1 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 24, 2005 9:00 a.m. Commissioners' Courtroom Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 ABSENT: H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 3 V V, 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 I N D E X August 24, 2005 PAGE Review and discuss FY 2005-06 Budgets for various County Departments, including, but not limited to the following departments: District Courts (198th and 216th) ................ 3 County Clerk .................................... 26 Treasurer ....................................... 58 County Court at Law ............................. 72 County Attorney ................................. 80 Extension ....................................... -- Animal Control .................................. 92 Constables (1, 2, 3 & 4) ....................... 102 J.P.'s (1, 2, 3 & 4) ........................... 110 Environmental Health ........................... 133 Auditor ........................................ 149 Collections .................................... 160 DPS ............................................ 166 County Judge/County Court ....................... 168 Commissioners' Court ........................... 173 Nondepartmental ................................. 185 Juvenile Detention ............................. 191 Juvenile Probation ............................. 242 Volunteer Fire Departments ..................... 247 County Sponsored ............................... 251 Permanent Improvements .......................... 263 Parks .......................................... 264 City/County .................................... 278 Adjourned 286 25 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On Wednesday, August 24, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., a budget workshop meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call to order the Kerr County Commissioners Court workshop scheduled for this date and time, Wednesday, August 24th, 2005, at 9 a.m. it's a bit past that now. We have a number of department budgets to consider. The first one on the list is the 198th and 216th District Courts; that will be under Tab 7 that you're looking at. I would make one comment. In light of the effort to try and reduce our jail population and to have judge or judges available to hear these cases so that they can be disposed of in proper -- in due order and get these -- get the jail population down and the -- the District Judges have indicated to me that by providing, under 415 -- Account Number 415, a Special District Judge, an additional $6,000, that that would permit one full or two half days a month to handle additional pleas. The Sheriff, I think, was -- I don't see him here this morning, but he was in on that, and I think was encouraged by the fact that there might be additional judges available in order to be able to handle those pleas. 8-24-05 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, is that 216th, 198th, or both? JUDGE TINLEY: It doesn't -- well, a total of $6,000. It doesn't make any difference whether you split it between the two -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: -- or you put it in one. It -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: It'll -- it will get resolved that way. That's what it'll get you is one full day a month or two half days a month to handle those pleas. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the recommended would be seven instead of the $1,000 we have there now? JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, uh-huh. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, it seems to me it would make more sense -- 'cause when it comes to Tommy, to keep from doing budget amendments, to put three and three. Otherwise, we're going to have to shift it, aren't we, Tommy, during the year? MR. TOMLINSON: Depends on what court they go to, but -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But -- MR. TOMLINSON: That would be fine, yeah. I can do that, yeah, put three and three. 8-24-05 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 JUDGE TINLEY: Instead of having $1,000 in each -- each one of them, just put $4,000 in each one of MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, how much -- what I'm looking at on Special Trials under the 216th was 100,000 budgeted, which I presume is kind of a guess for the Seard trial, maybe. But I also am not real confident that's going to happen. And what has happened -- has happened is that Special Trials, for a number of years, is kind of a -- almost like a contingency/slush fund. And I don't mean "slush fund" in a negative way; just that's where we pull a lot of money out when they go over budget. Do the judges have any ability to control some of these other costs? JUDGE TINLEY: Frankly, no. Of course, some of the big ones are the -- the special trials, and when -- when those happen and you've got someone in custody that is competent to stand trial, they're entitled to some sort of priority to having their case heard, and you just got to go with the flow and provide whatever resources are necessary in order to hear that case. With the -- with the Court-appointed attorneys, you know, the volume of cases has a lot to do with it, the -- the possible offensive issues, what pretrial matters can be raised. There's all sorts of variables that come into those things, so that it's 8-24-05 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 really -- you can't program one case and have it serve as a model for another one. Every single one of them are different. And it's -- it's really a tough proposition, and I'm sure the Auditor will tell you that it's something that we wrastle with every single year in every single court. It runs from the top to the district down to my juvenile cases. The one thing that's probably a little bit more predictable is my mental health, but we've never really had that much of a problem with those. MR. TOMLINSON: My last conversation -- Becky may have more information about this than I do, but the last conversation I had with one of the District Judges is that, beginning this year, there's -- he said we can look for more Court-appointed attorneys in relation to Child Protective cases. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. TOMLINSON: Because in the past, they'd only been assigned under certain circumstances, and I think -- I think, beginning this year, I think probably most -- each case will probably require one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We were told in Austin at the Legislative Review that the Legislature now says we have to provide for indigent defense in Child Protective cases. COMMISSIONER LETZ: In all of them, even the 8-24-05 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 -- even the temporary ones, which was not in the past. So, a temporary hearing to do something, we have to provide the legal defense, as opposed to just later. JUDGE TINLEY: What's the effective date of COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think September 1. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think September 1. JUDGE TINLEY: 'Cause I know heretofore, only in the event that there was a possibility that there would be a termination of parental rights were we obligated to provide counsel to indigents. COMMISSIONER LETZ: As I understand, it was any temporary disposition or temporary, you know, termination of that right, as well as -- JUDGE TINLEY: Outside placement. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- temporary outside placement, they get it as well now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The question would be, how many cases a year can we anticipate where that might happen? COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I might note that the Legislature did not provide any funding for this. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, that's another unfunded mandate. 25 ~ MR. TOMLINSON: So, my point -- I guess my 8-24-05 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 point is that the $100,000 may be appropriate. I mean, because it -- as the Judge stated, it's a -- how much you need is kind of a roll of the dice, so that's just an additional cost that we may see for sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to talk -- MS. HENDERSON: When we did Court-Appointed Attorneys line, at that time when I did this, that was not -- I did not know that, so when we talked about it, that was not included in what we already have for Court-appointed attorneys. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So your numbers don't include that possibility? MS. HENDERSON: No, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to talk about Special Trials some more. We've got 100,000 in 216th and 50,000 in 198th. Is that anticipated for a specific trial, or is that just in case there's a -- MR. TOMLINSON: Originally, it was. It -- last year or year before, we set -- we put that amount in there specifically for the Seard case, and it didn't happen last year. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But we've gone from -- in two years, we've gone from $800 in Special Trials to 150,000 in Special Trials. And reiterating what 8-24-05 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 Commissioner Letz was saying, that if we use that money for other purposes, that sort of defeats the -- the discipline of the budgeting process. Wouldn't it be better if we -- if we don't have any belief that there's going to be special trial money needed, wouldn't it be better to not budget it, and then take whatever steps are necessary to amend the budget if it becomes necessary? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, one of the issues had to do with that Seard -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seard trial. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Seard trial. And he COMMISSIONER LETZ: Vernon. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- mental -- a mental institution and then back. Then he's back in a mental institution. So, the question is, is he going to come back for trial in -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that anyone knows the answer to that. I mean, if that trial does -- if that trial happens, it's going to be a very expensive trial. If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. I mean, it's just something that -- that's out of everyone in this county, at least this Court and District, probably, largely out of their control. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, if there's 8-24-05 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 still some expectation Seard's trial will cost $100,000, that would explain the 216th, but it doesn't explain the $50,000 in the 198th. JUDGE TINLEY: Can you enlighten us on that, Becky? MS. HENDERSON: Well, we just don't know what to expect. I mean, we could have a murder tomorrow and they could go to trial -- a capital murder tomorrow and they could go to trial next year. I mean, we don't know, and so it's kind of in there because we don't know. JUDGE TINLEY: At this point, though -- MS. HENDERSON: On Seard -- JUDGE TINLEY: -- so far as you know, number one, on the 216th, is there an expectation that the Seard case may have to go to trial this coming fiscal year? MS. HENDERSON: There's no way of knowing. They found him incompetent, and in a few more months they'll do another competency hearing. We just don't know. If they find him competent, then he'll definitely go to trial. If they keep finding him incompetent, then it just keeps lingering on. JUDGE TINLEY: How many times has he been found incompetent since the start of this whole process? MS. HENDERSON: Twice, Tommy? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Twice, I think. 8-24-05 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 MR. TOMLINSON: Twice. MS. HENDERSON: At least twice. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. HENDERSON: I mean, probably he'll be incompetent for the next year and a half, but there's no way of knowing that. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to 198th. Is there anything that's pending now in the 198th that gives us reason to believe that there might be an extraordinary case there that might go to trial during the coming fiscal year that is going to be out of the ordinary expensive? MS. HENDERSON: Nothing I can think of right now. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. HENDERSON: But same synopsis. We don't know -- JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. MS. HENDERSON: -- you know, what might happen today or tomorrow. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- and we've used Special Trials as a little bit of a contingency line item. I don't have a real problem -- and I understand that there's no way to budget for some of these items. It's driven by the case load and the individual cases that come about during the year. But I also think that we're probably 8-24-05 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 budgeting too much based on what we think. I mean, if we knew there was going to be a capital murder trial this year, that's one thing, but this year I don't think -- I think the odds are there's not going to be one in either court. And I would recommend that we not reduce them all the way down, but, you know, maybe reduce them to $25,000 in each one, and use it as a contingency type. If we need to declare an emergency during the year, we declare an emergency during the year. JUDGE TINLEY: Or we may want to give some consideration -- as Ms. Henderson said, at the time that she put in Court-appointed attorneys, she was not making any allowance for these -- these C.P.S. cases where there's indigent defense available. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I -- you know, C.P.S. cases are even done in a year. I have no -- MS. HENDERSON: We've got a lot. They're really -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: A lot? MS. HENDERSON: Yes, sir. They're really -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the -- MS. HENDERSON: Just in the past year, we've had a whole lot. 25 ~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: While it's not in 8-24-05 bwk 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this budget, we still have to adjust the District Clerk's It's not in JUDGE TINLEY: You can pull in one more. On Law budget, he has a special item called Master's Fees, I believe, or something to that effect. And Judge Brown would like to get that out of his budget and into a separate C.P.S. type budget, and I tend to agree with him, because he has no direct control over those cases. They're handled by the master, and when it comes to approving those fees, they are, for all practical purposes, approved by the master. Maybe they're confirmed or reviewed and -- and -- by the District Judges, and maybe even Judge Brown, but he's uncomfortable doing that, and I don't blame him. I would be too under those circumstances. So, I mentioned to the Auditor the possibility of creating a separate budget for those C.P.S. cases, and what I'm hearing now about the new legislation coming into effect makes my feeling that much stronger that we need to segregate that so that we can get a better handle on what those things are. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Will those C.P.S. cases go more to District Court or County Court? MR. TOMLINSON: That's a Becky question. MS. HENDERSON: It's evenly -- it's random, 8-24-05 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 14 A, B, and C, whichever one comes up when they go to file it. So, it -- it's pretty even between the three of them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about if we reduce 216th's $50,000, leave $50,000 in both of them? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd kind of like that approach better than taking them down to 25. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And then, if we have to declare an emergency, we can declare an emergency. MS. HENDERSON: Is that for Special Trials? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. MS. HENDERSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, both of them are MS. HENDERSON: What about the attorney's COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're going to have to go up on that. Do you have an estimate about how many cases we're talking about? MS. HENDERSON: I can find out for you. I don't right now, no, sir. I mean, it's hard to say. We're averaging -- our C.P.S. associate judge is here probably two to three times a month, and she's averaging anywhere from -- what would you say, Rex? Anywhere from 10 to 12 cases every time she's here? 25 I MR. EMERSON: Yeah. 8-24-05 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 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me ask the County Attorney if -- Rex, do you have any feel for how many -- what kind of attorney fee is related to one case? What the total might be? MR. EMERSON: If this will give you an idea, sure. On a typical C.P.S. case, you'll have anywhere from three to five attorneys, typically. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wow. MR. EMERSON: Depending on how many parents are involved. And the problem you run into is that -- if they reach an agreement early, it's not an issue, but typically they don't. And if it goes all the way to trial, realistically, you're going to pay those attorneys anywhere from $3,000 or $4,000 to $10,000 apiece, depending on what type of case it is. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hmm. MS. HENDERSON: They don't all do that, but that is a typical -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not all indigent. MR. EMERSON: But that's -- well, not all -- not all of them are indigent, but indigency, as I understand it on the new statute, only applies to removal cases. If it's termination, they're still required to appoint counsel. Is that correct, Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: I don't handle those cases. 8-24-05 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 16 MR. EMERSON: I'm just talking about the COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought JUDGE TINLEY: I know under the -- the existing law as it is now, if there is -- one of the grounds for relief that -- that is requested is termination of parental rights. You -- they're entitled to counsel, and most judges I know very liberally construe that. They try and encourage the parent to get his or her own counsel, but even if they feel like they're capable and have the resources to do that, if they continue to assert that they don't have the resources, most judges I know, because of the risk of being reversed on appeal, will go ahead and appoint counsel. So, it's a risky business if you don't insure that they have a lawyer, even if you think they have the resources to do their own. MR. EMERSON: If I may add one more thing, if the issue you're talking about as far as expanding cases is just removal without termination, the attorney's fees will not be that much per case. 'Cause a C.P.S. case typically, on a removal, will be resolved in less than a year, and generally the kids are removed, the parents are required to go through some type of remediation program, educational program, and then once that happens, they're placed back in the home. 8-24-05 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, as I understand it, the -- the statute -- the old statute was for permanent termination, and the new statute is temporary, so it's adding temporary termination or, you know -- JUDGE TINLEY: Outside placement. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I would think there would be more temporary ones than permanent ones, I would think. JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does this -- this change that's driving the costs up, is that legislative or court? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Legislative. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Legislative. Another unfunded mandate. JUDGE TINLEY: Part of the -- the C.P.S. explosion that occurred last year that got so much legislative attention, it was part of all that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sounds like the Bar Association's full employment act to me. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Retirement plan for Bar Association members. JUDGE TINLEY: In looking at Judge Brown's budget, I note that he's got a separate line item for Master Court Appointments for $15,000 in his budget, and that's 8-24-05 bwk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 18 what I was referring to earlier, is -- and I talked to the Auditor about taking that out of Judge Brown's budget and creating a separate Master's budget for those C.P.S. attorney's fees to be charged against so that we can have a handle on which ones are -- are indigent criminal cases under the Indigent Defense Act and which ones are under the C.P.S. I assume that's still possible, isn't it, Tommy? MR. TOMLINSON: It's possible. I visited with the District Judges about this issue, and they -- their position is that -- is those cases, even though they're heard by an associate judge, are still their cases, and they -- they actually approve those expenditures after the associate judge has reviewed them. So, I thought -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The question is, how are we going to estimate a dollar impact of this and get it in the budget? JUDGE TINLEY: And do we do it under separate 23 24 anything? 25 8-24-05 bwk MS. HENDERSON: You mean for C.P.S. or COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just in general. I mean, line items for Court-appointed attorneys and then Master appointments in C.P.S. type cases? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- Becky, do you keep track of what types of cases these Court-appointed attorneys are going to? 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 can you tell me, like -- if I was to ask, could you tell me, well, out of the total expenditures, these are C.P.S.? I MS. HENDERSON: Oh, I can find out. I don't have that right off the top of my head, but we can go through -- the District Clerk would have a record of it, probably. Tommy, I don't know if your office would. Probably wouldn't know which cases they came to. We could get that information for you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It just seems that -- I mean, from a -- it would be nice to be able to have a number next year that we can tell Mr. Hilderbran and Mr. Fraser about that, "This is what you did to us last Legislature." I mean, 'cause they're the ones that control it. We have no control over this; we're just mandated to do it. And I think that, you know, that's an important thing for them to know as legislators, and for the public to know as taxpayers. MS. HENDERSON: Sure. We could do that if -- if we had a special line item that had Court-Appointed Attorneys-dash-C.P.S., we could put them all under that line item. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. They're -- they're 8-24-05 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 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MR. TOMLINSON: -- they're not -- they're not subject to the Fair Defense Act. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. MR. TOMLINSON: There's no -- there's no chance of any kind of reimbursement on those. Now, the one reason that -- that we do -- there is a reason to keep these special trials separate, in that there is a way to retrieve some of the expense of a capital murder case. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. TOMLINSON: Through -- through the Comptroller's office. They -- they will reimburse counties for -- for capital murder trials for some -- for designated expenditures. So, by keeping those separate, then -- then it makes it easier to -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. TOMLINSON: -- to apply for that when that time comes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd almost say to leave it the way it is right now in Special Trials, and then, when we get a better handle on the amount, raise it as an emergency item, which I think this qualifies. We don't know. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think we can quantify it. Nobody seems to know. 8-24-05 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 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Anybody got any idea JUDGE TINLEY: This lady right here's -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- the possibilities with -- is it going to double or -- MS. KAHANT: I have a question. I'd like to ask a question. My name's Carolyn Kahant. As far as the Special Trials line item, is it possible to put a restriction on it so that it's only used for special trials and not for other things, in order to keep a handle on the budget? JUDGE TINLEY: It's initially set up that way, but when we get towards the end of the budget year and other line items -- for example, Court-appointed attorneys -- run out of funds, typically what happens is that we look for other funds within that same department budget in order to cover those legitimate expenses of that department, and transfer from one line item to the other. That's how we utilize that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, we can't really -- I understand what you're saying, but we can't legally -- I guess we could tell the judges to stop hearing cases for a while, but that's just -- that would be worse. I mean, I don't think we could do that, 'cause I think they would probably instruct us otherwise. 8-24-05 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 MS. KAHANT: What happens if the Special Trials fund's all used up, and then we still need more money? COMMISSIONER LETZ: We declare an emergency. MS. KAHANT: And, so, no matter how much it is, we just keep shuffling -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have no choice. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what the court system's all about. JUDGE TINLEY: What you're suggesting, then, if I understand, Mr. Tomlinson, is that we maybe have two Court-Appointed Attorney categories in each of the court's budgets, one criminal and one civil? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: And we can keep up for Fair Defense reporting. And then the other one would necessarily be the C.P.S. type cases. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would we be splitting that amount on the Court-appointed attorneys to satisfy the two line items, or are we going to add something for what's anticipated in the -- on the civil side? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe Becky could look at it and figure out how to split the criminal versus the 8-24-05 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 civil, and look at some kind of a ballpark, maybe, on what MR. TOMLINSON: I would guess that the percentage of the total for C.P.S. cases to-date is between 15 and 20 percent. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much, Tommy? MR. TOMLINSON: Between 15 and 20 percent. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Of the total? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. I -- I have to keep up with -- with all the criminal in order to get reimbursement from the State for -- for the criminal, and -- but I see all -- each invoice or each voucher for Court-appointed attorneys, so I'm remembering that -- that the total that applies to criminal are around 80 percent or 85 percent of the total. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, with that -- maybe just add 20 percent to the Court-appointed attorneys. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And create a separate line. Take 20 percent of the total. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 20 percent of the total, and add 20 -- maybe add 20 percent; say we're going to double that expenditure, so -- JUDGE TINLEY: 22,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, 22,000. So, maybe 8-24-05 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 JUDGE TINLEY: 110 -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it will be -- 110 will get reduced to 90, and then the other -- the new item which will be criminal, and then the other item would be 40. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: New item will be civil. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Criminal will be 90,000; civil will be 40,000. And that's adding 20,000 to that combined -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, you're proposing to cut back the 110 to 90? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if we're going to put the C.P.S. ones out, we're going to put the civil -- if 20 percent of those are civil -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we ought to put it in the civil category. JUDGE TINLEY: Is that what I'm hearing? MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, instead of 110, we'll have 90 in the criminal and 20 in the civil? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 40. MR. TOMLINSON: 40. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 40. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The 20 percent we're 8-29-05 bwk 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 taking out, and 20 percent we're adding because of the new mandate. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Make that a net increase of 20,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What about i n the 198th? Same -- same theory? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same theory, but the numbers are too hard for me; there's a 5 in there. MR. TOMLINSON : I'll figure it out. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or we can do it with -- I mean, do an 80 and -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Looks like -- looks like 80 and -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 30. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 80 and 30. JUDGE TINLEY: 19's going to be 38? You're just going to 30? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah 80-30. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You'll create a new line item? (Mr. Tomlinson nodded.) COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When you're making 8-24-05 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 budget amendments for districts courts, do you have to follow this -- can you move money from one court to the other one? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We do it all the time. JUDGE TINLEY: We do. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. So, it -- you don't have to have an emergency if one's short and the other one's not? JUDGE TINLEY: Just got to make sure that Ms. Henderson says it's okay. MR. TOMLINSON: We've already been there this year. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. HENDERSON: It's fine. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on the District Courts? Why don't we move to County Clerk, then? That is going to be under Tab 3, I believe. Got several different budgets to work with here. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not abandoning you, Jannett. I'm just going to get a cup of coffee. MS. PIEPER: Well, hurry. Is there any particular budget that y'all want to start with? 8-24-05 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 JUDGE TINLEY: First one we got up is your MS. PIEPER: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: I think then we go to only additional item that I am requesting on that is for one additional deputy for County Court at Law. Now that we have a new County Attorney on board, he's swamping us with cases. Of course, we were swamped prior. And we've maintained the same amount of deputies that we have had since I first started in that office in '92. And I have some information that I'd like to pass out. There's two different ones, if you'll just take one and pass it around. One of them is a scale of my office on how it's set up with my chief deputy and then my bookkeeper and then my administrators, to show you what each of my deputies do. This is their main duty. So, if you'll look at my County Court at Law, I have one administrator and three deputies there. Probably 90 percent of their duties is to handle the criminal cases. On Tuesdays, when we run 50, 60 people through court, I have to have two in court, and at least two in that section in my office to make -- file-stamping their judgments, make copies, and then it just gets laid on a table until they can start on them the next day of doing the data entry in the 8-24-05 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 computer. And trying to get the Police Department, Sheriff's Department, County Attorney, Probation Department, and the Collections Department a copy of that judgment so they can do their work on that, plus all the reports that we have to do to the State on these, that is a very highly stressful department. And then, when they have a chance, then they'll have to work on their civil and their juvenile. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This sheet is a comparison of our county against another one? MS. PIEPER: Right. The other one is a comparison, because I seem to get compared to Lamar County all the time. And if one of you will give me my copy back, 'cause evidently I handed you every one of them. JUDGE TINLEY: We got an extra. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here. MS. PIEPER: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you want this other one, too? MS. PIEPER: I have that one. I talked to the County Clerk over there at length. Not as much, though, as I still need to to get a complete comparison, because I believe she has eight deputies, and I have 12. Let me rephrase that. I have 12 employees out of this general budget. I have two employees out of Records Management, so you can't count those, because that's all they do is my 8-24-05 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 records management. On this, you'll see that just in the criminal cases alone, I had 301 more cases. Now, this is just a comparison for 2004, so this doesn't include all of the cases that our County Attorney has bumped up. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And Lamar County is a MS. PIEPER: Yes. This is the one that the Court seems to keep comparing me to. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. MS. PIEPER: Now, in a -- and you can see in the red all the -- the more cases that our court handles. What this does not tell you is that when it comes to doing the hearing notices, when it comes to issuing warrants, different stuff like that, Lamar County Attorney's office handles most of that. Here in Kerr County, my office handles all of that. However she's getting away with her County Attorney doing it, I don't know. It's great, but -- so she doesn't complain about it. With the criminal cases, when you don't have defendants showing up for court, then that opens up a judgment nisi case, so we generally have anywhere from five to ten of those a court date, give or take some, so then we have to get on that right away. And then I go on down to show you how many birth, death, marriage, beer license. The only thing I failed to ask her was, like, on assumed name certificates where I had -- 8-24-05 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What? MS. PIEPER: Assumed name certificates, where people that are starting new businesses come in, that -- that we have to care of. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What big city's near Lamar? MS. PIEPER: Truthfully, I have no idea. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Lamar's in east Texas? MS. PIEPER: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think east Texas. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Reason I was looking, it's a real odd statistic. I mean, they have a lot more -- there are more marriages, but no births. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I saw that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they have two births. MS. PIEPER: They don't have many deaths either. They had 13 deaths. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we have our share of those. COMMISSIONER right next to a big city, a~ pushed into the county next MS. PIEPER: hospital may be in the next COMMISSIONER LETZ: ~d all door, Well, count LETZ: So I'm assuming those deaths are and births in a it could be that Y• Yeah. What I'm it's being zospital. the saying 8-24-05 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 is, it must be a bigger community. MS. PIEPER: You know, we have three funeral homes that we have to deal with here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's Lamar County? JUDGE ELLIOTT: Not close to Liberty County, I can tell you that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not over there. JUDGE TINLEY: It's north and east -- or west, rather. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Must be north, yeah. Way, far north. I don't know. MS. PIEPER: They must have more farmland, because they have had more marks and brands than what we've had, so I'm assuming by that that they've got more country -- more farming than we do. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't brand goats. MS. PIEPER: And then, of course, for their elections, they only handle the county elections, to where we do the primaries, the Republican and Democrat. I help with the City's. I help with the school, and I do the Headwaters. And that takes all of my staff up front to get elections. This is a side duty that we have. That's not -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: My view is probably not what you're going to want to hear. MS. PIEPER: Probably not. 8-24-05 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As you heard my statements about this new computer system, I'm not really going to entertain any new employees with that computer system really as a -- something the people want and think they need. There's going to be a savings. If we're able to figure out how to pay for that new computer system, it's -- every elected official, including yourself, have said it's going to improve efficiency, and I can't see hiring people when we're trying -- when we're ready to do something else that's supposed to help your workload. If, a year from now -- MS. PIEPER: But we still have to do all the data entry. We still have to do all the reporting. You know, we still have to do all the reports. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's just -- we can't do everything. All I can say is that, I mean, we just got hit with a huge EMS bill which we -- was a lot more than we thought it was going to be. I'm not going to raise taxes this year. I think we had a huge -- I think -- I mean, with the amount of increased revenue that this county received from new growth, which we're very fortunate -- you know, I was hoping a year ago to be able to lower taxes because of the growth a little bit. That ain't going to happen. We have a tax anticipation note coming off this year. MS. PIEPER: Well, if it comes down to my -- 8-24-05 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 I would prefer to have my County Court at Law than the -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Prefer what? MS. PIEPER: To have a new County Court at Law, an additional one, rather than the software. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whoa. MS. PIEPER: I mean, it would make our jobs COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's really -- that's really contradictory to what we've been hearing from the District Clerk and you and others with respect to the justice -- MS. PIEPER: No, I'm not contradicting it. It would make our office easier, but we're still going to have to put the same information in the computer system. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, from what I'm understanding, however, from all of those proponents of the new computer system, even though the volume of work may be what it is today, in anticipated growth, the system's going to help you manage all that better. Input is input; I understand that. But you're telling us that the system's not going to help you at all? MS. PIEPER: Well -- oh, no, it will. It will, a great deal. Because as far as our report goes, I think it'll be much easier. 25 ~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 8-24-05 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 JUDGE TINLEY: You had -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. Just -- I was going to say the system, as we understand it, could very logically reduce your -- your personnel requirements for handling customers over the counter. Am I correct? MS. PIEPER: No, I don't know about that, because this -- because it's a court package, so the stuff over the counter is basically recordings and of that general nature. So I don't know how this court package would help in the front counter. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It helps in terms of the public asking for documents that they come over the counter to -- MS. PIEPER: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- ask a clerk for and pay money across the counter for. Those that can utilize that interaction through the Internet and to your office electronically. MS. PIEPER: Right. Now, that -- yes, that will. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're not anticipating that would reduce your direct -- MS. PIEPER: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- your direct involvement -- personnel involvement with the public? 8-29-05 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 MS. PIEPER: It would. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- I mean, I think that, you know, I'm in favor of providing -- taxing the public for good service, but if there's an option with a new computer system that we can get there off the Internet, they may need to start using that service or they're going to have to stand in line. I mean, we -- this county cannot continue just to spend, spend, spend. We have got to start getting a handle on this stuff. And, I mean, I understand what you're saying. I appreciate information like this. But the direction I was leaning was trying to figure out how, if at all possible, to pay for the computer system, and I just don't see adding employees unless there's -- 'cause you -- you're shifting around, if you can get -- MS. PIEPER: Well, after we get the new system, if it still doesn't work out, then I'll come in at that point and request another deputy for County Court at Law. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That, I think, is a better approach. JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Pieper, you have mentioned that of your 12 deputies, two of those are dedicated to records management functions? MS. PIEPER: That is correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Do you know the number of -- 8-24-05 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 what portion of the deputies -- the eight deputies in Lamar MS. PIEPER: Absolutely none, because they outsource government -- to Governmental Records Service. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They outsource it? MS. PIEPER: Their scanning, their filming, their indexing, everything. Their recording. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that an option for you? MS. PIEPER: When they get a document, they file-stamp it and then they bundle their stuff up and send it to Governmental Records Service. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that an option for you? MS. PIEPER: No, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because? Quality? Or -- MS. PIEPER: No, because if I bundle those originals up and they're sent off and that postman has a wreck and his van catches on fire, there goes all my originals that I am liable for. I just -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that liability -- the same liability extends to any other county that outsources? 25 ~ MS. PIEPER: I don't know. I don't know how 8-24-05 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 that works, and I'm not going to take that chance. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I guess I could say this every time we look at a budget. We saw earlier that we're the most expensive county of the 14 our size, and we saw that the reason for that is 'cause we staff more heavily than all the other 14 counties. And I would have expected that -- and -- well, the other thing I see is that nobody's responsible for that. It doesn't happen in any department. I would have expected with that kind of information, we'd be learning how other counties operate more effectively and efficiently than we do. We'd be saying we can get by with fewer people by doing these things differently. But I'm not going to see that; that's clear to me now. MS. PIEPER: Well, you don't hear any complaints about Kerr County. At least I don't think you do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I hear complaints on a daily basis about our tax rate. MS. PIEPER: Right. But not the efficiency of my office, you don't. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, there may be a 25 ~ MS. PIEPER: Do you want complaints? Is that 8-24-05 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 what you want to COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I'm saying that I think this -- you know, that the taxpayers are telling me they don't want to pay taxes, you know. That's all I'm saying. MS. PIEPER: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The tax rates aren't going up this year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think I'd rather -- the approach, rather than adding a deputy to your staff, I'd rather us examine the approach of providing you with enhanced tools to do your job. So that -- MS. PIEPER: We'll try that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So that you can take that pressure off and be prepared to manage the growth that's sure to come. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Put a different way -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's for us to reconcile. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we through with your regular budget? Can we go to your elections? MS. PIEPER: Well, also, I'd like to -- I did not put this in the budget. I wanted to present this to you. We -- I also have deputies that has presented me with their wish list. Some are wanting flat screen monitors. 8-24-05 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 25 There are several wanting plastic workstation floor mats. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where are we now? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Plastic -- MS. PIEPER: Yes, they are called plastic workstation floor mats. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Floor mats, okay. I thought you said formats. I was trying to figure out what that -- you mean the pads? MS. PIEPER: I believe so. And I think the idea behind that is because it'll keep your chair from rolling as quickly. I did have one deputy that was rushed, and when she went to sit down in her chair, it slid out from under her, and as a result, she was out for several months and had to have surgery. JUDGE TINLEY: If we've got a safety issue, that should have been -- that should have been brought forward and take a look at that. MS. PIEPER: It's not happened yet. JUDGE TINLEY: The computer things, has that gone through the I.T. Department? MS. PIEPER: I did, yes. He -- basically, he has taken care of that, so I'm really not concerned with that. I let him take care of all my computers and -- I'm not a computer person. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8-24-05 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 WILLIAMS: Wouldn't those safety MS. PIEPER: It hasn't yet. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are the -- do you know the cost of those mats? That's something I think is -- MS. PIEPER: I have no idea, because I'm not -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: You might ask Glenn to look into what those cost, because I think that's an issue -- MS. PIEPER: I'm not a safety person type thing, so I'm not sure exactly what kind of mats are needed, if they are. I don't know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You might check with Glenn when he gets back. I think he's gone. MS. PIEPER: And the safety department has only been through my office once that I'm aware of. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, safety items of that nature should not be a budget item. They ought to be a priority item, and we ought to get them tended to so that we don't have injuries. Because one injury can -- can buy a whole carload of -- of those chair mats. MS. PIEPER: True. My County Court at Law section is also wanting some type of a sturdy rolling file 8-24-05 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 cart so that when they carry all of the files over on Tuesdays, they can put them in a cart and roll them over. They have one right now, but it's not very sturdy. And we're getting so many cases that it's not holding them all. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would be a -- that would be under a supply, I would think. MS. PIEPER: Or office equipment. I don't know what you want to put it under. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would think that would qualify under office equipment. That's not a major capital expense. MS. PIEPER: The only money that's in there right now is the money that John said I needed for my I.T. stuff. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that's under hardware, $4,200? MS. PIEPER: No. This is operating equipment and is Line Item 569. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the -- what's in 569 in addition to whatever is in 561? MS. PIEPER: I have no idea; that's John's. That whole page, from 561 all the way down, except for my binder covers, is what John said that I need. I have a memo from him. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see it. 8-24-05 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 MS. PIEPER: And, basically, he just gave me a total figure. I told him I needed to know where to put each amount at, and this is what he told me. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I found the 4,200. That's maintenance and peripherals. MS. PIEPER: Now, that Line Item 563, the Software Maintenance, that is strictly the annual maintenance for Software Group. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. MS. PIEPER: I believe that 562 is for the license on the Microsoft, but I'm not for sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know what the cart you're referring to would cost? MS. PIEPER: Couple of hundred dollars. I don't really know for sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, it can go under -- that can -- does that fit under Office Supplies? JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. Well -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would think so. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, we need to add -- I mean, it looks like to me there's enough money in there, but if we need to add a couple hundred dollars for that, that's something that's not a big-ticket item. If you need something like that, I think you need to get it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jannett, in your 8-24-05 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 discussion with John with respect to computers and screens and so forth that are replaced, we're talking about flat screens replacing existing CRT's as needed? Or just because somebody wants a new flat screen? Which? MS. PIEPER: I don't know. The ones he put up front, he did that because of space saving, because of the small amount. Other than that, I don't know. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MS. PIEPER: He is going to have to replace my bookkeeper's computer and three in County Court at Law, because they are running Windows 95 and 98, I believe. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. MS. PIEPER: So I believe that's on his list. And then he's going to take a couple of those and run me a computer line downstairs in the lower level where I do elections, and we're going to utilize a couple of those computers for my voters during elections down there, so we'll be able to utilize those computers. We don't have to have an upgraded computer just to look up a voter's name or voter registration. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good use. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I bet -- I mean, I think he probably will, over time, be upgrading the monitors on all the computers to some sort of flat screen, 'cause that 25 I seems to be -- 8-24-05 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 MS. PIEPER: We have some of the monitors that the color is off on them; they're purple or green or whatever, that -- because they're getting old, or some of them are shaking, but the girls are dealing with it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, in that case, they need to be replaced. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- MS. PIEPER: I think those are the ones that he's looking at replacing first. He's trying to go from the oldest, replacing those. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I asked the question because your comment was, some of your folks want flat screens. MS. PIEPER: Well, that's the ones that their screens are shaking and, you know -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. If there's a need to replace them, then that's the way to replace them. There's no question about that. MS. PIEPER: Right. And then he's added a couple of monitors that he has had back in his storage, I guess, that he's been able to replace a couple of them. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we on Election Expenses? Item 370, the voting machines, those are paid for out of a -- there's an offsetting revenue for that amount? 8-24-05 bwk 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MS. PIEPER: There is. The check from the Secretary of State is still sitting over by my desk over there. Hart did send in another quote, and I have made copies. I have the County Attorney looking at the contract. He probably hasn't had a chance to yet; I just gave it to him a day or two ago. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Refresh our memory. What was the amount we received from the State for this purpose? Was it 285? 22 23 contract. 24 25 check. MS. PIEPER: Right. We have to submit the MR. TOMLINSON: We don't actually get a MS. PIEPER: 279, I believe. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 294. MS. PIEPER: No, 294. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Almost 295. Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: Commissioner, the way I -- what I'm recalling when the Secretary of State was here, they -- they have a provision that they have made arrangements with the vendors -- all five of these vendors, that they don't get their money until -- until we submit an invoice to the Secretary of State's office. And then, when we get our money, then they get -- they get paid. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 8-24-05 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 WILLIAMS: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we don't pay them -- MR. TOMLINSON: We don't pay them until we get our money from the Secretary of State's office. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, there is an off -- a dollar-for-dollar -- well, that check is -- is that a fixed amount, or is it going to adjust -- that amount adjust to whatever the bill is? MR. TOMLINSON: That's the -- I think it's adjusted, whatever the bill is. But I think that some of it -- some of that money is for training. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was my understanding. So, it's -- there is some flexibility in there, and that's the amount that we're -- that's been given to Kerr County to be used for equipment and training. MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. MS. PIEPER: And they do show five days of training on this, on the second page. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I guess my question is that this invoice is 25,000 more than the check, so does that mean the County's picking up that 25,000? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you tell them that they need to reduce their price 25,000? MS. PIEPER: Well, I've called him, and he 8-24-05 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, "Well, if you look on Page 2, you'll see a special COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if it was 130, I'd be a lot happier, instead of 106. MS. PIEPER: On the election budget, there's nothing that I'm adding in on it. Actually, I'm decreasing our machine repair, because if we get this new system, I don't think we'll need that machine repair of $2,700. Also, when we get our new equipment, the -- we'll be getting some of the money back, because every time there's a different election from the -- the primaries, the City, whatever, then we can get 10 percent of our purchase price of the equipment that they use from us. JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding -- and maybe I was mistaken in this in discussing it with you -- was that this -- while the actual equipment cost was going to be in excess, there was going to be a discount factor plugged in so that we could acquire the equipment and the training within the amount that was allotted by the Secretary of State's office. Is that -- was that not what I understood from talking with you? MS. PIEPER: Well, that's what I had understood from talking with them, but then whenever I get this contract... COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. How many units are 8-24-05 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 we getting? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 22. MS. PIEPER: 22. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason I'm going -- part of the difference may be that bottom box on this refers to "extended warranty," but it goes two units and four units. MS. PIEPER: And I'm not sure what that is. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's 13,000, so it goes up to -- it's -- 306 is actually the price. MS. PIEPER: Well, one of them -- okay, one of them is for the e-Slate and one of them is for the e-Scan. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's -- MS. PIEPER: The e-Slate is the D.R.E. handicapped -- JUDGE TINLEY: The actual voting machine. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you going to require 12 days of training? MS. PIEPER: I think -- I think they are here 12 days prior to the first -- or 12 days from the first election, just to get us through it. This is the number of days that they came up with. It's not something that me and Hart Intercivic discussed. But we're going to have to use some of these days training election judges and clerks. You 8-24-05 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 know, there used to just be paper ballots, and -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it seems to me -- I mean, I'd ask if you could get back with -- with Hart Graphics (sic) and ask them to explain what this bottom portion is. I'm still not sure what that covers, that two units, four units, and that extended warranty and really what the warranty is that we have on the machines, and what that extended warranty covers. MS. PIEPER: It's possible that in their contract, it -- that may explain it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other part is, I just really -- I've been under the impression that the amount from the State was going to cover this, and I think that Hart needs to come up with a proposal that does that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was my understanding when they gave us the money, that this is adequate to cover what you need and your training. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So it's another example of an unfunded mandate, in a different kind of way. We didn't -- MS. PIEPER: Well, you know, this check is based on 16 precincts, and we have 20. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But my point is, nationwide, Texas-wide, we -- so far as I know, we didn't 8-29-05 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 need any help voting; we were voting just fine. Now we're probably spending a billion dollars or so on a solution looking for a problem. That's not your problem, Jannett. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jannett, why -- why was the State only talking to us about 16 when we really have more precincts? MS. PIEPER: Because they're basing that on the number of precincts that we had in 1990, I believe. I'm not for sure the exact date. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a possibility of putting in a request to the Secretary of State's office for funding for the additional precincts? MS. PIEPER: No. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do we know that? MS. PIEPER: Because it's going that way all over the state of Texas. They said we're basing it on the amount of precincts that you had in 1990 and that's it. And there's a good majority of the counties in Texas that, because of the census, our population's up; we had to have more election precincts. JUDGE TINLEY: Have you made that inquiry? MS. PIEPER: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: About increasing the allocation based on the number of current voting precincts, 25 ~ as opposed -- 8-24-05 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 25 MS. PIEPER: Yes, at our election school, there was a lot of us clerks that questioned them, and they said no, we're going on the census from 1990 and that's it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- all we can do at this point is, you can get with Hart Graphics and say, "Our understanding is we're getting this much money from the State. That's how much we're going to spend." MS. PIEPER: Okay, I'll tell them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And tell them that if it means adjusting training a couple days bottom portion, that extended warranty not being covered under -- that may be We just need -- we want to -- what the equipment's going to cost, it needs to State's going to pay us. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- and I suspect that part, I can see that something additional. training and match what the I'd like a little clearer understanding, if you have it -- if you don't, you can ask them perhaps -- of why we have 12 days of project management in addition to the five days of training. What's that all about, 12 days of project management? MS. PIEPER: That could be programming the ballots, teaching me how to program the ballots. Because I will be programming them. This -- this system will allow me to program them and print them. That way I don't have to outsource all of that. 8-24-05 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will you be programming the ballots by -- by your people henceforth? They're only going to do that the initial time? Or is that an ongoing expense every time we conduct an election? MS. PIEPER: No, there will be no expense for that afterwards, because I will be doing it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MS. PIEPER: They're going to teach me how to program and print the ballots. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That was my question. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other thing -- and I don't know how -- I'm not sure what the effective date is, but as I recall, the Legislature reduced the number of election dates to two during the year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Down from the number of four or six that we currently have. And there's now a November date and a -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May -- March. March or May? COMMISSIONER LETZ: May. And there's a -- primaries come under a different issue. Is that going to reduce the number of elections we have at all? MS. PIEPER: No. 8-24-05 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, previously, the City and the -- yeah, the City and the school districts have done theirs on the same date? MS. PIEPER: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on the elections? Okay. Let's try Records Management, 404. MS. PIEPER: On records management, the only thing that I am requesting is $420 on capital outlay, and that is to replace some plat envelopes that have deteriorated. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: I think what we've got included in what you gentlemen have is the 420 under Operating Equipment. MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. JUDGE TINLEY: And it was just moved there, so that'll solve that problem, 'cause you had nothing in Operating Equipment. MS. PIEPER: Right. I'm sorry, you're right. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. That'll move us to the Records Management and Preservation. MS. PIEPER: That one I'm not going to do anything with. I was going to do two part-time employees out of that, but I have changed my mind, and I would like to take that out of the line item -- the 41-634 budget. 8-24-05 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 25 JUDGE TINLEY: 634? MS. PIEPER: That is that new -- JUDGE TINLEY: That's records archival. MS. PIEPER: -- records archival. And, basically, I want to fund two part-time employees. That total is 20,800 plus their FICA of 1,592, and that will allow the two people that I have working part-time to continue working part-time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This comes out of a designated fund? MS. PIEPER: Yes, it does. So far, there is over $55,000 in that fund that has been collected, and this was as of probably four months ago that I asked about this total, so there's a lot more in there now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what's your request for part-time? How much? MS. PIEPER: 20,800. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What page are you on? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 108. So, you want to add -- MS. PIEPER: One of those employees has been working on Commissioners Court records strictly. So -- from 1856, trying to get us caught up on them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some of your other -- you 8-24-05 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 25 mentioned earlier that you had two employees that did records management out of your -- MS. PIEPER: Right. That's out of -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, but my question is, can a portion of their salary come out of this fund? MS. PIEPER: Their portion of the salary is coming out of the Records Management. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's coming out of -- MS. PIEPER: Or their salary is, yes. That -- that is being funded out of Records Management. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I note your part-times are and your deputies are? MS. PIEPER: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: Jannett? MS. PIEPER: Yes? MR. TOMLINSON: You're not budgeting anything out of this Fund 28? MS. PIEPER: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the difference between 620 -- I can't read it, I'm sorry -- and 635? 634? JUDGE TINLEY: And 404. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And 404. MS. PIEPER: Different records management, records preservation, records archival fees. 8-24-05 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All those are special funds, right? MS. PIEPER: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three separate funds? Okay. MS. PIEPER: I believe that Linda uses -- because we have one that we share, and I believe she uses that 28-635. That's what -- that money that was allocated last year is where she'd gotten some of her stuff from. MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. That's -- that fee is a county-wide fee. It can be used for any -- any records management for any office. JUDGE TINLEY: The preservation? The 635? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. PIEPER: Because we're doing records management and my documents are being backed up on that, can we use that for our mainframe stuff, our software? MR. TOMLINSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Auditor said yes. MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, it can be used for that. I mean, it's specifically for records management of any -- of any kind. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. TOMLINSON: For any office. I mean, if I 8-24-05 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 want to hire somebody to come in and fix my records -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. TOMLINSON: -- legally, you can. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But what -- how much is in that fund annually? How much, I guess, is -- goes in every year, about? MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have my -- I'm thinking around 30,000 a year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's one of those funds that we need to use all of it every year. I mean, 'cause we do -- you know, I know Kathy in our office does a lot of records management work. So, I mean, if we have those fees set up and that money's coming in, we ought to make sure we're using it all, we're not just accumulating a balance there. And if it goes to -- you know, not adding to individual salaries, but at least a portion of salaries, or make sure we use the money up no matter where it goes, really. MS. PIEPER: On my Fund 634, that records management, I do want that to get built up for a while. That's why I'm only doing two part-time employees. And one of my visions -- and I haven't thought about it a whole lot; I haven't had time to, but I would like to hire part-time -- additional part-time people out of that fund that can come in and possibly work from, like, 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. of doing 8-24-05 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 nothing but indexing and scanning to help me get caught up. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. PIEPER: But I want to wait until I get more money in that line item so we can get it done. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Does that pretty well cover it? Thank you. Let's move to the Treasurer's budget, and that will bring us to -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: 13. JUDGE TINLEY: 13. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which tab? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tab 13. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 13. MS. NEMEC: Before we discuss my budget, may we discuss the position schedule a little bit so I can have some direction? I have two copies. JUDGE TINLEY: Good. MS. NEMEC: So y'all can just kind of share those. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. MS. NEMEC: But I need to explain a few things on there, and get some direction. The position schedule has been updated; however, on the ones that you see marked in red, which is approximately 128 employees are going to receive longevity increases this year. Those 8-24-05 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 25 particular ones that are marked in red, I have to go back and I have to calculate what their salary would be. Like, for instance, if you'll look at the first one, for instance, under -- well, our court reporter, she will be receiving a longevity increase May of '06 -- 2006. So, what I have to do is I have to calculate from October through April -- through the end of April at her present salary, and then I have to go and I have to calculate 2 and a half percent from May through September, and so I have to go in annually and do that to all 128 that are marked in red. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question on that. all that? MS. NEMEC: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why can't the computer do MS. NEMEC: Not -- our system doesn't do that. I have -- I've had to do that every year. I have to go in manually and -- the ones that don't get the longevity increase -- like, for instance, you'll see on the court coordinator, 19-6. I have to go to my step and grade schedule, look up the 19-6, and put that figure in there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that something that can be corrected with the proposed new system? MS. NEMEC: I really don't know. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We really need to find out. 8-24-05 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 MS. NEMEC: Yeah. 'Cause this -- this takes COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it seems -- even if the new system does it, this is something Excel can do. MS. NEMEC: Well, this -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- MS. NEMEC: -- this is on Excel, but Excel doesn't know what our grade -- step and grade schedule is. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And there's no way to input the grade? MS. NEMEC: It doesn't put our -- right, our step and grade schedule doesn't tie in with Excel, and there's just no way to do that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you make an inquiry of that from Mr. Trolinger and/or his good buddy, the software salesman? MS. NEMEC: I will. So, anyway, what -- what my question is -- to the Court is, before I go in and figure in all this longevity at what we are currently in, is there -- is there -- do you know, at this point, is there going to be a cost-of-living increase, and should I figure it at that? Or should I just figure it at the rate that we are now, and then if there is money, then come back and refigure everything again? I just hate to do it twice if you all already know that there is going to be a 8-24-05 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 cost-of-living. JUDGE TINLEY: The -- do you figure the longevity first and then, if there's a COLA, the COLA on top of the longevity? Or do you figure the -- the COLA first and then the longevity, 2 and a half percent including the COLA? MS. NEMEC: What I do is, I change our step and grade schedule to coincide with what our cost-of-living is going to be, and then I take that schedule as it is and I start plugging in from there into this. So, I do that first, which I've already done a schedule just in case at 2 and a half percent. And, of course, that can be changed to whatever the Court wishes. But as far as transferring those numbers to here, if I could have an idea of what you all want me to do, that would be -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that probably we'll have a lot -- I'll have a lot more idea next Wednesday, I'm thinking. I wouldn't -- I'd just hold off doing it until we -- I don't see any reason to do it twice, unless we need it for our -- if you have a 2 and a half percent number, or Tommy can give us -- I mean, kind of a relatively firm number to look at, 'cause I think we're going to have a pretty good idea of our budget by next Wednesday. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I hope so. 8-24-05 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 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we're going to need what the -- what the mandatory longevity and educational increases are, at least a fairly decent ballpark figure on that, about how much that's going to increase from the previous year. I think we really need to know that. I appreciate you bringing this position schedule forward this morning, because I think we need to be locking at it as we go forward -- MS. NEMEC: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: -- in these discussions, so I really thank you for bringing that this morning. But I think we're going to need to know what -- at least a real decent ballpark figure on the increases that are required by the longevity and educational under our current policy, what those increases are going to be. MS. NEMEC: Okay, I'll just go ahead and figure it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We do. MS. NEMEC: And I'm working on the holiday schedule too, so I'll be bringing that with this. When I finish this up, then -- JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. NEMEC: Okay, on to my budget. Do you want me just go down the line? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. 8-24-OS 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 MS. NEMEC: I have a few corrections on the salaries. My salary I had figured in at the '03/'04, so that should be 44,816. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wondered why you were taking a cut in pay. MS. NEMEC: I think the Judge wanted me to leave it there, but I didn't. And my Deputy line item, last year, because my part-timer is a part-time full-time employee, she really needs to be taken out of the Deputy -- Deputy line item, because she does get retirement, and so that amount should be $48,312. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Deputy line item? MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. What that includes is the current salary that's in there now, plus the salary for my part-timer for three days a week, plus an additional 40 hours, because she gets vacation. And then, this last year, she's been working more than her three days, so I kind of -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would the Deputy line be now? MS. NEMEC: The -- that total would be $48,312. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what would the MS. NEMEC: 1,000. And that's just in case we need to bring someone in, which has really been the case 8-24-05 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 this year, and we haven't been able to. Actually, I'm going to come back -- I'm going to come with a budget amendment, 'cause my part-timer has been working more than her three days a week. JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, what you've done is combine your deputy and part-time, less 1,000, and then just put the 1,000 in your part-time? MS. NEMEC: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: So, really, the -- the numbers are the same. You've just -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Changed. JUDGE TINLEY: -- adjusted them there? MS. NEMEC: Well, I -- plus I had put in some merit and all that, and I just took that out. We could -- I didn't think that's what we wanted to do this time around. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MS. NEMEC: So, these are the solid numbers. There's no merit increases in that or anything. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. MS. NEMEC: I am asking also for 1,000 in overtime, due to that my chief deputy has been working overtime quite a bit. And normally what we like to do is have her just take the time off, but the way our policy reads is that if it's on the books for more than three months, then it needs to be paid to her. And I haven't been 8-24-05 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 able to do that, 'cause I don't have money in my overtime, and she hasn't been able to take off the time within the three months. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Barbara, on that, the -- John Trolinger's view -- there he is -- was that there is a significant amount of, probably, time savings in your office if we really modernize our whole time/payroll system. MS. NEMEC: There might be. And -- and, you know, that's where that $1,000, we might be able to do away with that. But we're just so behind on, you know, the county growth; there's more bills to pay, more revenues that we've been bringing in, and then with the insurance and everything, it's just a lot of -- lot of growth in the office. So, possibly. I would hope so, because, you know, I don't want my chief deputy to keep working overtime. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I guess you're saying that the chance of eliminating the part-time and staff a little bit is not going to happen? MS. NEMEC: The overtime and maybe the $1,000 in the Part-Time line item, yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. TROLINGER: Well I do see -- I do see the car out there -- Judy's car. MS. NEMEC: Oh. MR. TROLINGER: As of yesterday, as a matter 8-24-05 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 of fact, she was still here at 6:00, when I left. And I know she does do a lot of extra time, and she's got a lot of paper on her desk. And she's got a lot of people that send her time cards and things on that order that are taking -- she's just taking a lot of time with data entry. MS. NEMEC: Exactly. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My question to you would be, what is in that software package that will enhance her operation? The Treasurer's operation? MR. TROLINGER: The number-one item that I was speaking to are time cards. Right now, those are coming in on paper, on all kinds of formats. And they're basically being entered in by -- by one department onto a computer, then printed out in some cases, and then sent over to the Treasurer's office and then typed into the computer again. Is that about right? MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm. MR. TROLINGER: And the time card piece of this -- it's just one piece -- eliminates that. It puts the burden either at the user that's got a computer to enter their time in, and then have it approved by a department head or a supervisor, and then it's electronically -- it's sitting on the Treasurer's computer ready to approve. MS. NEMEC: So, it would be -- when they -- when they put that information into the computer, they're 8-24-05 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 actually going to be posting it into the payroll system? MR. TROLINGER: Not until you all approve it. There's an approval process, you know. They -- say I type my time in; I type in 40 hours. I approve it for myself, and it gets sent over to your console. That's in your box sitting there ready. You have to approve that before it actually moves into -- before it would move into -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: But isn't -- the time system, I would think you can put in some checks, like if someone keys in over 40 hours, a red flag can go up so those can be, I mean, looked at. Or if it's -- MR. TOMLINSON: I think the way it works, Commissioner, is that it goes into batch somewhat. And the supervisor -- like, if it's at the jail, for instance, they -- there's a place for the supervisor of a department to -- to verify that all of the time cards are correct. And they're not transmitted until -- until that -- that person with that password okays all those times. Then -- then -- MS. NEMEC: Right, 'cause I couldn't really approve it. I don't know. MR. TOMLINSON: Then, after that approval, they're transmitted to the accounting system, and -- and then there's another process of approval with the Treasurer's office. Once that's done, then -- then the -- all the payments are automatically calculated. 8-24-05 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 LETZ: It just seems that the -- that the technology can probably help your office more than probably any other office from where we are today to where, you know, you should go and it seems that we should be. MR. TOMLINSON: There's still another savings in -- in this accounting package, in that -- for the Treasurer's office especially, in that we will be able to print our own checks, I mean, with the routing numbers, anything we want on the checks, with a color laser printer. I mean, once -- once that is -- we'll never have to buy another check. And the -- the checks that we purchase today through the banks are very, very expensive. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess what I'm looking at is, I mean, it's -- Barbara mentioned savings, and Barbara mentioned a couple of thousand, you know. I'm trying to -- hope to get to your part-time employee. I mean, I'm trying to look at a real staff reduction, because, I mean, as I've told -- I don't know if you've been in here. I'll say the same thing again as I've said at probably every workshop we've had. This software package is so expensive, I just don't see how we can do it unless we have personnel savings to justify the expenditure. And the reason we're doing the software package and upgrading is just to make everything more efficient, and it just seems that if -- you know, and I know that it's hard, going in, to know that, 8-24-05 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 but -- you know, to commit to cutting staff prior to getting the system. But I think next year, it's going to be -- I'm going to be really pushing hard to reduce staff, because we should have all these efficiencies in place. MS. NEMEC: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And either -- someone's going to have to be accountable for what we're being told by Mr. Trolinger, all the other departments, how this is going to save time and make everything more efficient. That has to equate to less staff. MS. NEMEC: Well, if this new computer system does what Mr. Trolinger is saying, then definitely, then I wouldn't need the overtime, because that would free up my employee from having to work overtime. As far as my part-time employee, all she does is accounts payable and accounts receivable, and I don't know what -- how this system would help her. But, you know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. NEMEC: We'd certainly like to look at it and see. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. NEMEC: Okay. So, then, that increases -- doing that would increase my FICA to 7,278 and retirement to 7,700. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Everything else is 8-24-05 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 basically no change, correct? MS. NEMEC: Right. Anything else? Unless y'all have any questions. