIS: I believe that's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many beds?
8-3-05 bwk
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
MS. HARRIS: That's approximately, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's part of the
problem. T.Y.C. operates all these facilities at a rate
that's 50 percent of the market for where we could -- where
we could reasonably be in terms of a per diem charge. That
is part of the problem.
MS. HARRIS: So -- and a lot of little small
counties that get so little money from T. J.P.C. that they're
really on a shoestring budget, a lot of small little
counties, they don't have any recourse but to put kids in
T.Y.C., because it's cheaper.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, they're not
going to send them to Kerr County at $89 or $85 when they
can send them to T.Y.C. for $40.
MR. STANTON: They send them for free.
MS. HARRIS: Right, a lot of the counties can
send them for free.
MR. STANTON: It doesn't cost us anything to
send kids to T.Y.C. They just have to qualify through the
adjudication process, through the court process. They have
to qualify to be sent to the Texas Youth Commission. So,
once a child commits a felony offense, that child
automatically then qualifies for the Texas Youth Commission.
So a lot of small counties, like Ms. Harris is saying,
instead of placing them in facilities like this, as soon as
8-3-05 bwk
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
they get that first felony, they'll put them on probation;
they'll let them serve out their probation. If they do
anything to violate that probation or anything, commit
another -- they kick them to T.Y.C., which doesn't cost the
county anything. It doesn't hurt your T. J.P.C. funds. It
doesn't hurt anything. You just send as many as you want.
There's actually target -- target populations for each
county that you're supposed to try to make it within, but
there's no penalty for you if you go over or under or
anything else. The problem --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I got to --
MR. STANTON: If I could explain something
else real quick -- I'm sorry. The problem you run into when
you start sending a bunch of kids to the Texas Youth
Commission, the problem is, is that -- and it sounds like a
greet deal, 'cause can you send -- but the problem is, it
starts to cost the county more money to place kids in T.Y.C.
due to the fact that you're going to start having more
contested hearings, which is going to drive up the
attorney's costs, court costs and everything else, and so
that's the -- that's a real bad point for not sending kids
to T.Y.C., is because you're going to start having a whole
lot more contested hearings. And that -- that becomes a big
24 issue.
25
8-3-05 bwk
MS. HARRIS: And if I can give you a classic
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
example, Hood County -- their facility closed in Hood County
a little over two years ago, so Hood County has been
contracting their pre and post kids -- all of their pre's to
Garza County. Garza County's been charging, on their pre's,
$82.50 a day plus mileage. Well, we've now got their
contract for the pre kids. The Chief Probation Officer came
last week, and he was talking exactly like what Kevin is
saying about T.Y.C. commitments. He committed 15 kids to
T.Y.C. last year because he didn't have any money to put
22 regimen?
23
24
25
MR. STANTON: When you --
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
MR. STANTON: When a child is sent to the
them in long-term placement, and they're having a huge
methamphetamine problem in Hood County and the surrounding
counties that he takes care of, and so he's looking for
long-term placement for substance abuse treatment for kids,
'cause he is seeing his substance abuse juvenile offenses
increasing substantially. And by him sending 15 kids to
T.Y.C. last year, when he should have only sent
approximately five, that sends up a red flag on him, and he
knows it. So that's a classic scenario.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does a juvenile sent
by a county to a T.Y.C. facility receive treatment programs
as prescribed by the Court, or is it a whole different
8-3-05 bwk
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Texas Youth Commission, the first thing they do is spend the
first three months at psychological testing. They do --
they -- it doesn't matter what the County does. It doesn't
matter how much testing we've done, what recommendations we
make. When a child's sent to T.Y.C., he no longer belongs
to the county. He's placed in -- in a three-month holdover
place where they test him, and from there they send out to
different contracts, different placements that they send
kids to.
MS. HARRIS: There are treatment -- there are
treatment programs, but it's T.Y.C. that determines if they
go to treatment, number one, and if they do go to treatment,
what treatment facility they go to. They're the ones that
determine that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. STANTON: The sad thing about it all is
that T.Y.C. probably offers the best treatment in the state
of Texas.
MS. HARRIS: Well, not exactly.
MR. STANTON: In some cases. In some cases.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's go back to the
start again. I want to follow the money again. Now, I'll
make up an example; you tell me how this works. Some county
out there has a kid that needs to be put in juvenile
detention, and they receive some money from the State to
8-3-05 bwk
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
handle that cost; $80, $85, $115, depending upon the
classification. They don't have a place for the kid, so
they ship them off to Kerr County, and we charge them some
amount, $80-whatever. All right. Does that work that way?
MS. HARRIS: Okay --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're getting a no
and a stand-up, so let's see.
MS. HARRIS: We charge $83 a day for a pre or
a post; doesn't make any difference.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
MS. HARRIS: We charge $83 a day. I send
Kevin -- I send Kevin a bill for $83 a day for however many
kids he has with us. I charge him that. He writes me a
check and he pays me.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. Who pays
Kevin that $83?
MR. STANTON: The County or the State.
The -- and it's not -- and that's what I was -- it's not the
State, per se, that pays us $83 a day. The State gives us a
lump sum of money based on the population -- the juvenile
population each year, and out of that money, we determine
how much money we want to spend on pre and post kids and
those types of situations. So, it's really not a -- you
know, you send one kid there, so we're going to give you
this amount of money. Now, there are -- there are contracts
8-3-05 bwk
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that we can enter into with the State, through Small County
Diversionary Funds and Level 5 funding that we have to apply
for, that if we send a kid to Ms. Harris at $83 a day, and
this child qualifies for Level 5 or Small County
Diversionary Funding --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When I look at this
balance sheet and this is 60 residents pre and post, and I
see a total cost, total revenue, and projected deficit, the
total revenue includes the money that you're charging Kevin?
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, I think I
understand it now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So that's some money
that went from the left pocket to the right pocket --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- so to speak.
Before we get too deep in this, I'm going to make one other
qualification here. Commissioner Baldwin earlier talked on
another topic about a difference in philosophy, and that had
to do with some things we were discussing this morning, and
our relationships on another issue. And what you have in
front of you also represents perhaps a difference in
philosophy in how the facility can be operated, which is not
to disparage anybody's -- anybody's point of view, but the
Court needs to look at everything. And that's why I had
8-3-OS bwk
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
asked Mr. Stanton to prepare his assessment of this
operation, and his philosophy on how it can be operated
perhaps is a little bit different than Ms. Harris'
philosophy, but these are things we're going to have to
wrestle through and work our way through. So, what we -- he
has prepared for the members of the Court, which I just
handed out to you, represents his thoughts as to how this
can be operated in a 12-bed preadjudicated regimen or a
24-bed preadjudicated residence facility. I think those are
the only two scenarios you did; is that correct? The 12 and
24?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whereas Ms. Harris
represents the operation as she knows it and has developed
it with the various treatment programs and the staffing
required to conduct those treatment programs, and those
things range from 12 all the way up to 60 or 76 beds. So,
the question is, we have to sort through it and ask all the
hard questions, and then determine which way we want to go.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm still back with Dave
over here, trying to follow the money. And I thought I had
it, but now I'm confused again. The costs -- the base case
is $300,000 just, you know, for the County to send their
preadjudicated kids somewhere?
25 ~ MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
8-3-05 bwk
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that money coming out
of the money you get from the State? Or is that money -- is
that County money over and above what you're getting from
the State?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's both pre
MR. STANTON: We get --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we send them out.
MR. STANTON: Well, with the scenario that
you're talking about, with the $300,000, that is just pre
kids. That is not post kids.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's just pre?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only pre, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But does any -- is that
money that's coming from your budget from the State? Or is
that money coming from the County?
MR. STANTON: We get -- and I'm not going to
get these numbers right. We get a hundred -- we get about
$145,000 from the County for detention and
pre/post-adjudication services. And in the State budget --
and I should have brought them with me, but I didn't, but we
get -- Judge Tinley might have it there in front of him. I
think it's another $100,000 -- approximately $100,000, maybe
$120,000 that we get from the State to use for pre and
postadjudication services. What I have tried to do in the
8-3-05 bwk
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
past to simplify my budget is, I use County funds to pay for
all preadjudicated kids, and I use State funds to pay for
all postadjudicated kids. That way I have a separation and
I can track it to make it easier to see how much I spent on
each different line item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, now -- so right now,
you're -- the County is spending a hundred and --
MR. STANTON: 145,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 145,000 on
preadjudicated, and if we don't have a facility locally,
it's going to be 300,000. I'm rounding up.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. Well, I mean, on pre
and postadjudicated kids all together, we spend
approximately $250,000 a year, and if we contract out to
send our kids just to -- just for pre kids, to send those
kids out is going to cost us at least $300,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I'm trying -- I just
want to make sure that we're not double-counting money. I
want to make sure that we're not paying you, that you're
paying us back, and we're counting that as -- I mean --
MR. STANTON: Well, a hundred --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I don't care what the
department --
MR. STANTON: 145,000 -- 145,000 of that
money is from my budget to Ms. Harris' budget, transfer from
8-3-05 bwk
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
one budget to the other. A minimum of --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 145 out of the 300?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. A minimum of
145, 000 .
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, almost half of
the -- the actual amount that we're paying -- I mean, the
taxpayers are paying them is roughly 150,000 more to not
have a facility, because part of the money's already going
to you, and it's coming back.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So I --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's on pre only, though.
MR. STANTON: Right. Yes, sir, that's just
pre only.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What that says is
that that's the lowest cost -- if you don't consider
anything else except costs, impact on taxpayer dollars,
that's the lowest cost way to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For preadjudicated only,
it's 150.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pre only.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The next lowest cost
is 12 beds, and a higher cost is 24, and the highest cost is
48.