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was the Capital Outlay item? MS. NEMEC: Capital Outlay was for a PC and -- let's see. A flat screen. And that was -- I got with Mr. Trolinger, and he gave me those amounts. And -- JUDGE TINLEY: That was per his recommendation? MS. NEMEC: Right. We're lucky if my computer holds up till October. Correct? MR. TROLINGER: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: I think his indication was you have one of the oldest in the courthouse. MS. NEMEC: Right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Some payroll systems use an exception-only process. That is to say, everybody gets put in the system at their base salary, and for that payroll period, if there are no exceptions like overtime or time off without pay, you don't have to enter anything. MS. NEMEC: That's how ours is. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's good. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8-24-05 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 MR. TOMLINSON: I have a question. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else for Ms. Nemec? MR. TOMLINSON: Does the group insurance -- is that three people? MS. NEMEC: Okay, my insurance -- yes, my part-timer has requested to be put on insurance due to her working three days a week, and finding out that we have someone on insurance that works less than that amount. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again? MS. NEMEC: She has requested to be put on our insurance, due to -- she works three days a week, and -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The last part of your statement is what I was curious about. MS. NEMEC: We have someone that I believe, and she believes -- I don't know -- works less than three days a week and is on insurance. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, wasn't there some kind of change in the law or something that we have to provide part-time people with retirement and -- MR. TOMLINSON: That's retirement. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Retirement, not insurance? JUDGE TINLEY: There may be some eligibility requirements on -- on the insurance of, I think, 30 hours a week or more. 8-24-05 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 MS. NEMEC: It does say 30 hours; however, there is a question on -- on that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, I think the -- the correct solution is if someone's getting it that shouldn't, they come off. We don't add everybody else on. So, if you can get with -- MS. NEMEC: I didn't really want to go into that, but yeah, that is the reason. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the way it should be handled. I mean -- MS. NEMEC: Okay. Anything else? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. MS. NEMEC: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. We'll take a break for our reporter, and we'll be in recess for about 15 minutes, and hopefully we can get these others moving along pretty quickly after we get back. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I hope so. (Recess taken from 10:34 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we might. Let's go to the County Court at Law. And I understand we have only one minor item there to look at. And, Judge Brown, what do you have for us? JUDGE BROWN: Okay. My court reporter has to 8-24-05 bwk 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have her machine cleaned and serviced every year, and we've got a $150 budget, and there's what it's actually going to cost us. Three -- it's actually -- we told them to send us an invoice so we can show you every year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you want -- JUDGE TINLEY: 325. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 325 in there? JUDGE BROWN: Yeah, that's all we want. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're so easy. JUDGE TINLEY: Tab 5. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tab 5. JUDGE TINLEY: Under -- under 456. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got it. MR. TOMLINSON: You want how much? JUDGE BROWN: I want 325. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On top of what was there? JUDGE BROWN: No. No, just in place of 150. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 325. JUDGE BROWN: 325, yeah. That will be fine. JUDGE TINLEY: The only thing I would mention, Judge Brown, is that in an earlier discussion concerning the district court budgets, we were making allocations between the criminal cases and the C.P.S. cases, and there was a considerable discussion then. What we did 8-24-05 bwk 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1~ 2C 21 2~ 2; 2~ 2! was we segregated the criminal and the civil, and under that rationale, your Court-Appointed Attorney line item will be criminal, and your Master Court Appointments would be civil. JUDGE BROWN: All right. JUDGE TINLEY: Now, the other thing that we did was to increase the -- the C.P.S. portion of the budget by some amount, as I recall. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We doubled it. JUDGE TINLEY: We doubled it? JUDGE BROWN: That's on the Master Court Appointments? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE BROWN: I see that. JUDGE TINLEY: Because of the legislative requirements that were passed this year. JUDGE BROWN: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: For -- so, under that rationale, we'd be looking at raising that from 15 to 30, it appears. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What line is that? JUDGE TINLEY: That would be 403. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 403. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Masters. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Up to what? ~ JUDGE TINLEY: 30. 8-24-05 bwk 75 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` COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 30. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ouch. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't know; it's just a guess. JUDGE BROWN: Yeah. You know, I couldn't -- I can't predict how that's going to come out. I really don't know, 'cause I don't have any control of it, so -- Tommy can probably tell you as much about that line item as anybody. MR. TOMLINSON: It's running 12 -- 12,000 through -- year-to-date. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go to 25,000. MR. TOMLINSON: So -- well, actually, no. It's been almost 10,000 year-to-date, so it seems to me like 25 would be -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: 25. JUDGE TINLEY: 25? JUDGE BROWN: All right. Thank you, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One question, Judge. JUDGE BROWN: Sure. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We got -- counting the two J.P. courts, we've got five courts in this building. JUDGE BROWN: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In your thinking, is 8-24-05 bwk 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1~ 2C 21 2~ 2; 2~ 2` there -- are there any obvious ways that we could combine administrative functions or anything else and get some synergy that would reduce costs? JUDGE BROWN: I haven't ever thought about that, but I don't think so, because I -- you know, I used to be the J.P., and it's a whole different world than what I do. They handle different type cases, mainly traffic tickets, forcible retainers. So, I -- I can't -- I can't imagine one person coordinating all of the courts at one time. I can't see it. It would be a -- it would be -- just the traffic tickets that are filed in J.P. courts is astronomical. Kind of like municipal court; there's lots of stuff that comes in there. I used to be the city judge, too. It's a different world. I don't think any one person could do all that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. JUDGE BROWN: Thank you. MR. TOMLINSON: There is -- there is a bill before the governor that -- that could affect his budget. And -- JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to hang around for this, Judge Brown? JUDGE BROWN: Well, I got no control over it, so it doesn't matter to me one way or the other. MR. TOMLINSON: But the Legislature did pass 8-24-05 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 a bill that increased the district judges' salaries. His salary is tied to that, so I -- I think it's, like, 30,000 more. JUDGE WRIGHT: Doesn't that come from money that we collect on traffic tickets? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, that's not necessarily true. JUDGE BROWN: I was going to say it's part of it. JUDGE ELLIOTT: It's well deserved, by golly, if Judge Brown's going to get it. (Laughter.) MR. TOMLINSON: But -- but it -- I mean, it -- there may be enough funds to offset it, but not always. JUDGE BROWN: So, you're saying you ought to anticipate it, or not? I don't know. MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know either, but I just wanted the Court to know that it's -- that's out there. JUDGE BROWN: Well, y'all could budget a little anticipated amount, but not give it to me. Just say if it happens, if they do pass that bill, something has to be done, an amendment we'd have to the budget. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we not, and just not pay the additional money? JUDGE BROWN: Well, I guess I ain't going to say nothing about it if you don't. 8-24-05 bwk 78 1 I COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The bill's already 2 passed; it's sitting on the governor's desk. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it's on the 4 governor's desk. 5 JUDGE BROWN: That will just be for y'all. I 6 don't have any input on that one way or the other. Whatever 7 ~ you want to do is fine with me. g JUDGE TINLEY: Tommy, do you know whether or 9 not the additional - - that increase was to be covered by the 10 state supplement, or whether it comes from local funds or 11 what? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you know? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: -- the way it works is that 15 -- the original bill is House Bill 66, and in the bill, the 16 courts collect a fee that goes to the Comptroller, and then 17 there's a formula that each county gets it back based on 18 some criteria, and I can't tell you what that is, because 19 it's never the same. And, actually, one year, the -- the 20 Legislature didn't -- did not appropriate the funds, so we 21 didn't get a dime that year. I don't -- so I -- I mean, I 22 can't tell you. That's why I'm so vague about whether or 23 not we can actually get enough money back to offset whatever 24 the increase is, because I just don't know what formula -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The formula is 8-24-05 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 designed so the State keeps the majority and sends the minority, a little bit back to the county. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I actually think that the lion's share of the money goes to the -- to Harris County. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably true. MR. TOMLINSON: That's what I actually think happens. JUDGE BROWN: Probably based on population. It really is -- I think it's based on the formula. Thank you. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That doesn't mean, Tommy, that we underbudgeted on the district judges, does it? MR. TOMLINSON: No, we don't pay their salaries, so that's not an issue with them. JUDGE BROWN: That's something we maybe just need to sit down and talk to Hilderbran or somebody, find out what -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The governor's going to sign it, so we can -- we can predict, you know, that we're -- MR. TOMLINSON: He may be so mad at the Legislature that he won't sign it, because I think their salary's tied to this bill also. 8-24-05 bwk 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l~ 2C 21 2~ 2; 2~ 2` JUDGE BROWN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The salary or the pension? JUDGE TINLEY: Retirement. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- MR. TOMLINSON: Well, retirement, yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I think if we wait a week and we have to do it, we have to do it. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we don't want to budget money, we don't have to. JUDGE TINLEY: Check's in the mail. JUDGE BROWN: Right. Okay, thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to the County Attorney. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tab which? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 11. JUDGE TINLEY: 11. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm right there. MR. EMERSON: If y'all are there, I think it would be appropriate to start out with -- on July 25th, I made a proposal to the Court to incorporate the Hot Check fund, and basically turn over the balance to the County. On the 27th, the Judge sent me a memo based on the statute i questioning whether that was statutorily possible. I've 8-24-05 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 reviewed the A.G. opinions; I've reviewed the statute, and what the statute states in 102.007, Code of Criminal Procedure, is that the fees collected shall be deposited in the county treasury in a special fund to be administered by the County Attorney, and it's primarily to be used to defray the salaries and expenses of the County Attorney's office. Now, in reviewing the A.G. opinions, what it states essentially is that it has to remain in a sub account, which wouldn't be a problem; Tommy already has the money in a sub account. But all the expenditures can be re -- can be used to defray the cost of the County Attorney's office. So, I guess the short answer of what I'm telling you is that, based on the legislative history of the purpose, being to defray the cost of the office, and I don't think there's any statutory prohibition to, you know, me turning over the balance of the fund to the County to defray the cost of my office. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be run like the records management fund, basically. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: We just have to have two budgets. MR. EMERSON: I'm not sure what -- 8-24-OS 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 29 2~ JUDGE TINLEY: One out of regular county funds, is what you're saying? MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. One -- one will be a special revenue fund, because it's solely for that purpose. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can't use the Hot Check fund to -- for -- I was going to say Mr. Trolinger's salary. JUDGE ELLIOTT: For a new vehicle for a commissioner. You couldn't use it for that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couldn't use it for a new commissioner vehicle. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or for the J.P. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Yeah, or for the J.P. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, Rex, what's -- Item 565 is going from 4,500 to zero. What happened there? MR. EMERSON: The Victims Rights Coordinator position is a grant-funded position. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. MR. EMERSON: And it's my understanding that that position has been moved into its own budget category, with a budget to match the grant. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you cut -- from last year's budget, you've cut one position? MR. EMERSON: Correct. I eliminated one assistant attorney position. 8-24-05 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: First time we've heard that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, is it going to be easier to try to budget the Hot Check fund the way County Attorney has, you know, outlined now? Or we redo the budget, or -- MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't think we can commingle the funds with the General Fund, so we can -- but we could budget the expenditures, but we would have to do -- seems like we would have to do some journal entries to credit the expenditures with -- with Hot Check's share of whatever expenditure we wanted to use it for. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the -- MR. TOMLINSON: See, and it seems to me like it would be more straightforward just to have another department. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Another budget? Okay. But just to make it simple, how much revenue comes into the Hot Check fund a year? MR. EMERSON: I'll tell you what the three-year average is. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. EMERSON: Over the last three years, the average has been $5,157.96 a month. 8-24-05 bwk 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 say this -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was that number? MR. EMERSON: $5,157.96 a month, is the -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A month? MR. EMERSON: -- is the three-year average. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, if we were to -- so JUDGE TINLEY: 62,000. MR. EMERSON: 60,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 60,000. So, if we were -- you know, so we could say that 50,000 of your salary is coming out of that fund, and then just -- that way, it comes off this budget onto the other budget. MR. EMERSON: Well, the only problem is, I don't think the statute and the A.G. opinions allow you to take the County Attorney's budget and reduce it by the amount of the Hot Check fund. What you can do is take the budget as a whole and leave it there, and then have that money come in to defray all the costs, if that makes sense. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. EMERSON: I think it's the same thing you're saying, but it's -- 22 23 24 different. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. EMERSON: -- procedurally a little bit COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, then, could 8-24-05 bwk 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2~ 29 2_` we -- can you figure out a way, Tommy, to have $50,000 come into his budget this year and give us a $50,000 balance at the end of the year or something? Or -- or, you know, basically assuming he uses all of his budgeted items. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the Hot Check money, then, is in addition to expenditures that the County would ordinarily expend? Is that what I'm hearing? I mean, you can't supplant the -- MR. EMERSON: You can't take that money and put it into the county budget, but you can take that money and use it to defray the cost of the office as budgeted by the county. I realize that's a play on words, but that's -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's semantics. MR. EMERSON: But that's what you're doing. JUDGE TINLEY: I think we -- rather than roll that in and include it as part of the general budget, I think we need to keep it separate, you know, because if it ever -- if we ever make those allocations as part of the general budget, then if we try to use it to offset part of that, we're into the offset issue and we've got us a problem. So, I think we need to leave the general budget the same, and then supplement out of this second budget, is what I'm seeing. MR. EMERSON: The -- and I may be wrong; Tommy would have to correct me, but I think probably the 8-29-05 bwk 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1~ 2C 27 2~ 2; 2~ 2' easiest way to do it would be to let the budget, and then once a month, Tommy can money's in the account and we can just f COMMISSIONER LETZ: And - from the Hot Check fund into the General budget run as a tell me how much lip it over. - but can it come Fund? MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. I mean, we can -- we can use that -- those funds to -- to offset, by journal entry or by check or however we want to do it, to -- to credit against expenditures out of this budget. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. So why don't we plan on doing, you know, 4,000 or 5,000 a month. I mean, it's easier to do a flat amount, it seems, rather than try to recalculate the total amount each month. MR. TOMLINSON: We'll figure out a way. I have to think about this. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: Depends on the analyzer's personality. I can't give you an answer right now. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: What else do we need to look at, Mr. Emerson? MR. EMERSON: That's really it, as far as I know. The budget as presented to the Court, as I outlined in my attached addendums, combines the three-year average of i numbers that were accumulated from the audit for actual 8-24-05 bwk 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 expenditures of the County Attorney's office. The way it was run before was the county budget, and then kind of a ghost budget that ran out of that Hot Check fund, which didn't -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So these are the numbers you'd like plugged in? MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Basically the same, okay. MR. EMERSON: That's in addition to the supplements that are already on there, what I've already submitted. Because the equipment and postage and so forth are -- are already added into the initial budget that I 13 ~ proposed. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wasn't there some recommendation by Mr. Trolinger for some IT improvements in your department? MR. EMERSON: I don't think there's anything short-term. On his -- way back in February, when he analyzed the department, his existing system evaluation said that seven laptop computers, one server, group printer, you know, and his goal was to integrate it with the County, which we did in, I think, March, if I'm not mistaken. Long-term outlook, he wanted a hardware upgrade after 2008, and then there's a potential primary printer replacement in 2006. But the last -- the last time -- the printer that's 8-24-05 bwk 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2~ 2~ 2` in there was purchased used from 5K Laser, and there's been a few minor maintenance issues, but the last time those guys were in the office, they said we had an estimated 4 million-plus prints on it. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The only item -- line item that I really see a big -- or relatively large change is conferences. Is there -- it's going from a budget this year of 3,500 to 5,347. Are there -- is -- are there more conferences that you need to go to or your people need to go to, or just that's the cost? MR. EMERSON: That's the cost. And if you look at the actual -- the actual '03/'04 actual, it was 4, 654. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. EMERSON: On the budget. And then I took the three-year average from the Hot Check funds that was in there. COMMISSIONER continuing education? MR. EMERSON: COMMISSIONER MR. EMERSON: there are really the ones t to. NICHOLSON: Are these for Yes, sir. LETZ: So -- okay. And the ones I've outlined in hat we -- we really need to go COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8-29-05 bwk 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2` COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rex -- MR. EMERSON: Now, if you want to budget -- there's a couple nice ones in Hawaii and the west coast. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rex, talk to us about 403. Current budget shows 10,000 in attorney's fees and you're requesting 22. What's that all about? MR. EMERSON: That was based on State Hospital beds, and then our contract for conflicts in the County Court at Law at this point. We've worked through -- I'm going to say maybe half of the complaints that I had on previous clients that I've represented. And the problem there arises in that, based on the Code of Ethics, I can't just turn the case over to my assistant, Jerry, and not have anything to do with it, and nobody in the office can have anything to do with it. So, when we get a case in -- a criminal case against somebody that I've previously represented, we have to shift it outside the office, and that's where the problem lies. The State Hospital beds, we've been running at 10 beds. I think we're up to 16 in the next year, from what I understand. JUDGE TINLEY: Next month. MR. EMERSON: And which is very good. Our supplement to the attorney that's been contracting and covering that has been running 600 a month or so. I would 8-24-05 bwk 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2C 21 2c 2~ 2~ 2` anticipate that going up to 800, maybe 900. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What is that conflict of interest? It's somebody you represented in the past? Or -- MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If they come in, you can't prosecute? MR. EMERSON: Cannot prosecute them. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That will diminish over time? MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there any fallout to your department from the new legislation on C.P.S. indigent health care defense? I mean -- MR. EMERSON: Not -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I mean C.P.S. cases. MR. EMERSON: Not at this point. The only thing that may come up from that, and I didn't put anything in the budget, is that our area of Texas -- basically a triangle, working off of San Antonio, going to the border and the south -- is the only area of Texas where the A.G.'s office has not shifted the C.P.S. cases back to the counties. So -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. MR. EMERSON: -- at some point, I would 8-24-05 bwk 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2C 21 2~ 2~ 2~ 2` anticipate that happening, unfortunately. But right now, they haven't done it. And I know Judge Dubose, who's the Court Master y'all were talking about earlier, has applied for a grant for two prosecutors to try to help cover her area. And the last conversation I had with her, when I was talking to her about I needed to know something one way or another as far as an effect on budget, she said it wouldn't happen this year; don't worry about it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? MR. EMERSON: Not unless y'all have some questions. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question. No, not -- it's on the crime victims. Are you -- are you handling that or is Rosa handling that? MR. EMERSON: I think Rosa's running her own department, since it's grant-based. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. It was under that same tab. All right. MR. EMERSON: Thank y'all. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Extension Service. Anybody here from Extension Service? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Lost your chance, 8-24-05 bwk 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1~ 2C 21 2~ 2~ 2~ 2` Dave. JUDGE TINLEY: Draw a line through them? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just read the court reporter's comments from last year. I won't go through it again. JUDGE TINLEY: I guess we can come back to that. Animal Control. Well, we got somebody here from Animal Control. MS. ROMAN: Hello. JUDGE TINLEY: How are you, Ms. Roman? MS. ROMAN: Just fine, thank you. Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Give us a report on Justin first. MS. ROMAN: Well, Justin is doing so much better. He actually drove to school yesterday, so he's doing great. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good news. MS. ROMAN: And I appreciate y'all being concerned, and being patient with me through all of this. I have made some corrections. I'll start with the Line Item 103 -- well, actually, that one is -- I am requesting the 29,943. That is including longevity, which will be in April of -- of '06, plus a 2 and a half percent increase. On to > Line Item 104 -- 8-24-05 bwk 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1E 1~ 2C 27 2~ 2; 2~ 2. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Back to that -- MS. ROMAN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- what was the -- what is your annual salary now? MS. ROMAN: 28,5. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 28,5. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Current budget -- JUDGE TINLEY: That was -- let me -- I'm sorry, excuse me. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead. JUDGE TINLEY: Was that -- that was the initial probationary amount that we set? MS. ROMAN: No, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We raised it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Raised it to 28,5. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then why are we showing it as current at 30,955? MS. ROMAN: What happened is, apparently my salary had -- had continued to come out of Line Item 104 rather than 103. That has been corrected, I believe, has it not, Barbara? MS. NEMEC: Yes, it has. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, your -- ~ MS. ROMAN: Because that is supposedly what 8-24-05 bwk 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1~ 2C 21 2~ 2; 2L 2` Marc -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: MS. ROMAN: -- was COMMISSIONER LETZ: longevity increase is automatic. Was that a COLA or is that just y increase? Right. at. And your -- okay. The You said a 2.5 percent. ou requesting a salary MS. ROMAN: A COLA. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. ROMAN: Depending on what's -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: That will be county-wide. MS. ROMAN: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right, thank you. MS. ROMAN: Now, on Line Item 104, it has -- I requested 45,074, and I have made a correction. What happened is I requested -- and this is my first time doing this, so bear with me. What I did is I requested the longevity for the entire year. I had to go back and recalculate their current salary for the -- you know, for the number of months until their longevity goes into effect, so that has now been changed to 44,341, rather than the 45,074. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But your -- MS. ROMAN: That is for two Animal Control 8-24-05 bwk 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1E 1~ 2C 27 2~ 2: 2~ 2. officers. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: But does not include any longevity plug-in or any educational plug-in that's required under policy. Is that what I'm hearing? MS. ROMAN: That is -- the 44,341 is with the longevity -- with their longevity. For instance -- pardon me. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Longevities plus 2.5 percent? MS. ROMAN: No, that's just the longevity. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And can you confer with Ms. Nemec and confirm that number? MS. ROMAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MS. ROMAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- but there's no -- no number of personnel increase; it's the same? You have s and two animal control officers? two employee MS. ROMAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. ~ MS. ROMAN: One's longevity is in May and the i other is in June. So, like I said, I had to figure their 8-29-05 bwk 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1E 1. 1E 1~ 2( 2: 2: 2. 2 2 current salary for those number of months until their longevity goes into effect. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. NEMEC: She's the only one that does that figuring out for me. I have to figure everybody else's out. Thank you, Janie. MS. ROMAN: You're welcome. 105, this is the Assistant Animal Control Officer. That is her title. I am requesting -- of course, she -- her longevity goes into effect this month. As of September -- well, she actually was hired August of '01, so she is due for her -- her longevity now. I am requesting a merit increase on her. This young lady has been with the Animal Control Department for four years. She has really taken charge. She does all of our registration program on top of dispatching, all of the work with the computer. She does adoptions, vaccinations. She does everything -- a little bit of everything. And she really made me proud the two weeks that j I was out with my son; she really, really took charge and took care of things. So, I am requesting twenty -- I had her at 20,927 -- 20,927. And, of course, with the ? adjustment of the longevity and her merit, I would like to 3 bring her up to a 12-4. She is currently a 12-2. As of ~ September 1st, for one month, she'll be at a 12-3 with a ~ longevity. I would like to bring her up to a 12-4, which 8-24-05 bwk 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1~ 1~ 2C 2= 2~ 2: 2~ 2. would bring her up to 20,417. That is still below what I JUDGE TINLEY: That would include a longevity and a merit? MS. ROMAN: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Janie, there's still some uncertainty about whether or not we'll be in the business of providing service to Kerrville -- MS. ROMAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- next year. And Kerrville takes up about 60 percent of your effort. So, if we didn't -- if we don't come to an agreement, we don't provide that service. You got five people. Does that cut it back to three? MS. ROMAN: That's going to be very difficult. And the reason I say that is, this county has -- has grown. It's a large county. If I have just one Animal Control officer to cover the entire -- the entire county, plus myself, it makes it very difficult on me, because I'm the only one that does the cruelty investigations, most of the bite investigations, on top of, like, livestock. I do estray stuff for the Sheriff's department on top of doing my normal everyday duties, so it makes it extremely difficult. I think if we had to, we might be able to do away with a 8-24-05 bwk 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1E 1i 1~ 1~ 2( 2: 2: 2: 2 2 kennel worker; however, that's going to be very hard also, because I'm not sure if y'all are aware that we're fixing to expand the facility, so that's -- that's going to make it very difficult. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're working with the County Attorney on how to -- MS. ROMAN: Expand. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- expand the facility at no cost to Kerr County. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or the City of Kerrville. MS. ROMAN: Or -- exactly, yes. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Kennel worker, can that work be done by probationers? Prisoners? MS. ROMAN: Certain things could. Other things I'd be real leery about anyone else doing, simply because the -- some of the animals that we bring in are extremely aggressive animals. If you don't know how to properly handle these animals, then -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, this just -- MS. ROMAN: -- we're going to have some accidents. > COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This isn't just a 3 mucking-out-the-kennels job? It takes some skill? ~ MS. ROMAN: Oh, no, not at all. Yes, it does ~ take training and skill. Yes. My kennel worker, with her 8-24-05 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 longevity, I requested 19,919. I have made some corrections. It will now be 19,433, and that is with her longevity, bringing her from a 12-1 to a 12-2. I also have -- on my Line Item 108, my part-time kennel worker has been with us for some time also. She works strictly on weekends and holidays. I am requesting three -- 3,276. I had it at 3,580, and that would be bringing her up to $7 an hour. This young lady also -- she has a full-time job. She's a single mother, and makes an effort -- I mean, like you wouldn't believe, she comes in every weekend. Never calls in. She's there on holidays. She keeps the place going on weekends when we're not -- when we're not open. Of course, that changes my FICA to 9,135, rather than 9,367. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How many vehicles do we have? MS. ROMAN: Three. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are the ages of those vehicles, approximately? MS. ROMAN: The one that came from the City, if I'm not mistaken, I think that is a '98 model, I believe. The others, we have one that's two years old and one that's three years old, so those are in great -- great shape. Making sure that the maintenance and everything is kept up 24 on those. 25 8-24-05 bwk COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And these are all 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 pickups that are equipped to -- MS. ROMAN: For Animal Control. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- to handle animals? MS. ROMAN: Correct. Correct. Moving down to Line Item 203, my retirement -- JUDGE TINLEY: That will get calculated automatically based upon -- MS. ROMAN: Right, yeah. And that's -- well, excuse me. I do have one other request on my -- being that that cut it by approximately $2,500, -- 2,488, to be exact, from what I had originally requested, due to fuel prices, I am requesting an additional $2,000 to what I had currently -- what I had previously requested. I had requested 1150 -- 11, 050. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 13,000? MS. ROMAN: 13,000. And, like I said, we have the entire county to cover, and with fuel prices -- and occasionally, when we -- you know, when we have problem areas, we have to continually patrol. We can't just sit around the office and wait for a call to come in. You know, I want my officers out patrolling and making sure that -- you know, that animals aren't running loose and things like that. So -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do you fuel your 8-24-05 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 vehicles? The same way the Sheriff does, with a gas card? MS. ROMAN: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, through Maxey. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Looks good to me. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for Ms. Roman? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hmm-mm. Thank you, Janie. MS. ROMAN: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Appreciate you being here. MS. ROMAN: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: We'll go to constables. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I'll just say one more thing about Animal Control. We're -- we're bulging at the seams all the time. Sometime in the future, it's going to get -- come to a point where we're going to have to have some capital money for -- capital money for a larger facility. With help that's available to us from a private source, it's going to be good help, but it's not going to solve the problem long-term. It's not something we have to deal with this year, probably not next year, but it's coming in the future. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that be -- Dave, would that be because of our contractual obligation 8-24-05 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 with the City? Or COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 60 percent of it, yeah. It's just growing population and no changes in people's habits with their -- with their pets. We're just handling more -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: More pets. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. Mostly cats and dogs, all the time. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? Let's go to the constables. They're under -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: 17, I believe. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, indeedy. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, Precinct 4 looks pretty good. I don't know about those other three. JUDGE TINLEY: Any -- any questions or issues you need to raise, Constable Billeiter? MR. BILLEITER: What y'all are going to do to me, that's a question I have. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, what I propose to do to you, you got a copy of. There were a couple of adjustments that I made, I think, and my adjustments were primarily to try and create some uniformity amongst all of -- all of you. MR. BILLEITER: The only concern I have is on fuel costs, and if y'all approve my capital outlay, that would be great. 8-24-05 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the capital outlay MR. BILLEITER: I have some things I need to get for my car. I think all of them -- all of us need spike strips in our car. To have an officer strategically located is going to -- even dangerous pursuits in the county, Sheriff's Department has spike strips in every car. It's just having the right officer in the right place. I'm a certified instructor in deployment of spike strips, and I can teach these other guys how to deploy them. Also, we need fire extinguishers. I've had several times, not as a constable, but as a deputy, when I had to pull my fire extinguisher. We do not have fire extinguishers. First aid kit. A quick charge. Also, we have something that we hadn't thought about in the budget, was our radar certification, which should be a yearly thing, when we have a technician check the calibration on them, and safety vest, which would add up to approximately $1,000, somewhere, for that equipment. COMMISSIONER LETZ: $1,000? MR. BILLEITER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any problem with that, except it shouldn't be in capital outlay. They ought to be probably in Operating Equipment, I think. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 8-24-05 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 MR. BILLEITER: That'd be fine. JUDGE TINLEY: The request for additional funds in fuel that you made, that, of course, did end up in your proposed. MR. BILLEITER: Gas was 60 cents a gallon cheaper when I made that request. JUDGE TINLEY: You're asking for more now? Is that what I'm hearing? MR. BILLEITER: I don't know. My crystal ball broke on me the other day, and I just don't know what to do there. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's not going to get much cheaper. MR. BILLEITER: No, I know it's not. I don't know if $2,500, considering gas prices today, is -- is adequate or not. I mean, since I've been in office -- which, of course, the budget had already been approved the previous October. Since I took it over, I'm pretty well -- I think Tommy can vouch for this; I'm pretty well going through it. And I do a lot of patrol, so I would like to see that increased if y'all could see fit. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think -- I really think we probably ought to increase -- and I know that we've equalized the fuel or the gasoline charge for all of them. Just on the territory, it's probably easier -- I'm 8-24-05 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 25 going to say 4 and 3 probably have the most driving, just because of the distances they have to go, but 2's not much farther behind, and I know that y'all, you know, assist in other areas as well, so I'd probably go to 3,000 on those. I mean, I think that we -- I mean if we're going to -- that's a small increase. JUDGE TINLEY: Talking about with all four of them? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, go up to 3,000 for each of them. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Four was already well behind the others to -- right now. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four is? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Gasoline is -- oh, he's at 1,500. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: don't mind going up on them, because I but I'm just pointing out that 4 was a 2, and 3 already. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: little different approach to it. He - his own -- we don't provide him with a COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't -- well, I think you're right, Lready well below 1, Well, 4's got a - as you know, he owns vehicle. Right. And he doesn't 8-24-05 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 distinguish between county work and private work, and this is a -- I mean personal. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's his estimate. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is an estimate of what he does. JUDGE TINLEY: Probably need to raise him to 2,000, though. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, raise him. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Also, he's got a deputy that handles some of the stuff way out far west, and we just pay a flat amount for that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, that's true. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Raise him to two and the others to three? Is that what we're talking about? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that'd be fine. I mean, I think -- I mean, we don't want them to run out of fuel money. I want them out on the street patrolling. MR. BILLEITER: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? MR. BILLEITER: That's all I have. JUDGE TINLEY: How about you, Constable Garza? MR. BILLEITER: Thank y'all for your time. MR. GARZA: No, sir. I -- just what y'all have there. I -- for me, I'd like to thank you for having 8-24-05 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 me here, Commissioners Court. For me, like I say, when I go out from here to Cypress Creek and come back around, it's 50 miles, 'cause that's not going between places, so I appreciate the increase in fuel. I have no -- no questions, other than if you have questions for me, I'm here to hopefully answer them. JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding was that all of you guys kind of got together and figured out how to try and get -- get some degree of uniformity amongst you, and this equipment that Constable Billeiter was talking about, the fire extinguishers and safety vest and things of that nature, -- MR. GARZA: First aid equipment. JUDGE TINLEY: -- all of you need this equipment? MR. GARZA: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, you've each included in your -- in your Capital Outlay, which probably needs to be moved up to Operating Equipment, the 1,500 to make allowance to acquire that? MR. GARZA: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But Constable Billeiter said that total cost was about 1,000, so why don't we just move 1,000 up? And -- 8-24-05 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: On Capital Outlay? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, the Capital Outlay should go to zero for Constables 1, 2, and 3, and then Operating Equipment should go to 2,500. JUDGE TINLEY: And do away with Capital Outlay, you're talking about? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: And change the Operating Equipment from 1,200 to 2,500? COMMISSIONER LETZ: To 2,500. Two of them are at 1,500 already. Okay. Now, why is your lease payment cheaper than the rest of them? MR. GARZA: We made a better deal. No, I don't know, Commissioner. I -- I'm not -- MR. TOMLINSON: I forgot to change it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You forgot to change that? MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, I've got to change that. MR. GARZA: They need to come down to my number. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is -- there's a little bit of disparity in the bonds. It's a very modest amount, and minor. Some of them have a $50 bond item going forward after having purchased their bonds, and one of them 8-24-05 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 does not -- or two of them do not. There we go. JUDGE TINLEY: I think it has to do with their two-year bonds, and they -- they fluctuate from year to year. One year, two of them have bonds, and the next year the other two have bonds, I think is how that works, isn't it? MR. GARZA: I'm not very sure about that, Your Honor. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think also it's -- the clerks need bonds, too. So -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, the clerk. That's true. Okay. MR. GARZA: I purchased a bond, like, for the four-year bond, I think, in last year's budget. Hopefully it would cover my term. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What clerk? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right, you don't have a clerk. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, I'm serious. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, they don't have a clerk. I was thinking of J.P.'s when I said clerk. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? MR. GARZA: No, sir. If you have any more questions for me or anything I can answer, I'll try to 8-24-05 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 answer. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Aren't you hungry? MR. GARZA: Not me. I appreciate what the Commissioners Court has done for us and for my office. Commissioner Letz and all the rest of the Commissioners are very kind to my office, and I appreciate it, and I'll hopefully continue and do a good job where it -- the process is very smooth for us with this Court. And I thank the Court for their -- you know, your assistance in, you know, providing for our offices. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Keep bringing in money through speeders on the interstate. JUDGE TINLEY: That's right, stay on the street. MR. GARZA: Warrant fees. I do a lot of warrant fees, out-of-county warrant fees where actually the $50 warrant fee strictly comes to us. It's just for us, or for the County's general fund. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. MR. GARZA: Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioners. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to J.P.'s. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Tommy's not here, just when we need him. Where's Tommy? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's 10. 8-24-05 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 JUDGE TINLEY: Ten. Tab 10. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Maybe the IT guy could help us out. Okay. J.P. 1 is just so excited to do their part in trimming costs, and so -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You eliminated a clerk? JUDGE ELLIOTT: Excuse me? What was that, Commissioner? We submitted -- (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The question is, is it feasible to put the two J.P.'s -- is it 1 and 2? Yeah, 1 and 2. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1 and 3. JUDGE ELLIOTT: 1 and 3. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 1 and 3. Get their offices close together and share a clerk? JUDGE ELLIOTT: I can't see how that would -- that would work. You know, that -- our traffic -- like Judge Brown said, our traffic volume alone keeps my court coordinator busy. Then she still has all the civil and other cases and things that we have to do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would there be -- is there any efficiencies that could be gained by having more of a receptionist type and a clerk? Or some way to combine the office function of the two offices? Not reduce the 8-24-05 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 staff, but maybe restructure some way that would save money? JUDGE ELLIOTT: I don't -- I just don't see how that would work. I mean, I don't -- you know, I don't -- I have no territorial, you know, deal about it. T just don't see how -- with the work volume that Elsa has, and as my court coordinator, she's doing a lot of things other than just entering tickets, but entering tickets is a big part of her time, but also small claims court, evictions, entering all these things, so it takes a great deal of her time. Plus we have trials. She has to be out for court; she's in the courtroom with me. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE CASTILLO: Judge, since he said 1 and 3, you know, we might could share a receptionist, a new employee. JUDGE ELLIOTT: I don't think that's what they had in mind. (Laughter.) JUDGE CASTILLO: But we couldn't share clerks. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Anyway, back on the real subject matter that we're going to address -- getting back to reality, okay? Just let me inform the Court that Paris is not only in France, but it is in Lamar County. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Paris is Lamar County? JUDGE ELLIOTT: And Lamar County is about as 8-24-05 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 far north Texas as you can get. JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate that. What's the -- do you have the population of Paris? Isn't it relatively close to -- JUDGE ELLIOTT: It must be close. JUDGE TINLEY: -- close to the city of Kerrville? JUDGE ELLIOTT: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I was thinking it was. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Paris, Texas, is in Lamar. COMMISSIONER LETZ: There is still -- I'm confused about how they don't have -- they only have two births in the county, and -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And a lot of marriages. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And 621 marriages. And only 14 deaths. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Maybe it's cheaper to get married in Texas and come to Oklahoma and have kids. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they die up there, too. Only 14 deaths, I think, recorded in the county. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Anyway, our budget, as we submitted, was approved with only a couple adjustments. The County Judge had reduced our postage 14 percent and office expense 20 percent. But you know what? We can live with 8-29-05 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 that belt-tightening for the .county taxpayers. Do you know what I mean? We can do better. And so we're going to do better this year and we're going to go ahead and we're going to work within that guideline. All the other items look good. The only other thing is, we might be able to even do better. We might even be able to cut more than what the County Judge cut. We spent last year $2,986 in software maintenance. This year, we budgeted 5,381, because that included some type of new software that we were going to get, and that was going to be our portion according to Tommy. That -- in other words, the additional -- there was additional, you know, 2,400 or so out of that. It was upgrading the software, so we budgeted the 5,381. But year-to-date, what we've paid out, I believe, for the rest of the year is 2,905. Now, the question is, on software maintenance, I'm kind -- I feel like Judge Brown; it's like information technology, and Tommy put that -- plugged that number in and I don't have a clue what it is. So, what number do we need to go to there? What number needs to go there? MR. TOMLINSON: I think 2,905. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Yeah. In other words, we don't need that extra software that he was going to buy. MR. TOMLINSON: That was for Word Merge. JUDGE ELLIOTT: So, instead of 5,381, why 8-24-05 bwk 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 don't we cut that to 2,905? Tommy, that 2,905 year-to-date covers us for the rest of this budget year, correct? MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that would be actual for the year. Are we talking about any potential increase for next year? JUDGE ELLIOTT: No. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: None at all? MR. TOMLINSON: No. MR. TROLINGER: And, actually, the software maintenance will be reduced. J.P. 4 coming online means we have county-wide, as far as Software Group's concerned. JUDGE ELLIOTT: So it may even be reduced more. MR. TROLINGER: There's a little bit of a reduction there. JUDGE ELLIOTT: So, that -- so that line item, Software Maintenance, 5,381, can be reduced to 2,905. JUDGE WRIGHT: 2,840 is what the official amount is that came through. MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. JUDGE CASTILLO: 2,905. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're close. JUDGE ELLIOTT: I tell you what, I want to stick with year-to-date this year. If it's a little bit 8-24-05 bwk 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 less, that's good. We're still saving a couple thousand JUDGE TINLEY: And we avoid budget amendments JUDGE ELLIOTT: That's right. So that is just great news, isn't it, out of J.P. 1? Now, then, let's see if we can get better news, okay? Better news on top of that would be that we have a J.P. technology fund, and J.P. 1's revenues still show a balance of about 3,563. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Want my glasses so you can read? JUDGE ELLIOTT: Thank you. I can get it. And so what I think, Tommy, we could do, is eliminate the 25 or the 29 -- what did I just say? -- the 2,905 out of that Software Maintenance line item, and use the J.P. technology. We would like to budget our technology amount of 2,905 from J.P. technology into that line to pay for that, so that saves the county taxpayers almost $3,000 that these criminals out there speeding up and down our highways can be paying. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very good. What else you got? JUDGE ELLIOTT: So, how's that? So we're going to save $5,381 instead of just the little bit that was submitted back. 8-24-05 bwk 117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought that -- is it this new fee? Is that the new -- JUDGE ELLIOTT: The J.P. technology fee went in a couple years ago. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE ELLIOTT: It just got renewed to be indefinite. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there was a change to it with -- some of it has to be spent -- what was the fee that has to be spent on J.P. security that are outside the courthouse? JUDGE ELLIOTT: That's a different -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a different fee. JUDGE ELLIOTT: That's one that's -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a different fee. MR. TOMLINSON: Does the Court have to approve that? JUDGE ELLIOTT: Y'all may have to approve it like you do the J.P. -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's for a bodyguard for the J.P.'s. JUDGE ELLIOTT: That's probably needed with the friends I have. (Laughter.) 8-24-05 bwk 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the current climate, yes. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Yeah, in the current climate, that's correct. JUDGE CASTILLO: The -- is this technology fee separate from this budget? JUDGE ELLIOTT: Yes. It's a technology fee for J.P.'s. JUDGE CASTILLO: But you're asking that -- that software maintenance be paid out of the technology fee? JUDGE ELLIOTT: That's correct. JUDGE CASTILLO: For each? JUDGE ELLIOTT: I'm doing it for me, and I'm sure now that they got the idea, they'll be talking to you in just a minute. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE WRIGHT: Prior to September 1, we could not pay maintenance fees out of it, but now we can. JUDGE TINLEY: Is there enough money in the J.P. technology fund to fund all four of those software maintenance costs? JUDGE WRIGHT: Don't spend mine yet. JUDGE ELLIOTT: But -- yeah, but that is set aside just for J.P.'s. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What else you got? 8-24-05 bwk 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Okay. Well, I think that'll be a -- just tremendous news. We'll get this budget down to little to nothing. So, I can live with all the numbers that we've submitted. Like I said, we've cut the postage and the office expense; we can live within that budget that was given back to us. We'll cut that 5,381 out for software maintenance and use J.P. technology fee of 2,905 out of the J.P. 1 technology fee to cover that expense. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Life is good in Paris, huh? Thanks. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Judge Wright? JUDGE WRIGHT: Okay. Now Mr. Happy's gone; the gloom and doom's going to start. JUDGE TINLEY: We can't spend your 2,900 out of the technology fund? JUDGE WRIGHT: Well, no. I have got to have another computer, and that can come out of the technology fund. If there's anything left, then yes, the 710 a quarter can come out of the technology fund. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How big is the technology fund, Tommy? JUDGE WRIGHT: My clerk's computer crashed and had to be replaced about midway through last year. And 8-24-05 bwk 120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 since hers has been replaced, I can't print a warrant. I can't call up the old files. I can't look at an old file until I get a new computer. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not until you get the new one. JUDGE WRIGHT: Jonathan can probably explain that. I can't. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the reason? MR. TROLINGER: They've got three computers in that office; basically, a constable, the coordinator, and the judge. The judge's computer is Windows '98. It's at the end of its life; it's just time to replace it. The sharing of the files between the computers is the issue there, the two modern computers versus the older, but it is at the end of its useful life. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's in the technology fund, about? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the revenue -- annual revenue is about 16,000 a year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the balance? MR. TOMLINSON: There -- probably around 20 by the end of the year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Ms. Wright's -- or Judge Wright's computer can come out of this, and her maintenance. 8-24-05 bwk 121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE WRIGHT: Okay, good. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds like it. JUDGE WRIGHT: Also something else, before I even get started with this. That -- and Judge Tinley will understand what I'm talking about, is the approximately $300-a-month cut we've taken with the hospital, loss of revenue. And I know we're going to be going up somewhat, but if you gentlemen, when you're discussing all of this, would think about the three of us that have taken quite a cut in pay. And the cost of gasoline has gone up, and our frequent trips into town to have to take care of problems. Other than that, I don't -- the computer's the only thing that I had to have. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is the gasoline JUDGE WRIGHT: We don't get a gasoline cost. They combined it into our salary. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the average amount of driving you do, Judge? JUDGE WRIGHT: I can pull my income tax records and tell you. Right now, offhand, I can't tell you. I've put 42,000 miles on a car in two years. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, as with all elected officials, that's been rolled into the salary. JUDGE WRIGHT: Yes. 8-24-05 bwk 122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true. I forgot about that. That's true. JUDGE TINLEY: I understand what you're saying, Judge Wright. Any questions? COMMISSIONER LETZ: So does -- Commissioner 4 and I certainly do. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: $50 a week. JUDGE WRIGHT: Yeah. MR. TOMLINSON: Judge, how much was your computer? JUDGE WRIGHT: I think he's got it down here at 1,100. Is it still correct? MR. TROLINGER: I've been able to get better pricing. We're down to about 900, including software. JUDGE WRIGHT: See there? He just saved you some more money. JUDGE ELLIOTT: And John is just paying for himself already. JUDGE WRIGHT: Anything further? I -- I don't have a problem with -- I'm one of those that will let Barbara figure the salary, and she does it so much better than I do. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Judge Castillo? You have anything in addition to what they're adding? 8-24-05 bwk 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE CASTILLO: This is the first time I've ever been involved in any budget process, and when I came on -- and I thank y'all for -- for appointing me. I really had to scramble a lot in the conferences. I want to do the bare minimum conferences, but I'm realistic. Since I'll be coming up for a new election, the only reason I added so much on the conferences, if the next person that comes in is not me, they're going to have to do 80 hours, plus my 20. I'm -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are you talking about, Judge? Are you talking about you're not going to be here or what? JUDGE CASTILLO: Well, yeah, I'm going to be here. Hope to be here. But what I've heard -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Heard rumors. JUDGE CASTILLO: Beat like a drum. Anyway -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is the silly season, Judge; you hear a lot of things. JUDGE CASTILLO: Sure, a little humor there. I don't know -- I want to work real close with John. Out of that technology fund, I do want two laptops. I want to loan one to -- to my constable. And I'm real gung-ho about getting standards -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What -- why wouldn't the constable have that in his budget if he needed it? 8-24-05 bwk 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE CASTILLO: What is -- what? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why wouldn't the constable have that in his budget if he needed it? JUDGE CASTILLO: I have no idea. MR. TROLINGER: How does the technology fund work, Tommy, with -- JUDGE ELLIOTT: Can't be used for anything under J.P. JUDGE CASTILLO: I know it can't be used. I wonder if it could be used as a loaner, and he -- he has the radio. He can hear on the highway. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does he loan you his car? JUDGE CASTILLO: No. No. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE CASTILLO: I just hope it goes through, but if it doesn't, you know, it's not going to be my fault. But I know there's a lot of cheap laptops out there, but John looks at me and says it's got to work with Software Group real well. And I'll work with John, even if it's one laptop. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that laptop -- is that operating equipment? JUDGE CASTILLO: No, I think I still have to get it approved through y'all if I want a laptop. 8-29-05 bwk 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is it in your JUDGE CASTILLO: I guess it got killed when the Judge put the pencil to it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why -- what -- I mean, I can see having -- when you need a new computer, if you'd rather have a laptop, to get a laptop instead of an office computer, but I can't see getting both -- JUDGE CASTILLO: The office, I've got a computer. I mean, I've got a whiz of a computer. Pretty sure. Right, John? That thing does everything. And Kari put some other stuff on there; I think it's -- I don't know what it is, Excel or something. Nobody else can use it, but I can use it. And although I'm not -- I think Microsoft -- Microsoft is still slow. It's not what I had in Gateway, but -- MR. TROLINGER: The judge is in good shape overall with the existing system. What we're talking about is the ability to have in the vehicle -- in and out of the vehicle both, a replacement for his constable's computer, basically, where it replaces the desktop, gives him the ability on the road, with wireless access, to -- JUDGE CASTILLO: Right. MR. TROLINGER: -- to connect to our system 25 ~ and look up mug shots, warrants, do his paperwork from 8-24-05 bwk 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wherever he's at instead of from his office. JUDGE CASTILLO: I'm seeing a lot of tickets that the -- the troopers are stopping people on traffic, and if they were -- if they still had their -- what was it that he had for us? JUDGE ELLIOTT: So the judge needs a laptop in his budget for him -- wink, wink -- and he'll loan it to the constable. JUDGE CASTILLO: I'm here 24 hours and I'm a 24-hour judge, and we -- I'd like to get -- to cover a lot of that, like to get some of that money. And some people still come through here that get stopped a second time. The D.P.S. -- it may even be with the same D.P.S., but he's unaware that he's already issued this guy a ticket, simply because they can't help us any more. They can't have the warrants in their hands any more. And these speeders just come through here driving fast again. They stop them. And if we just had a radio out there -- if I had a radio. The constable has a radio, but he doesn't -- he's not aware that this guy has an open court -- he needs to plea in our court. And he's from California or he's from Arizona, he's from Minnesota. He's not going to -- from Florida. He's not going to come over here and he's not going to send in his plea. He doesn't care about our -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand, I guess, 8-24-05 bwk 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 what you're saying. And I think that constables don't COMMISSIONER LETZ: They do? Constables do? MR. TROLINGER: Yes, they do. JUDGE CASTILLO: Precinct 2. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what you're -- long-term, I think it's a good idea for the constables to have laptops. I think that makes a lot of sense, 'cause they're out, you know, on the road. But I'm not going to buy -- I'm not in favor of buying them a laptop and a desktop. I mean, I think if they get rid of a desktop down the road, when they need to replace it, replace that with a laptop. If we can do that economically, that's fine, but I don't see having two computers. JUDGE CASTILLO: I'm just asking, Commissioner, for out of the technology fund. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The answer is no. JUDGE CASTILLO: Okay. Other than that, I think everything looks good in here. So -- MR. TROLINGER: Well, let me say this. I've looked at the J.P. -- I didn't write it in my efficiency report specifically to address it, because I'm not sure I quite understand it, but there's an issue with how warrants 25 ~ are served at the -- at the precinct versus how the warrants 8-24-05 bwk 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are served from the Sheriff's Office, and basically you have JUDGE CASTILLO: We have our own warrants. We don't know who to send these warrants to. Sheriff doesn't want them. Brad does a lot better job than Omni, as far as I'm concerned. Omni takes a lot of time. That's why I was saying that, yeah, we need a receptionist, so the receptionist would be there at the reception desk, and Elsa and/or my clerk can be entering these warrants with Omni. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I think during the next year, work with John and figure out what -- I mean, sounds like there's some problems with the system right now. JUDGE CASTILLO: Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Work with John and see if you can figure out a way to fix the system. MR. TROLINGER: Well, how I see these warrants that the J.P.'s have, it's money sitting there. It's -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why you need to fix the problem. MR. TROLINGER: And one solution is -- is to start -- since J.P. 3's so automated, that they have a desire to go that next step and put that in the vehicles so 8-24-05 bwk 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 that they can further be efficient. They look up their in-house database from where they're at. The Sheriff's JUDGE CASTILLO: Speeders are crooks, and they're moving along faster, and if we don't move fast, they're just going to get away with it. 'Cause I hate to dismiss tickets. I've dismissed $3,000 or $4,000. Is it going to come out of my pocket? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- I don't think there's enough information presented. I think all the J.P.'s need to get together, all the constables, and if they need to rework something and take some additional technology, get with Mr. Trolinger, and I think they will work with y'all and come back with a plan. I think one thing, we finally got all the J.P.'s and constables doing the same thing. I don't want to start diverging from that; I want them all doing the same system again. JUDGE CASTILLO: On 105, do I get that? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one? JUDGE CASTILLO: 105. Line Number 105. JUDGE TINLEY: I think personnel issues -- you've made a request for a merit increase for your -- JUDGE CASTILLO: She's been -- JUDGE TINLEY: -- court coordinator. 25 ~ JUDGE CASTILLO: -- here off and on for 15 8-24-05 bwk 130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 years, but permanent, maybe the last five or six years. And she knows her business, I guarantee. Even judges from surrounding counties call her for -- for help. And so -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. JUDGE CASTILLO: -- she -- I rely on her quite a bit. 'Cause what I learned at the -- as an intern, as a judge and a constable and the civil process, this is a totally different world. JUDGE TINLEY: This is a two-step increase you're asking for her? Is that -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: One. JUDGE TINLEY: One? JUDGE CASTILLO: It's not much. COMMISSIONER LETZ: She's at a 17-3 right now. JUDGE CASTILLO: I'm just going by what the previous clerk was making in Precinct 4. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are all the other clerks? Where are they all -- Ms. Nemec? MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where are they -- where are the clerk assistants to the J.P. courts? How are they slotted? JUDGE CASTILLO: I think they're all making 25, 5 . 8-24-05 bwk 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're the same? MS. NEMEC: They're all 17's. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 17-2, 17-3. MS. NEMEC: Ms. Sevey is a 17-3, right along with pretty much all the others. J.P. 4's clerk is going to be a 17-4 after her longevity this year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one? MS. NEMEC: J.P. 4 will be a 17-4. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MS. NEMEC: In September, she gets her longevity. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE CASTILLO: I -- you know, I'll fight for my clerk tooth and nail before anybody else, 'cause she's good. She's -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- yeah. We haven't really -- JUDGE CASTILLO: See, the previous clerk at Precinct 4 was making this when he left, what I'm asking for right here. And -- and, you know, that -- it's kind of like a bias or something. And, my god, she's good. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- JUDGE CASTILLO: And when he left, there were some problems left over. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, J.P. 1's clerk, in 8-24-05 bwk 132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 October, is going to be a 17-3. J.P. 2 is 17-2. J.P. -- yours, Ms. Sevey, is a 17-3, and J.P. 4 will end up at the 17-4. JUDGE CASTILLO: If I can do at least one good thing, it will be this. JUDGE TINLEY: I think we're probably going to be looking at those. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All at once? JUDGE TINLEY: Those merit -- anything over and above salary -- salary increases over and above longevity and educational probably at the next overall session, is what I envision. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE CASTILLO: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. JUDGE ELLIOTT: I like that idea he had, though, about just in case I don't get re-elected, and you give us another $1,000 in our Conference line item. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We're knocking close to 12:00. Do you want to go ahead and try and get these others? Let's get Animal Control, I'd say -- not Animal Control. Environmental Health. 8-24-05 bwk 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What about four? Are we doing four? J.P. 4? JUDGE TINLEY: I don't see him here. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: I think he's -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Happy. JUDGE TINLEY: We've already -- the software maintenance, of course, is something that we're going to roll into J.P. technology. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: Environmental Health is towards the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: 21, I believe. JUDGE TINLEY: -- tail end, I believe. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 21. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Environmental Health? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, 21. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Miguel? MR. ARREOLA: Okay. Good morning -- still morning? Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Barely. MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. I'm going to try to be -- do this quick. There's only about five items that I would like to review with you. The rest look good to me the way the Judge recommended it. It's pretty good. I would 8-29-05 bwk 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 like to go -- start with Item 101. There's a request in there -- the reason for my request, I'll show you some copies of what used to be the county salary for that position a few years back when the County had the program and what it is now, the inflation rate and all of that. So, my request is there. It's up to you to approve or deny. Just let me know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the -- okay. I see what you're saying. MR. ARREOLA: Okay. Next item is Item 103. That's very important. That is critical for our department. What I'm doing in that item, I'm requesting the current part-time inspector that we have for Solid Waste to be transferred to a full-time employee. And that it's -- we're pleased to have a person like that. He is working so well. We're producing a lot of results, and there's a lot more to do. That will be a way of doing it, and if we have more power -- manpower to do it. So, it's holding there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whoa, whoa, whoa. You've got two part-time people? MR. ARREOLA: Correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what are you -- what are you asking? One of them can only work two days a week; is that correct? 25 ~ MR. ARREOLA: Correct. That stays the same 8-24-05 bwk 135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so what are you asking? MR. ARREOLA: The other person, I'm trying to get him as a full-time to work five days a week, full-time employee. Also will help us on our nuisance abatement program where we have to have a full-time employee to be named as a representative, so that will help us both ways. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought you were named so that we satisfied the -- you were named in that capacity so that we satisfied the provisions of that code. MR. ARREOLA: Yes, we do. We have it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That policy. MR. ARREOLA: As a director. But eventually -- no one can do the job in the field or take over because they're not full-time employees. I have to do it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, under Inspectors Salaries, what you're asking, then, amounts to a one day per week increase, or a three day per week? MR. ARREOLA: Two day per week. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two? MR. ARREOLA: Yeah. What we're doing is three days, six hours a day, so that's 18 hours a week. We want to put it as 40 hours a week. 8-24-05 bwk 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you increasing one of your part-times to full-time and then keeping the other part-time? Is that essentially what you're doing? MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going from one full spot to 1.5 full spots? MR. ARREOLA: Correct. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, when we initially staffed the department, from that time to right now, we're up one and a half employees? MR. ARREOLA: We started with three and a half, and now we're -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: At four. MR. ARREOLA: -- at five and a half total, counting O.S.S.F. and -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Up two people. MR. ARREOLA: -- Solid Waste, so we got two extra people. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And our budget -- '03-'04 budget, compared to what's requested, is a 40 percent or so increase? MR. ARREOLA: It is a good increase, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're going the wrong direction. 8-24-05 bwk 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ARREOLA: Well, we're -- if we go percentage-wise, we're going -- we're reducing our expenses percentage-wise on everything else except on salaries, yes. We got -- if we get this, it'll be two extra people that -- with the salaries, and benefits will bring it up. The other -- the other -- the rest of the budget has actually gone down. JUDGE TINLEY: 40 percent -- 38. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 38.7 percent. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MR. ARREOLA: And that's just basically the needs of the department. I realize it's -- it's more, but also the county's growing, and we got a lot of work to do, so the only way to do it is have manpower. We provide a service to the community, and we need to keep doing it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many members of your staff do O.S.S.F. inspections? MR. ARREOLA: Two. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You -- MR. ARREOLA: Including myself. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- and one other? MR. ARREOLA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And you've got two people involved in Solid Waste? MR. ARREOLA: Correct. 8-24-05 bwk 138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you've got one person as permanent office? MR. ARREOLA: Two in the office permanent. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two in the office? MR. ARREOLA: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are their responsibilities? MR. ARREOLA: One of them is a clerk/receptionist, and he helps with database, and the other one is strictly database. We get both databases for O.S.S.F. and for Solid Waste. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Trolinger, are we looking at anything in the new computer system that would assist Environmental Health Department? MR. TROLINGER: It's -- there's not one particular package that -- that one particular vendor can provide to handle Environmental Health, so what they've done is they've developed their own database in-house. Basically, they have what I would consider to be a database programmer, a very highly skilled person doing this work, that brings their systems all -- that brings everything together for them so that they can do their daily work. With what Software Group -- with the tax and appraisal consolidation -- or not consolidation, but integration that I'm looking at, I can see that they can take advantage of a 8-24-05 bwk 139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 piece of that system -- Software Group system for their mapping, the ArcView piece. But it's very difficult to come up with a solution for Environmental Health. They've done it themselves as a result. MR. ARREOLA: And I think we -- we got a pretty good setup, pretty good system that allows us to do things a lot faster. And even when we used to do it at the other administration, I don't have exactly the number, but it was close to six people just for O.S.S.F. So, if we compare O.S.S.F. the way it used to be and now how it is, we're way down. That program that John is talking about, it was designed in-house. We did it ourselves, and it's helping us a lot. This request is basically outside for the O.S.S.F. This is Solid Waste; it's a separate issue, and it's big and it's important. Now, you -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What kind of caseload does your Solid Waste people carry? MR. ARREOLA: Caseload as of this time of the year, it's been, what, 80 and 100 and -- that number I gave to you. MR. GARCIA: 127 cases. MR. ARREOLA: 127 cases from January to now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many of them are open? How many of them are closed? MR. ARREOLA: I think 80 of them were closed 8-24-05 bwk 140 1 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 last time I checked, so we got about 40 pending. And that's with two part-timers. And there's more -- a lot more in the county that we could address if we had the manpower. I don't know if you've noticed in your precincts, things are looking better. We're cleaning up. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think just my view is, I mean, this is not a year that I can see us adding staff really anywhere. We just -- we're faced with some huge expenditures, and, I mean, I like the direction of where you've gone, but I don't see additional people. At least not another full-time, anyway. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are your two people who stay inside, are they -- are they both two full-time positions, or -- MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- is there a possibility of consolidating a position that -- MR. ARREOLA: It's pretty difficult because of the public. We -- we do interact with the public. We have a lot of activities with the public. We have people coming into the office, the phone -- answering the phone, and the data entry itself is a full-time job. It's -- you know, we can go back in history and see how that was done. Data entry itself, it is -- it's a lot of data that we got to enter. 