8-3-05 bwk
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Bill or Kevin, on
your numbers -- or the -- on the front page, there's a --
I'm trying to figure out the columns.
MR. STANTON: The first column, the green
column, is Ms. Harris' budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. For --
MR. STANTON: For a 48-bed facility, that I
was aware of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. STANTON: The second column, the blue
column, is the 24-bed preadjudicated kids only.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. STANTON: The third blue column -- or the
next blue column is 12-bed, preadjudication only.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. STANTON: The red -- the kind of pinkish
columns in between are the savings compared to the 48-bed
post and pre to a 24-bed pre and a 12-bed pre.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Savings compared to the
48 --
MR. STANTON: Pre and post.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, deduction --
the deduction of expense --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is the difference
between the green --
8-3-05 bwk
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
MR. STANTON: Between the green one and the
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One more time. Most
cost-effective is -- is send our children to another
facility. That's 300,000 a year. The next step up in
cost-effectiveness is to run a 12-bed preadjudicated
facility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way it
appears.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure I've gotten
to where you are, 'cause I'm not sure I have all those -- I
mean, I think I see 300,000 is the least expensive. To
send -- shut everything down and send the kids elsewhere is
the least expensive. But if that cost escalates as we have
more juveniles, your numbers in 2004 -- are we running ahead
in 2005 of 2004's total?
MR. STANTON: Just a little bit, not much.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty close the same?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. And then --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then when you and
Commissioner Williams agreed that the next best cost, just
looking at dollars, is the 12-bed preadjudicated, where are
you finding that number? What chart are you looking at? Is
8-3-05 bwk
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it Kevin's? Or --
	COMMISSIONER	NICHOLSON:	Kevin's. But I
think	we're looking at costs	, but not	net of revenue.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	We don't	have any revenue
costs	in there, so I'm not s	ure --	
	MR. STANTON:	The reven	ue costs are on the
second	page, the revenue --	or not the	second page, I'm
sorry,	the third page.		
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	Third page.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Thi	rd page. That's what
I was	-- 'cause if we go wit	h 12 -- it	looks to me like it's
cheaper to go with 24.		
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	It is better to go
with 24.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 24 is better than 11.
MR. STANTON: Well, that -- the 24-bed costs
are at 100 percent occupancy. The 50 -- the next column, or
12, would be 50 percent occupancy, and that's just the
cut -- that's how much it would cost to run if we had
50 percent occupancy of a 24-bed facility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But would we be
staffed for 24 or 12? Or is there a difference?
MR. STANTON: No, we'd be staffed for 24
beds.
JUDGE TINLEY: The problem with pre's, you
8-3-05 bwk
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
may have a preadjudication child there for a few days, or
you may have a child there for 30 days on a pre. It's a
real roller coaster ride on the census. The
postadjudication is generally three to four months to a
six-month program, so there's more stability in their census
count on the postadjudication. But the pre's, you can go
from being full up one day to being virtually empty the
next. You're subject to those kind of swings in your -- in
your capacity load. But you got to have -- you got to be
staffed to accommodate those, is the problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, in order to
mitigate against that scenario, Judge, I'm going to ask a
question, but I don't know the answer. If you were at 24,
and half of those were pre and half of them were post, is
that a possibility, and would that mitigate against the
roller coaster census revenue effect? Whoever wants to
answer.
MS. HARRIS: Let me see if I understand what
you're asking. If 12 of those kids would be post and 12 of
those kids would be pre's?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just asking a
question. Is that a possibility?
MS. HARRIS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why not?
MS. HARRIS: 'Cause you're staffed up for 24
8-3-05 bwk
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
total kids, and your pre's are fluctuating. Your posts are
not. The demand for more than 12 kids is going to be
greater than the 12 kids. Now, if you want to limit it --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the pre or post
side?
MS. HARRIS: On the post side. On the post
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. HARRIS: So, if you're going to limit --
or if you're going to limit your postadjudication to only
12, what I foresee is that you're going to create an
extensive waiting list, and counties are going to get
impatient; they're going to send kids elsewhere, which is
going to decrease your chances of keeping 12 kids all the
time. That's just off the -- that's just how I see it,
analyzing it right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Where's the increment break?
MS. HARRIS: Every eight. Every eight kids,
you got to have four staff.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the pre and post both?
MS. HARRIS: That's the pre and post both.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Another question -- well,
not another question. I'm just trying to still get my brain
around it, to use Commissioner 1's phrase. The -- in
Kevin's handout, it refers to the base case is about
8-3-05 bwk
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2~
2~
2~
2`
$300,000, and that's preadjudication only. What is the base
case, postadjudication only? I mean, if we don't have a --
if we have nothing -- there's nothing in Kerr County, what
are we -- what is the County annually going to spend for
postadjudicated? 'Cause that's part --
MR. STANTON: That's a hard question. It
really is, 'cause it depends on the number of referrals we
get, the types of offenses, the number of, you know, kids
that we get that commit numerous offenses. That's a real
hard statement. On the average, the last -- on the average
the last two years, with the money that we received through
the Level 5 funding, the Small County funding, we have spent
on the average of about $200,000 to $250,000 a year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That includes that money,
the State money?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What if you took that
State money out? What's the County spending, I guess?
MR. STANTON: The County's not spending
anything, because I'm not spending any of the County's money
on postadjudicated kids right now. I'm spending all the
County's money on preadjudicated kids. We have to separate
the -- it's real hard. We have to separate out the two
budgets. I mean, we have -- I have three state budgets and
I have one county budget, and I have certain things that I
8-3-05 bwk
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
can spend the money on in the state budget, and I have
numerous things I can spend the money on in the county
budget. So, it's -- the way that I have distinguished it so
I can keep track of it is I spend all the state money on
post kids and all the County money on pre kids.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, the -- the
$300,000 is an accurate base case total expenditure, post
and pre?
MR. STANTON: Only on pre. If we don't have
a facility in Kerr County, it's going to cost $300,000 to
send our kids, just pre kids.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But you're not
spending any County money on the post right now, whether we
have -- whether we do have a facility located here or we
don't, you're still not going to spend any money -- County
money on postadjudicated?
MR. STANTON: Not the way the budget is set
up right now, no, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, I mean, I just
want to make sure that we're looking at a real base case,
which we are. It's just the preadjudicated. Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why are we not
spending any money	on post	right	now?
MR.	STANTON:	Why	are we not spending the
County money on post kids?
8-3-05 bwk
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
MR. STANTON: Just because it's easier to
keep track of -- I mean, for the Auditor's office, for
myself, it's easier to keep -- keep the two separate. It's
easier for me to say, okay, if you wanted to ask me how much
money we spent last year on preadjudicated kids, I could
just go look at my county budget and say, "This is what we
spent on preadjudicated kids." And then I can -- by the
same token, if I wanted -- if you wanted to know how much
money we spent on residential placement for post kids, I
could just look at my state budget and say, "This is the
number; this is how much we spent on post kids." When you
start mixing them, intermingling the two budgets or
intermingling the -- the way you spend the money out, it
just gets more complicated in trying to track it at the end
of the year. I mean, there's nothing saying that we
couldn't move all the post kids to State money and all the
pre kids to County money. I mean, you can -- you can switch
them all back and forth. I just keep them separated for the
fact it's easier for me to keep track of.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's probably very
wise. That's wise. That's what I would do, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, if we just settled on
the -- say, 24 preadjudicated. That's -- you know, pretend
that's where we end up, that's what we want to do. We don't
8-3-05 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
92
have 24 Kerr County kids, so we would open up to other
Kimble, Mason, Menard, Kendall. We take -- we have
preadjudicated contracts, 'cause those are our adjacent
counties, so we get preadjudicated, because they don't have
any other place; they don't have a detention facility, so
those adjacent counties contract with us to take their pre.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many -- Bandera
and Gillespie?
MS. HARRIS: Yes. Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And with all those
counties, you could probably keep it pretty close to full?
MS. HARRIS: Not 24. We've averaged 11 pre
kids for the last two years, and that's what our average is
looking at right now. That's with Kerr County pre's and all
the other counties combined. You're looking at an average
of 11 kids a year, pres.
MR. STANTON: That's the reason, in the one
budget, that I broke it down to -- I mean, you still have to
staff for 24 kids, but --
MS. HARRIS: Right.
MR. STANTON: -- if we had 12 kids in the
facility, if we averaged 12 kids in the facility, that's
what it would come out, the cost to the County.
8-3-05 bwk
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- is there a
way to -- is there a realistic way to increase the
preadjudicated closer to 24? The reason I'm looking at that
is -- I mean, Kevin's shaking his head no. That's the --
financially, the best column I've seen so far; we're only
losing $52,000 if we could get 24 preadjudicated kids.
MS. HARRIS: Well, if you -- if you continue
to contract with Hood County, who wants to send
preadjudicated kids here, that's going to be an increase in
your population. It's a new contract. I have no idea --
there's no history with Hood County in pres. I have no
idea how many pre's they're going to send.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, just by looking
at the numbers, the best thing would be to staff it for 24
preadjudicated only, and -- but we've got to be able to get
closer to 24 residents. And if we can do that, that's a lot
better than closing the facility down totally. I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's by far the
best option.
MS. HARRIS: That's -- I can't tell you how
soon we'd get to 24. Can't tell you how soon the facility
would hold 24 consistently, because your historical data
doesn't give me that.