8-24-OS bwk 141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would it be possible to take your data entry -- and I think the answer is going to be no because of the skills, but a data entry to a part-time position or a part -- or get the clerk -- we can do something like Commissioner Williams was saying, go with your clerk to 1.5 employees to free up half an employee to go into O.S.S.F. out in the field. Is there any way you could reconfigure or do anything -- MR. ARREOLA: We can try. For sure, we can try. I'm afraid of -- we tried before. When we started, we started with three in O.S.S.F., and it just didn't work. It was -- the demand from the public is different. So, if -- you know, service-wise, if you want to provide less service to the community, then we can try it out. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let's not go down that road. Let's talk about whether or not your -- your two folks that stay in-house all the time, the receptionist and your data entry person, are they both cross-trained? Can your receptionist do data entry? MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir, they can. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And is your receptionist involved eight hours a day dealing with the public directly over the counter -- MR. ARREOLA: No. 25 ~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- or answering the 8-24-05 bwk 142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ARREOLA: Also that's entering, filing. They're both trained. Now, the receptionist position is not as qualified as my data entry person to do it, so on occasions -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I just asked you, are they cross-trained to do that? Is she cross-trained to do that work? MR. ARREOLA: Not 100 percent. The -- my receptionist is not qualified to do the data entry position 100 percent. It can do, you know, what's very important, what is -- can't wait. But the full data entry position, I don't think she is. We can try to train her and see how it comes out. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, what I'm driving at is -- you know, what Commissioner Letz and I are both driving at is trying to find a way to get you more manpower on the on the road in terms of Solid Waste without adding another body to your department. MR. ARREOLA: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Think you can get creative and help us figure that out? MR. ARREOLA: We can see the -- the possibility. It sounds difficult because of what we do in that department. It's a lot of public service. But we can 8-24-05 bwk 143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the -- 25 8-24-05 bwk try. Yes, sir, we can try that. MR. TROLINGER: And to Miguel's credit, we have looked at mounting a laptop in the vehicle, having access back to his database and streamlining that data entry process where part of it's done out in the field, but we're not there yet. We've got some work to do to figure out how to do that. MS. NEMEC: I you go this route, you might position of his receptionist that position pays, and then that goes from a 12 to a 15, JUDGE TINLEY: think y'all might also -- if need to look at the -- the and the step and grade that if she starts doing data entry, so there might be some -- May have to make some adjustments. MS. NEMEC: -- adjustments there. MR. ARREOLA: Adjustments on the salary. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I understand that, but if we can figure out a way to do some consolidation so we can put the manpower on the road where there seems to be a need, that's my goal. JUDGE TINLEY: If we could transition to where some of the people in the field are able to input some of the data right there in the field, that also would lessen COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That might help. 144 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: -- in-house requirement. MR. ARREOLA: Actually, we're doing that already. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're doing that? MR. ARREOLA: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you carry a laptop out -- MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To put the information in? MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And your other inspector does the same thing? MR. ARREOLA: We're not set up for that with them yet. We have the computer; we just need the stands and all of that for the vehicle, but yes, it's possible. We're looking into it, trying to get those. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe Mr. Trolinger can help you get there a little quicker, which would cut down your data entry load inside the -- in-house. MR. ARREOLA: Yes, it will help a lot, and we can look at that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. ARREOLA: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Outside of the salary, do 8-29-05 bwk 145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 2` you have anything you want to bring up outside salaries and positions? MR. ARREOLA: Something else outside that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, outside of that. MR. ARREOLA: Yeah, I would like to change a little bit the -- the vehicle gas, oil, and maintenance. I requested 3,500 and it was recommended, but the way it's going with the gasoline prices, I'd like to get a little higher. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Think you better go to 5,000, don't you think? MR. ARREOLA: Yes, I was thinking about 5,000, 'cause year-to-date, we already spent almost 4,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're at 4,400 right now. MR. ARREOLA: Yes. So if we could get 5,000 on that one, that would be great. On the lab testing, Line Item 438, I requested 1,500. I know it's not showing that we spent that in the past. The reason we requested that is we have some special lab testing to do. Occasionally, not all the time, but for, like, oil, polluted soil, that is very expensive. What we do is we try to get that reimbursed by the -- by the person, but in order for us to have a good case, we have to do the lab testing, so I would like to get $1,500 on that one. 8-29-05 bwk 146 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How often do you do that? MR. ARREOLA: Hard to tell. We have one right now that is pending, and we haven't acted on it because of the lack of funds. We tried to get this person to pay for it at the beginning. He didn't agree, but once they found it was a $500 lab test, and -- nevermind, and I didn't have the funds to do it, so that's pending. I don't see that very often, but I want to be prepared in case something comes up. If we don't use it, then it will just stay there. I'm going to go lower on uniforms and boots, 316. I requested 2,000; it was recommended for 1,500. I'm talking to different companies now, and looks like I'm going to be able to get a better price, so it'll probably be even lower than that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much -- do you know how much lower? MR. ARREOLA: Probably we can make it a thousand. Don't put it in there yet. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll put 1,000 in. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Miguel? MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Line 435. MR. ARREOLA: 435. Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You had budgeted 3,500 for public education. 8-24-05 bwk 147 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only spent 1,500. MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir, we didn't spend much. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's happening in MR. ARREOLA: Not enough time to spend in the way we want it. We have to take care of business first. We would like to do a lot more. If we can get more manpower, that will probably free me a little bit more to do more public education. We've done a few that it didn't cost us much, and that's why we didn't have to spend so much on it. I would like to have some, and there's -- you know, to do different -- different things. But, yeah, we haven't spent money on it a whole lot. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I agree that public education is important, but I think that I like what you've done in the past in trying to get with, you know, like, the Home Builders Association, things that don't cost very much. MR. ARREOLA: Don't cost very much. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to really reduce that, based on fuel going up, reduce it to 1,000. MR. ARREOLA: That's fine. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of why I 25 ~ asked the question. 8-24-05 bwk 148 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. ARREOLA: Sure, that's okay. The other one that I'm willing to reduce on Capital Outlay, 570, we do need a four-wheel drive vehicle. It's a big need. We still have our jeeps; they're still working real good, and the reason for that money was to lease a four-wheel drive vehicle, probably sell one of the jeeps and lease a four-wheel drive. I think we can still live one more year without it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: One more year? Okay. MR. ARREOLA: So, we're willing to give that as a zero. But I would really like to have my full-time employee. Give some, take some. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that public education down to 1,000? JUDGE TINLEY: 1,000. MR. LESLIE: So, your biggest priority is to go from two part-time to one full-time, one part-time? MR. ARREOLA: One and a half, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then you can take those dollars and increase your Solid Waste manpower? MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that it for this one? Okay. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: When we look at the big 25 numbers. 8-24-05 bwk 149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ARREOLA: Okay. Thank you very much. JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we break for lunch (Commissioner Letz not present.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to order, if we might. We were in recess for lunch until 1:30. It's a bit past that now. The next one on our workshop budget list is the Auditor. Let's go ahead and get him done. What do you have for us? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, what I -- when I did my original budget, $800 in operating equipment didn't roll forward to recommended, and that's -- that's to replace my computer. Actually, that computer belongs to Adult Probation, my -- my computer does. And it's a '96 model, and so I'm having a few difficulties, and so I really do need to replace my PC. The only -- the only other thing that I have is actually a big item, but last -- last year I asked for a part-time person, additional part-time person in my office. I tried it for a few months this year, and finally came to the conclusion that the detailed work in my setting just does not lend itself to part-time. They're here four hours and they're gone a day and a half, and they come back and it's hard to keep up with where you are and 8-24-05 bwk 150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what you're doing. We found out that we had, on the average, more redo to -- to do than we did when we started. So, we had a lot of errors and we had a lot of corrections to make. So, what I'm asking for is to replace that -- that part-time with a full-time person. That office has had two people in it since about '88 or '89, and it's been 15 years since I've been here with two people. And when I -- when I started in 1990, we had maybe -- maybe one grant to deal with, and that was from -- from Texas Juvenile Probation Commission. Since -- since that time, we've grown from one grant to probably on the average of 15 a year, and we're the -- you know, my office is the sole administrator of all grants that the County gets, and it's -- we're at the point that -- that we really just can't take on much more. And -- and the volume of -- of invoices that we handle, you know, every month is just to the point that -- that it's just almost impossible to handle more. My -- my first assistant probably works 50 hours a week, no overtime. And I know -- I know that she works sometimes on the weekends from 7:30 in the morning till, you know, 6:00, 7:00 at night, and I just -- I just don't think that's fair. And we -- as part of trying to get full-time, you know, we are prepared to take on the billings for an indigent health care program, and that -- that would be -- 8-24-05 bwk 151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that's an additional piece of software, but I've talked to Sid Peterson Hospital about it, and part -- the software can be shared by us and the hospital. And they -- the hospital is excited about it, because it automates the qualifications of indigent people. Right now, they're doing it manually. When -- you know, when a person walks in off the street and applies for -- for indigent health care, they're -- they're having to do that manually. This -- this system integrates the billings with the qualification. In other words, what it does, it assigns a case number to each individual, and -- and all of their billings get tied to that case number. And the way it -- the way the law is with indigent health care, they're only qualified for six months at a time. Well, as an example, if John Doe is qualified and he -- they run for six months, and the bill comes in and it's dated after that six months has expired, say, if he went to the pharmacy or to the doctor's office after that -- after that expiration date, this system will -- will pick up on that date, and when -- when it picks that date, it will not pay that -- that vendor, because they're not -- they're not qualified any more. So, I mean, that's -- and right now, we're -- we're paying a third-party administrator 4 and a half percent of all the eligible health care -- indigent health care costs, and that -- right now that amounts to about 8-24-05 bwk 152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 $26,000, $27,000 a year. So, you know, last -- last year, you know, I reduced my salary by almost 40 percent in order to get a part-time person. And -- and so, you know, if we could -- if we could gain a full-time person, then I think we'd still be well ahead if we could save the -- the 27,000-plus that we're paying for a person to do our indigent health care administration. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the cost of the software package, Tommy? MR. TOMLINSON: It's -- we don't purchase. The software is -- is furnished to us on a monthly basis, and for both sides it's -- it's 1,000 -- I think it's $1,000 a month. So, the hospital and the County would split that -- that monthly fee, so it would be approximately $500 a month for the County. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who would be doing the interview process in each of these patient cases? You would be doing it here, or the hospital would? MR. TOMLINSON: The hospital would continue to do it. The indigent health care program is administered through Social Services at the hospital, and they have people there that deal with Medicaid, Medicare, and all facets of -- of aid to -- you know, to indigent people. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I ask because I don't think you want to do that. 8-24-05 bwk 153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TOMLINSON: No. No. No, I don't, that's for sure. But -- so they -- that Social Services office, they feed off each other's information. But if they had -- if they had this part of it automated, it would -- I think it would really benefit them as much as it would us. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Tommy, let me understand. Who's -- you're going to be taking on some more work, indigent health care. Who's doing it now, the work that you'll be taking on? MR. TOMLINSON: We contract with -- with a firm in Houston. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Third party? MR. TOMLINSON: Third-party administrator. And their fee is 4 and a half percent of our total indigent health care deal. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, you're going to get $26,000 back by going from a part-time to a full-time. MR. TOMLINSON: Right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You know county government probably about as well as anybody. Are there any other administrative functions in county government -- personnel management comes to mind -- or any others that could be consolidated into your office? Purchasing comes to mind. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, purchasing is -- is an 8-24-05 bwk 154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 issue that I think, for the long-term, we need to deal with. In fact -- as a matter of fact, I have -- I have visited with my peers in Gillespie County, and I think that -- that we can share in -- in a purchasing officer to -- to do purchases for more than -- for more than one entity. And, you know, I mentioned this when we talked about this new software package. For -- for the accounting part of -- of that software, I think that's the most important thing, is that it will allow us to do online P.O. purchasing. Whereas when -- when any department needs whatever it is they want, they -- they can -- they can requisition that purchase directly through the accounting system. And if we had a purchasing officer, they -- they would handle that -- that purchase requisition before it ever goes into the accounting system. So -- and what it does, when -- when the purchasing officer actually does a P.O., then -- then the amount of that purchase gets applied against the -- the account -- the proper account in that department. So -- so, on a -- on a real, live basis, we have -- we know exactly what -- what's encumbered against every account in every department county-wide. And -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That saves some work on your department, doesn't it? MR. TOMLINSON: It would -- it would save some data entry. I mean, someone -- someone will have to do 8-24-05 bwk 155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the data entry, whether it be one in my department or -- or in purchasing. Some -- you know, somebody has to enter that documentation into the system. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought the P.O. originated with the department head. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it -- it can, and it will. But -- but that's only a requisition. That's not the actual payment of the -- of the purchase. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: There's the -- the new system, as -- one example that I think that, you know, the Court would really like is that there are ways to go into -- to the payroll system, and if you -- if you have the idea that you -- you want to increase salaries county-wide by 3 percent, you plug that 3 percent in, in the accounting -- in the payroll system, and it will give you the salary of every -- the new salary of every employee, plus benefits that are associated with it in a matter of, you know, minutes. So, for budgeting purposes, it's really a good product. And it -- and the reason is, is the -- the system that we have now -- the accounting system we have now was designed by programmers; it's not designed by accountants. So, that tells you a little something about, you know, our -- our program. This software is designed by -- by one of the men that wrote GASB-34, so this accounting package 8-24-05 bwk 156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is -- is designed around that reporting standard. Mr. -- Mr. Freeman -- Dr. Freeman from Texas State University wrote -- helped write this program, and he sat on the Governmental Accounting Standards Board for a number of years, so -- and was instrumental in -- in developing GASB-34. So, it -- it's designed by accountants and it's maintained by accountants. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Isn't the purchasing system and the payroll system part of the entire package that Mr. Trolinger's proposing? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have another question in terms of purchasing. Have we gone this route before and talked about it? Because there really is -- there really is a need to do centralized purchasing. Are there any other counties other than Gillespie that might be interested? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I'm sure that Bandera would be. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I was getting at. MR. TOMLINSON: But I have -- I've had a serious conversation with -- with the Auditor in Gillespie County, and they do have an interest. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What about the 8-24-05 bwk 157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 personnel management function? MR. TOMLINSON: That -- that's -- that's a highly specialized field. You know, personally, I'm not qualified to do it. If -- I mean, the next -- the next person in this place may, but -- but I'm not. And I'll tell you right off that -- that I don't -- I don't -- I've never done that, and -- and at my age, I don't want to learn. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the question, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Whether or not there's some synergy by moving the personnel management function into the Auditor's office. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. We're probably not too far away from a Human Resources Department, with the number of employees we got. MR. TOMLINSON: But I think that for the long haul, trying to integrate the indigent health care in -- the administrative part of it into -- at the county level will be of some benefit. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that have some merit if, as, and when, in the EMS investigation, the County were to somewhere down the line get engaged in EMS billing? Does that have some application that way, too? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it does -- I mean, the system does have a -- have a -- it has a utility billing 8-29-05 bwk 158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 system built in it, so I think that probably any kind of -- of billings, accounts receivable could be applied to -- I mean, it's similar functions, so it could be. I'm not -- I won't say it will, but since -- since it does have a billing system, it seems to me that it could be used for any billing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do we do the billing for the Juvenile Detention Facility? MR. TOMLINSON: The facility bills -- bills its own per diems. They -- the facility sends the bills out. They give us copies of the billing, and we -- we audit the payments to make sure that all the payments have been made. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In terms of centralized accounts receivable, is that -- is that the way we want to continue, or should we consolidate wherever possible? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, to me, the way -- the way we're doing this right now is -- lends itself to -- to some dual control, because there is -- there is some -- there is two hands in the mix, so to speak. And, so, I -- for that reason, I like the way we're doing that process. The County does not do a lot of accounts receivable other than -- that I can think of, other than that or the courts. But we have a collection -- we have a Collections Department 8-24-05 bwk 159 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that handles that. But as far as -- as monthly billings, there is not much of that. We -- we bill the other counties in the two districts for -- for all the costs associated with the District Attorney's office and for the. district court. That's -- that's -- for the most part, that's all the billings that we do. Any other questions? JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we went kind of far afield from your request, but -- JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially -- I'm sorry, are you through? Essentially, what you're saying is you want to go from what you had hoped to be able to work with a part-time to a full-time. But, by the same token, you've cut yourself back prior to this time. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: But to offset that, you're going to take on the indigent health care billings, which will be pretty close to a wash. The additional costs will be in the software for the -- for the billings? MR. TOMLINSON: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: And that's going to be about $6,000 a year? MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have a 8-24-05 bwk 160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 problem with that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Letz needs to hear it, though. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I took some good notes for him. The -- going back and comparing '05-'06 requested to '03-'04, we're up $33,000, and I can't -- I can't find why we are, 'cause -- is it all in this additional salary? We spent 141 two years ago, and this year we're going to spend 174, and that considers the significant pay increase you -- you took. JUDGE TINLEY: Insurance is about 11,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a big one. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, that's a big hit. Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: You there? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Collections. That's under 6, I believe. This is the guy everybody likes to see, 'cause he brings in more than he spends. MR. ALFORD: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, but just seeing your smiling face -- MR. ALFORD: Uh-oh. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- reminds me, I wanted to ask the Auditor a question. In other revenue, 8-24-05 bwk 161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 when you give us our printout of taxes and other revenues and so forth, will you include the revenue -- anticipated revenue from the juvenile facility and collections in that MR. TOMLINSON: The -- the revenues from juvenile detention are in a separate fund alone. The -- the collections that they -- that our Collections Department makes fall -- fall under the fees that are associated with -- with the office that generates the fee. In other words, if -- if they collect a fee for County Court at Law, then that fee or fine is associated with -- with the County Clerk's fines and fees. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: Likewise, if it's a district court case, then those fees get associated with -- with the District Clerk's Office. But under -- under GASB-34 -- under the functional accounting system, the -- the rules are that -- that the fees that are generated by a function get associated with the costs of that function. So, the end result is that -- that if the District Clerk generates the fee, then that fee gets netted against the cost of her office, so -- so, thereby, you know how much -- how much dollars in taxes or tax money that you have to use to support her office. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And what about 8-24-05 bwk 162 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Juvenile Detention Facility? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, that -- those revenues are totally by themselves, 'cause we're -- since we -- since that facility is partially used by other counties, it's considered a proprietary fund, or a -- or I won't call it for-a-profit center. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't yet. MR. TOMLINSON: But -- but, essentially, that's -- you treat it just like you would a business. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: Because better than 50 percent of the revenues are generated outside the county. So, for that reason, all the revenues that are generated by the facility are included within that fund. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reason I asked -- excuse me, Judge, but I just want to -- and I want to draw Tommy out a little bit. The reason I ask is because every time we have a discussion about the Juvenile Detention Facility, it seems like our discussion is always focused on the cost side, and we don't get -- we don't get the benefit of weighing that against the revenue side. Now, Ms. Harris gives us a report every month, and we know what she billed. But, you know, when you look at all of our funds and so forth, not being able to say that -- that "X" number of dollars over the course of a 12-month period either were 8-29-05 bwk 163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 generated or anticipated to be generated against the costs that are associated, I think, sometimes becomes a problem in terms of how people perceive the entire thing. If you follow what I'm trying to say. MR. TOMLINSON: All -- all the fees -- all the revenues associated with that function are reported along with the expenditures for that function, so there shouldn't be any confusion about -- I mean, about that issue. Because, I mean, they're all reported and they're -- they're not commingled with any other fund. (Commissioner Letz entered the courtroom.