25 I COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not -- it's not
8-3-05 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
94
realistic to be at 24 all the time, but if we can get -- you
know, if we can average for the year around 20, you know, it
looks like we'd probably have about a 100,000, $120,000
loss, which is a heck of a lot better than $300,000. I
mean, I'm not saying we need to get all the way there,
because it's a -- if we only have 12 residents, then we're
budgeted to lose about 400,000. Well, if we can't get above
12, we're better off not having anything. If we can get --
if we can realistically get to 16 to 20 -- 16 is probably
about a break-even point, which is then -- you'd side with
keeping it open at that level, just for the ease for the
County. And if you can get anything above that, you start
becoming much more attractive financially. That's, I guess,
where my --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're starting to
the cost standpoint -- we can't afford to do
postadjudicated. That 300,000 to send our pre's out is a
pretty solid number. Now, the question is, is that more
than we can support doing a preadjudicated facility? Is it
going to cost 400,000? Going to cost 52,000?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's costing
400,000 -- and this is under Kevin's scenario. You know,
we're at that 400,000 point right about now, 'cause that's
where we're staying. We're staying at 11, which is
8-3-05 bwk
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
basically almost at 12. And if we can increase it above
that, we start getting -- you know, quickly getting to the
point that we're -- it is more -- it is more cost-effective
than sending our kids elsewhere.
MR. STANTON: If I can just make a quick
comment, one of the things that's real hard -- and I've been
talking -- I've talked to Ms. Harris and a lot of people
about this, and it's hard to put a dollar figure on -- and
the Sheriff will be the first one to stand up and agree with
this, is that it's hard to put a dollar figure on the
cost -- or the ability to have a detention facility in your
own county. You know, that -- there should be some way to
put a dollar figure on that, too, because I think having a
facility in your own county is a deterrent to kids
committing criminal offenses, you know. And so I really
wouldn't know how to put a figure to that, but I think that
that's something that, for business owners, for the citizens
of Kerr County, for everyone, having a facility here in Kerr
County does make a difference.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think you can
quantify it, but the Sheriff does support what you said, and
he stood right here and told the Court the very same thing,
and he believes that the fact that we have a facility here
is, to some extent, a deterrent, and that's a plus. Now,
the question is how you quantify that.
8-3-05 bwk
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And one other -- we've
been talking off of Kevin's proposals or numbers most
recently. When I looked at Ms. Harris' preadjudicated 24,
she -- it shows a projected deficit -- and this is 24
residents, 100 percent occupancy, of 485,000. Without -- I
just received these today, so I really haven't gone through
them. What is the big difference? Why does Ms. Harris show
a deficit of 485,000 and Mr. Stanton shows the same 100
percent occupancy at a $52,000 deficit?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think there is some
basic differences that gets to philosophy in terms of how
the operation takes place. Ms. Harris has got it configured
with her staffing costs running a 24-bed facility at about
$776,000, and that's staffing costs. And I think
Mr. Stanton's indicating that the staffing -- while there's
one figure missing in that, but his staffing comes in about
a half a million. There's a basic difference in there, a
philosophical difference that gets us to where some of the
differences in philosophy, in terms of operational
philosophy come into play. So, we need to sort our way
through that. You know, what is the best way to go? Becky
has staffing in terms of facility administrator,
preadjudication coordinator, cooks, control operators,
detention officers, shift supervisors, administrative
25 ~ support part-time, et cetera, whereas Kevin looks at it a
8-3-05 bwk
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
little bit differently. And the facility administrator
number is not in place, but it needs to be put in place.
But he -- he anticipates in his that some of the services
are going to be contracted out; for example -- and I don't
know whether this is good or bad, and it needs to be
discussed -- food service. I believe you anticipate food
service, contracting with the Sheriff. Am I correct?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And Ms. Harris has
cooks on staff that do the -- do the food service there.
That's a philosophical problem. May be also some other
regulations in there that -- that deal with whether or not
it should be done by contract remotely or whether it should
be done on-site by cooks, so we need to sort through those
things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
at Kevin's -- I mean, and you say
maybe -- did you add in a cost --
Sheriff's Department?
MR. STANTON: Yes,
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
I think, though, looking
you contract it. Well,
a contracting fee with the
sir.
That's in here? Okay.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. The only -- the only
reason that I even looked at contracting out food services
and --	and	laundry services	is because	it was	my impression
that -	- I	wasn't sure which	building we	were	talking about,
8-3-05 bwk
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
and I was using the new building, which, from what I
understand, doesn't have a kitchen and doesn't have laundry
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're getting pretty
close to understanding what the options are; get out of the
business and send them out, and do pre -- do pre and post:
The elephant in the room that we don't talk about is that
448,000 debt service cost every year. So if, you know,
we're saying that the least expensive way is to get out of
the business, that's about 300,000 a year operating costs.
But if that facility is worth what we paid for it and we
could unload it, we -- we would be doing the least expensive
thing, 300,000 a year and we'd also be eliminating 448,000 a
year in debt service.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is the -- that
is the gorilla that we haven't talked about, you're correct.
And the debt service is already structured into our existing
tax rate, and doesn't figure into either of these two
scenarios, but it's something to take under consideration.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- either
way, we need to figure out a -- some sort of a use for the
facility. Either -- I mean, even if we're talking about 24
beds, that's either -- that still leaves a full building
that is available for -- to put some other county offices
8-3-05 bwk
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
out there and cut rent, try to sell it, or try to -- you
know, we've talked about lots of different things. And also
the market of selling the whole facility.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's one other variable in
the proposals as between Ms. Harris and Mr. Stanton on the
-- on the 24. There's a different revenue rate, which I
think --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, there are three
different --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- actually doubles -- doubles
that $52,000 deficit that looks so attractive.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that's really more
like $100,000?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it's -- you just -- you
just double what you got there, and that -- that accounts
for the $6-a-day difference per child in the revenue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, there are three
different rate structures that is examined there; 83, 86,
and 89.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think all of Ms. Harris' are
figured at 83.
MS. HARRIS: 83.
JUDGE TINLEY: 'Cause that's what she's
charging and getting.
MS. HARRIS: Right.
8-3-05 bwk
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: And what I heard from her
about the recent conversation concerning Level 5 money and
also the T.J.P.C. discussion was that that figure's coming
down even -- even more.
MS. HARRIS: Yes. $85 a day is going to be
the maximum number of reimbursement for kids that qualify
for Level 5.
MR. STANTON: Which you're talking about post
kids.
MS. HARRIS: That's just post kids.
MR. STANTON: That's not pre kids.
MS. HARRIS: Pre's don't get that.
JUDGE TINLEY: And most of the other rates
are what, at 80 or less?
MS. HARRIS: I'm not sure I understand.
JUDGE TINLEY: Level 4. Level 4 children.
MS. HARRIS: Yes, Level 4 children are 80.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which is the majority of them
in post programs?
MS. HARRIS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARRIS: Which we don't get Level 4. We
don't -- we can't.
MR. STANTON: Could I comment on --
Mr. Nicholson was talking about the $300,000 figure, and
8-3-05 bwk
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that figure's kind of stuck in everybody's head. That
$300,000 figure is -- like I keep saying, it's just pre
kids. If you add in the post kids that we place out at the
facility every year, you're talking more of about $420,000
to $450,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that -- but that
incremental money comes from the State?
MR. STANTON: It comes out of the Juvenile
Probation Department budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, but it --
MR. STANTON: If I didn't have the State
money, I'd be coming to the County asking the County to pay
it.
COMMISSIONER
you've got State money that
MR. STANTON:
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
LETZ: Right, but at the moment,
you use.
Yes, sir.
LETZ: Okay.
WILLIAMS: A very unreliable
resource.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I hope there's not
going to be a quiz on this when we get through. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Is everybody thoroughly enough
confused?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Another week's worth of study?
8-3-05 bwk
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I think Ms. Harris is going to be coming with some -- with
some new information, too.
MS. HARRIS: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What have you got new?
MS. HARRIS: Well, I had -- I was in the
works, whenever you called me, of showing you staffing
increments and the cost of your -- every time you get eight
kids, you got to add four staff, and I was working that up
to show that to you. Sounds like to me that may be
redundant at this point in time. I had also already
compiled a lot of information for you that I got from
T.J.P.C. website on different statistics on -- on what it
looks like that juvenile crime is going to be doing.
Unfortunately, T.J.P.C. has not updated their stats from
2002, so 2002 figures is the most recent that I can get from
T.J.P.C. However, though, I did get from them how we
compare on population, how we compare with other facilities
in the state this year from the months of February to May on
the -- how we compare to other facilities, where we're above
everybody else in the state.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Above what?
MS. HARRIS: That means that we are
maintaining a higher population in our facility than anybody
else in the state.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right now, today?
8-3-05 bwk
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Percentage-wise.
MS. HARRIS: Percentage-wise.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Relative to the staffing
that we're at?
MS. HARRIS: Yes. Yes. As a matter of fact,
we're nine kids above the state average, and I had fixed you
a chart and I had all this information nice and compiled
that I was going to get to you hopefully this afternoon,
because I was going to discuss this in my oral report on
Monday at 2 o'clock. But we're discussing it now, so you
got a heads-up. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'd still like to
have it.
MS. HARRIS: Okay. And I'll get it to you
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't -- I
think that's good information. I think the statistics from
2002 are somewhat worthless. I mean, I think that, from
what Kevin is saying, you know, our population is slowly
ramping up. I suspect it's going to -- our population is
increasing, and I agree with what you're saying, that
juvenile crime's increasing. I don't think additional
statistics are going to, you know, change my mind one way or
the other. I agree with y'all on that.
MS. HARRIS: And, too, part of that
8-3-05 bwk
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
information was to show you that since February, we have
added 36 new contracts up and above what we already had.
So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's our population
currently?
MS. HARRIS: Today it's 26. Monday it was
33.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Those were post that
went out or pre's that went out?
MS. HARRIS: Pres. Pres.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It shows you how the
variables go.
MS. HARRIS: Right. So, what would you like
for me to do?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- I mean, the
question I have, I don't know that it's -- not from either
of y'all, really. It's other uses of the building. You
know, from -- you know, I just think we should be aware of,
if we were to sell it, what that property is worth.
Hopefully it's close to what we paid for it. Whether we
could -- you know, how we convert it to other county uses,
how we -- you know, other possible tenants. And I don't
know how we even get into that whole question. But I think,
you know, it'd be nice to get some of that information out.
And I don't know if we need to have this discussion right
8-3-05 bwk
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
now or not. I don't -- the problem, in my mind, I'm
thinking that that's really something that we can do during
the next 12 months, but it is something that I think we have
to face at some point.
MS. HARRIS: Well, I need some guidance,
because there are some counties whose contracts come up for
renewal September 1, because that's their fiscal year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think we'll --
you'll have guidance way before that. And I think -- I
mean, I'm saying that very seriously. I think that we will
decide in the next couple of weeks what your -- what the
operations of that facility are going to be for next year
and beyond, probably. I mean, I --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What date?
JUDGE TINLEY: Hopefully, we will have -- we
will be moving in a direction -- a definitive direction next
Tuesday afternoon, and there'll be some indications. I
understand your concern that you need to have as much lead
time as possible, because these counties are going to have a
fresh load of money, as it were, both from the State and
through their own county budgets.
MS. HARRIS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: To be dealing with their
juvenile justice.
25 ~ MS. HARRIS: And, too, I -- and I've got
8-3-05 bwk
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
staff that -- from what I'm hearing what you're leaning
towards, I've got staff that are going to have to be laid
off, and there needs to be a resolution.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, there
definitely -- I want -- I want to understand what the
facilities are capable of doing in terms of -- and food
service is a good one to start with. You have a kitchen
facility, but it's in the older --
MS. HARRIS: Its in the old building, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's no food
service capability in the new facility?
MS. HARRIS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is no laundry
service capability in the new facility?
MS. HARRIS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So the thought of --
the thought of using just the newer building as opposed to
the larger, older building poses some other problems; is
that correct?
MS. HARRIS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So we need to
keep that in mind as well. And I'm wondering, our
staffing -- Becky, the staffing is predicated on 1-to-8; is
that correct?
8-3-05 bwk
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
MS. HARRIS: For the post adjudication, yes,
sir, that's correct. For pre, it's 1-to-12. But you've got
to remember, your physical configuration of your new
building, there are only eight beds per dorm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the new building?
MS. HARRIS: In the new building, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. But I'm -- my
question is going to take us back to the other building.
MS. HARRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a -- is
there a 32-bed scenario? Is that a possibility? That
blends the two together?
MS. HARRIS: That blends pre and post
together?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. Yes.
MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir, there could be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But we haven't worked
up those numbers.
MS. HARRIS: No. No, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could we work up
those numbers?
MS. HARRIS: For 32 pre and post?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. Just another
option --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
8-3-05 bwk
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- to look at.
MS. HARRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't want to
confuse it more, but perhaps the staffing and the -- and the
design of the facility where you have -- get your facilities
in one and you don't have any other, maybe lends itself to
examining 32. Pre and post?
MS. HARRIS: Pre and post in the old
building.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Would not a better scenario
be, because of the break, 12-to-1 on pre, 8-to-1 on post, a
24 and a 12 for a total of 36?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe something --
JUDGE TINLEY: Would that be more efficient?
MS. HARRIS: Okay, now you're getting -- here
comes another kink in everything.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARRIS: You could do that, and I can put
it on paper and show you, but you've always got that
scenario of separating males and females. For instance,
right now I've got 15 post boys. That takes two dorms. I
have 11 pre boys; that takes another dorm. That only leaves
one dorm for post and pre females to be housed on the same
dorm, two separate staff. You have to have two separate
8-3-05 bwk
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've got to keep your -- your pre's and posts separated.
Then, within those two populations, you got to keep your
girls and your boys separated, so that throws -- that throws
a monkey wrench into your just strictly 1-to-12 for pre's
and 1-to-8 for post.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What percent of the pre
or post are boys versus girls?
MS. HARRIS: Oh, significantly higher, the
boys. We always -- always have more boys.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about an all male
facility?
MS. HARRIS: I've said that all along. You
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That seems to -- you
could become all male, and you could accomplish the 32 or
36.
MS. HARRIS: Now, the pre's, you would have
to keep a dorm reserved for pre girls, but you've got
strictly a 1-to-12 ratio. You're going to have strictly pre
girls, 'cause you're going to have some pre girls. Right
now we don't have any, but that could change tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, I'm saying
the few pre girls that we get, they can go elsewhere. Just
pay -- Kevin's shaking his head no.
8-3-05 bwk
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
MR. STANTON: No. Post -- post girls can.
Pre girls can't -- well, I mean, they could. I mean, we
could -- we could contract with Atascosa or somebody else to
hold our pre girls, but that -- that would end up costing --
MS. HARRIS: I think that's going to drive
your costs up. You could house those pre girls in the
facility, and you -- and you only staff for the pre girls a
1-to-12 ratio.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you have to -- if you
have to staff for them and you have times that you don't
have anybody, what are you doing with that staff?
MS. HARRIS: Well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It just seems that if
we --
MS. HARRIS:
you haven't been able to do
COMMISSIONER
cost-effective, when you do
them to Atascosa County and
MS. HARRIS:
part-time female J.D.O.'s,
You can catch up on stuff that
whenever you're full.
LETZ: Seems to me to be more
have one or two girls, to send
not have a spot for girls.
What you can do is you can hire
and you only call them in when
you need them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I like that. That
scenario works. I just don't see staffing a dorm -- or
staffing a -- not a dorm, staffing a facility when there's
8-3-05 bwk
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
-- for 12 when there's a high likelihood you're not going to
MS. HARRIS: Just call in your part-time pre
J.D.O.'s, females, whenever you need them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to kind of --
I'd like to explore that as an option to -- doing that,
because I think it solves your problem. You can do post and
pre, and it may make the number look even better.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we thoroughly
confused?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I've actually been
very -- it's quite enlightening.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Getting clearer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think I can answer
your -- part of your question, what's going to happen. I
think next Tuesday, you're going to have a real good idea of
what's going to happen, I think. Some of that might change
when Mrs. Rector comes in with her numbers. Possibility.
But we won't know -- really know until October 1. But I
think Tuesday -- by the end of next Tuesday, we're going to
have a real good idea where we're going to go.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How quickly could you
work up a new scenario?
MS. HARRIS: 30 -- your 32-bed?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or 36, as the Judge
8-3-05 bwk
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
suggested, whichever works out the better.
MS. HARRIS: I can do that this afternoon.
I -- lord knows, I've got this on the computer, and I've got
the template.
JUDGE TINLEY: She's crunched these numbers
enough times, she'll be able to crank this out pretty quick,
I imagine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's probably
obvious to everybody up in the Court, but I'll just go ahead
and say it anyway. The reason I'm not focusing on going to
a 60-bed pre and post or something in that area is that the
deficit's basically the same as 24, and the risk is real
high. I mean, the down side is real low and the upside
isn't there.
MS. HARRIS: Right. On this 36-bed scenario
that you want me to work up, do you want me to have both of
the treatment programs for the post?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only if you can -- the
one that's going to be the most cost-effective. If that
means all boys, if that means eliminating -- figure out a
scenario that is the best shot.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You know what the
market's demanding in terms of service, in terms of
programs. So, if we offer the programs that are most
appealing to the marketplace --
8-3-05 bwk
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
MS. HARRIS: Well, off the top of my head,
I'm going to tell you that 24 post boys, keeping your
substance abuse and your sex offender treatment programs, a
dorm of 12 for pre boys and a dorm for pre girls, and do
away with post girls. And I'm going to tell you, that's
going to be more cost-effective.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, develop the most
cost-effective scenario that you can. That's -- you know,
and I would also look at it -- and Kevin looked at going to
the -- using contract services for some of his -- in some of
his ideas. You know, I would encourage you to look at his
and where he had savings, and y'all communicate and talk
and, you know, just come up with the best thing, 'cause
that's probably going to be -- I mean, I really agree with
Commissioner Baldwin; I think next Tuesday, we're going to
decide the direction for the next year. But, you know --
MS. HARRIS: Since we're staying in the old
building, it would be wise to utilize the kitchen and the
laundry services.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It just -- I'd look at
using the old building and utilizing it or using the new
building and contracting. And I just --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The new building
limits you to 24.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
8-3-05 bwk
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: New building limits
you to 24.
MS. HARRIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, it may still
be cheaper to contract it, even though we have the kitchen
and the laundry. I don't know. I mean, I don't know. I'm
just saying look at everything we can, because I think it's
going to be probably the last time -- you know, we're going
to set the wheels going in a direction, I think, Tuesday.
Thank y'all. It's been very helpful.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on the
workshop this morning, gentlemen? We'll stand adjourned.
(Budget workshop adjourned at 12:13 p.m.)
8-3-05 bwk
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1°
2C
21
2L
2;
2~
2`
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 5th day of August,
2005.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: ___ __ ____~_____
Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
8-3-05 bwk