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, we'll continue that. MR. TOMLINSON: I'm not exactly following what -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll continue that. We'll get rid of this guy here. JUDGE TINLEY: Doesn't sound very nice; want to get rid of him. MR. ALFORD: First it's my "smiling face"; now it's, "Get rid of him." JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You didn't get any further than Collections? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, we got -- we 8-24-05 bwk 164 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ALFORD: I just got here. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We had the Auditor up there for a long time. JUDGE TINLEY: He's explained everything from top to bottom to us; you missed it all. Okay. Any -- have you got any questions, comments about where the recommended is at this point? MR. ALFORD: No, sir, do not. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any special wish list that you've got you want to lay in front of us? MR. ALFORD: No, sir. The only thing would be the $1,000 you and I talked about under Conference, Travel. It's just to leave that there, because I elected not to send us this year because it was going to cost us, like, $1,800. It was outrageous, so I just waived that and asked that that $1,000 be carried over. There should be a fall conference this year, I believe, in Austin. I'm hoping that'll be cheap enough we can attend. Other than that, everything is just like it has been. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What kind of leverage do you have to collect money? What happens to a debtor if he doesn't pay? MR. ALFORD: Depends on which court. If it's -- if it's in a misdemeanor court, if he doesn't pay 8-24-05 bwk 165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 us, we virtually threaten to put him in jail and/or do put him in jail. If it's a felony court, we have to work real closely with Probation and try to get his probation violated. It's a -- we have a very big hammer in misdemeanor court. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd just like your opinion on -- I think you know something about the very -- what appears to be a very large bad-debt expense that EMS has. MR. ALFORD: I've heard of it yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Have you got any opinion about whether or not there's a lot of money laying around there that could be picked up? MR. ALFORD: Not knowing a whole lot about insurance, I'd be scared to venture into that. But I'd be willing to bet that there's probably more out there than is being collected, by skip tracing. As y'all know, we do -- a lot of these people move; no forwarding address. I feel like that's something that we could probably be able to locate them. Now, then, if they pay or not, I don't know. But it seems like something that we've learned through the past; if you locate Johnny once, "Johnny" being a hypothetical person, if he throws the letter in the trash can, you locate him six months from now, he starts getting the idea of, "The cops can still find me," so eventually 8-24-05 bwk 166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you'll start getting some money in. So, I'm assuming that may apply to EMS also. I don't know. JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for Mr. Alford? Thank you, sir. MR. ALFORD: Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Commissioner Letz. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We go -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Three gentlemen and Letz? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure how to take that. JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want me to interpret it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rather not. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. D.P.S. That takes us to 19, it looks like. This is not a big item. Trooper? You got anything for us? Or are you just here because somebody said that you need to be here? TROOPER OLIVE: Somebody told me to be here, so I'm here. I'll answer whatever questions y'all might have. We -- I'm even willing to give you some money back. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Really? JUDGE TINLEY: Bring it on. TROOPER OLIVE: Line Item 499 on our budget 8-24-05 bwk 167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 2F for $150, we had tint meters that we're required to certify that the County purchased for us, and that's what that was for. We've since been given tint meters by the State. We've turned our old ones over to the Sheriff's Department, so we don't need the money; y'all put it to good use somewhere. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. MS. HARRIS: You can put it in the Detention account. TROOPER OLIVE: I knew somebody would volunteer for it. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? TROOPER OLIVE: No, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that all? Just 150 bucks? TROOPER OLIVE: We do what we can. We give y'all a lot. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know you do. TROOPER OLIVE: It just comes in through another department. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. JUDGE TINLEY: This guy's quick on his feet, isn't he? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, he is. Take the 150 and run, Judge. 8-24-05 bwk 168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. TROOPER OLIVE: That's all I've got, unless you got something for me. JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you. TROOPER OLIVE: Thanks for your time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thanks a lot. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come to Number 1, County Judge. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here comes one we're going to whack on. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, get out your pencil. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Outsource this one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Outsource? (Laughter.) JUDGE TINLEY: Cut some, increased some. Didn't even look at the bottom line to see what the difference was. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Out-of-county mileage? JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You haven't used that much this year. JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm-mm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You planning to be out of county next year? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Actually, I increased 8-24-05 bwk 169 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -- increased it over in Commissioners Court, too. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Even if he drives the same number of miles, with the increased cost of fuel and everything, it's still right there. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same as last year. JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I said basically the same JUDGE TINLEY: Pretty close, yeah. Like I say, there -- a few of them are lower, a few of them -- one or two I increased. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the Postage line, Judge -- is that just uniquely for your office, or is that combined with Commissioners Court as well? JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Commissioners Court has one also. And from an accounting standpoint, how we separate the two, your guess is as good as mine. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unless Ms. Mitchell -- MS. MITCHELL: It's divided up five ways, one-fifth to the Judge's account. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Really? 8-24-05 bwk 170 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MITCHELL: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good for you. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll move to County Court. Came down a little bit on Mental Health and on Court-Appointed Attorneys. I hope I'm not stretching my neck on court-appointed attorneys, but I think we're going to be able to bring it in at that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Basically identical to last year. A couple of lower, everything else the same. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah. If anything, it brought it down some, yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Both of yours are down a little bit. Good job, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. We'll come to 2 -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did you get any more supplements this year we don't know about? JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not aware of them if there are. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thought I'd check to see if there was any supplements the Legislature was giving you. JUDGE TINLEY: If they come from outside, I'll take them. (Mr. Tomlkinson pointed at Judge Tinley.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: He gets a supplement? JUDGE TINLEY: I do? 8-24-05 bwk 171 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Good. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much more is he making now? MR. TOMLINSON: I think it was -- this was in the same bill as the District Judges, I believe. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can -- JUDGE TINLEY: A separate bill. MR. TOMLINSON: It also affects the -- the supplement of the County Attorney. MR. EMERSON: Cool. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do they all make more money? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: I know we had a separate bill that went in the trash somewhere. MR. TOMLINSON: I think it -- JUDGE TINLEY: We weren't part of the District Judges. MR. TOMLINSON: I think somebody dug it out, because it's -- JUDGE TINLEY: Good. MR. TOMLINSON: That's the information I got from Judge Evans. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe you -- I think 8-24-05 bwk 172 1 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 had a $5,000 supplement. JUDGE TINLEY: Ten. MR. TOMLINSON: Ten. I think it goes to 15. JUDGE TINLEY: Wonderful. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So the 10 on the County Judge, that 10 goes to 15? MR. TOMLINSON: That's the information that I got from -- from Judge Evans. I don't know if the bill's been signed or not. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe it was. I think it was part of another bill. MR. TOMLINSON: But it is 5,000 if it -- if it has. JUDGE TINLEY: I was hoping to get -- that it would attach to the -- to the general judicial bill, but it was a separate bill forever, and during the session, I knew it wasn't going to go anywhere as a separate bill. MR. TOMLINSON: It was resurrected, I guess. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it 5 or 15? MR. TOMLINSON: Five. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Increased it five. MR. TOMLINSON: Increased to five. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it's 15,000 now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I thought, yeah. Increases by five. Congratulations, Judge. 8-29-05 bwk 173 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You get that salary up much more, a lot of us are going to be running for County Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: That's right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there curiosity, is there a -- a fee where this is This is just an unfunded mandate, basically? just -- we're going to pay our judges more? MR. TOMLINSON: No, I don't t fee. Come on. -- just out of coming out of? This is pink there's a COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just the Legislature telling us we're going to pay certain people more. JUDGE TINLEY: No, this is state money. This money comes from the state. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: State supplements. JUDGE TINLEY: State money, yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could have gone to school. So, you're taking money from the school children. JUDGE TINLEY: I guess. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hmm. Where's the reporter when we need them? JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Number 2, Commissioners Court. I got input from several of you and tried to interpolate that into what's there. 8-24-05 bwk 174 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One of the items that several months ago, and as a result of some discussions with the Auditor having to do with liability we incur driving our own vehicles in pursuit of county business. Remember that, Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I remember. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think we ever got a resolution, but I know what the personal resolution is, 'cause I took care of it with my insurance agent, and what that amounted to was $250 more on my insurance bill, just for the vehicle I use exclusively for county -- for county business. So, now I'm covered in case I have a wreck and -- and something happens in the pursuit of county business. How'd you handle yours? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm still just hanging out there somewhere. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hanging out there. MR. TOMLINSON: In past history, when the -- when the constables used their own vehicles, the Court agreed to -- in the past, agreed to pay the additional premiums between -- between an ordinary coverage as a personal vehicle and the additional amount that it would take to -- to bring the coverage up to handle the use in -- in your business. And the Court -- but the Court budgeted 8-29-05 bwk 175 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that amount to pay for the additional coverage. So, I -- I guess that's one way to deal with it, if -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Was that just a blanket amount for all four, or was that based on each individual's -- MR. TOMLINSON: It was based on each individual's coverage. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I remember when we did that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I seem to remember a little bit about it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's a -- I mean, I don't have a real problem doing that, 'cause I don't think -- it's not necessarily for us as much as it is for -- 'cause I think the way my driving goes, I think it would be hard-pressed for someone to know what I'm doing when I'm driving where. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And every time I come to Kerrville to be here, I'm off -- I go look at a road. I'm doing something else at the same time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm more -- my bigger concern is the -- you know, there are some County employees that use their cars, like Paula Rector, as an example. I think she's one, 'cause she goes out to the annex quite a bit. And, certainly, I don't think you need to open it up 8-24-05 bwk 176 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to everybody, but I think the people that really have a concern about it, I think it may be just fine, 'cause I think the cost of that additional insurance is a whole lot less than lawsuits that may be coming -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- or lawsuits that could JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. The defense costs alone could -- could be well worth it. MR. TOMLINSON: I think you have to require them to pay it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's that -- what, Tommy? MR. TOMLINSON: I think you need to require that they obtain coverage. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think it's -- MR. TOMLINSON: I m ean, just for protection. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that you can require -- we can require elected officials -- I think you can require certain employees that are designat ed, and if you're not designated, you cannot use your car for county business. MR. TOMLINSON: Right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, when Commissioners had an automotive allowance, 1,200 or 1,500, 8-24-05 bwk 177 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was that -- was the cost of insurance in there? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was never intended to be. I guess it could have been. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In other words, gasoline and wear and tear? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. Basically, 30 cents a mile or 35 cents a mile type cost. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we were to accommodate that, where would we put it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it goes under Nondepartmental or something -- I guess, put it under each -- you do it nondepartmental. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it could go -- just increase the travel. Well, no, that's -- that goes in our salary. Can't do that, no. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you can put it under Nondepartmental as an additional Insurance line item, and just pay all counties out of that one line item -- or all employees or elected officials. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would work. I had thrown in a request for an improved computer, but if Mr. Trolinger has that in his master budget, that would take care of the 561 line that I had. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unless that's 8-24-05 bwk 178 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 somebody else also. Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: I would have -- was your number 1,000? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I put down. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's where I would have picked it up, then, 'cause what I did was I -- I pulled from the recommendations of each Commissioner that I got recommendations from on various items, and then tried to interpolate them and pull them into a composite here, and I'm sure that's probably where these are. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would some of the money that you're talking about be allocated for improving computers in Commissioners Court offices? MR. TROLINGER: No, sir, I had recommended that -- that the Commissioners Court budget $3,200 for next year for new computers and software within their budget. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that would be Capital Outlay, then, wouldn't it? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I guess it would be. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm sorry, what was that number again? MR. TROLINGER: 3,200. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who's getting computers? 8-24-05 bwk 179 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 He's gotten one? MR. TROLINGER: Four existing computers now to be replaced. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, you already have it in there? MR. TROLINGER: I had recommended that you budget for that within your budget. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: What we can do is eliminate the 561, $1,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Add a capital outlay of 3,200? Is that what I'm hearing? MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that includes -- that's -- who's -- I mean, I don't want one and he doesn't want one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's an upgrade on mine, and Ms. Mitchell was looking for a scanner and whatever. MS. MITCHELL: Scanner/printer/fax. JUDGE TINLEY: And printer, yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You? JUDGE TINLEY: I'm supposed to be getting one for free from O.C.A. 8-29-05 bwk 180 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So he doesn't need one. JUDGE TINLEY: I've been holding my breath now for about seven months, something like that. That's all right. I'm getting by with that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You got a laptop in your office? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's mine. That didn't cost the County anything. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So there's -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 400. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Baldwin's needs to be upgraded. MR. TROLINGER: It needs to be replaced. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, Commissioner Baldwin and Williams and a scanner? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Scanner and a printer or -- MS. MITCHELL: Yeah. It's around -- what, $700, wasn't it, John? MR. TROLINGER: I believe so. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seven. So, 1,000 -- 1,000 and 700, so we're -- JUDGE TINLEY: Ballpark, yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2,700. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's only $500 8-24-05 bwk 181 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 difference in what we put down. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- MR. TROLINGER: 2,700, not 32. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Nicholson and I will take that in travel -- or in insurance money. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry? Say it again. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nevermind. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we through with that one? Moving right along. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whoa. On Professional Services, 486, Commissioners Court, we're going to -- we're going to largely exceed what we appropriated, and what is our anticipated expense for this year? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we're going to exceed. I just figured that our year-to-date as of today is 15,658 still -- or as of whenever Tommy ran this one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there must be something outstanding, 'cause he estimated it ending at 22. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is our insurance consultant and our litigation attorney? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, basically. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And any other professionals that we hired in the course of the -- 8-24-05 bwk 182 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TOMLINSON: That also takes care of any COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I thought the insurance consultant was money well spent, in my opinion. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. And should continue to be money well spent. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, do we need to do something with that, gentlemen? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'm not sure we have enough there. Insurance consultant, that's about 5,000 a year, I think? JUDGE TINLEY: No, about 12,000. 12,5. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's probably why it's so high. JUDGE TINLEY: 12,5. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 12,5. JUDGE TINLEY: We're talking about a big-ticket item. You're talking about in excess of one-half million dollars that you're -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: -- exposure there. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is the other known expense the litigation over employee health insurance? Is that in here? The attorney that we're -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Walraven? 8-24-05 bwk 183 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- that's pursuing that case? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would be. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's where it would come from. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But most of that -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So far, that hasn't cost us anything. JUDGE TINLEY: We've been real fortunate. He's held that expense down very, very well. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, he's -- I suspect it's being added to any recovery, if it's ever -- JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I don't -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: We haven't been billed. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not aware. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We haven't retained any other civil attorneys during the year, have we? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know if that's money well spent until we get a result. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd say 20,000. I think 8-24-05 bwk 184 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 if 12,000 is going to insurance, you got to at least have a little bit of cushion there. JUDGE TINLEY: That would leave about seven -- seven, five. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going up. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's go to Line Item 475, County Mileage. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's that for? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- JUDGE TINLEY: A lot of that is back and forth to AACOG. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here and there, and anybody that uses a vehicle out of county, any of us. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. It's out-of-county mileage? JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's really out-of-county mileage. It says "county," but should say "out-of-county." JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. That's what I was referring to a while ago that I said an increase. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that one? I guess -- well, Nondepartmental is further down the list. Do 8-24-05 bwk 185 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 y'all want to take that up later, or go ahead? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's do it right now, while we're at it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Nondepartmental also under 2. Worker's comp. I got that number from Tommy, who I guess got it from TAC, along with liability insurance, unemployment insurance. Audit's up a little because our other cost was up a little bit. COMMISSIONER LETZ: These are mostly not a whole lot of choice. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where would we plug that insurance in for any employees that are authorized using it, Tommy? MR. TOMLINSON: I could add a line item. That's -- well, there's a line item that we haven't used for a long time; I can put it there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do you think is a reasonable amount? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if he said it was 250, elected officials are -- not counting -- get rid of those that have cars, basically. So, lU. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ten others? Ten people, then? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe. 8-24-05 bwk 186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 uses his. JUDGE TINLEY: A dozen. 3,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 3,000 or 4,000 -- 3,000. MR. TOMLINSON: Here's one right here that JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, exactly. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd say there are quite -- probably I'd say 5,000, 4,000. 4,000 or 5,000. MR. TROLINGER: I have my own liability 10 insurance. 11 12 is busine~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I -- I know, but it MR. TROLINGER: And it's for business, because I used my truck for business before I came here. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you got to renew your policy? MR. TROLINGER: I do, end of September. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you have to separate what you think is the liability portion for use of that vehicle on county business. That's what we're talking MR. TROLINGER: Will do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd say 4,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which line? JUDGE TINLEY: Want to use 426? about. 8-24-05 bwk 187 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TOMLINSON: 220. JUDGE TINLEY: 220? MR. TOMLINSON: Mm-hmm. It will be right there under TAC Unemployment. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did you say 4,000, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, 3,000 or 4,000. Everyone -- if we make it mandatory, it's probably going to be 4,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's start with three and see where it takes us. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Either way. JUDGE TINLEY: What are we using, three or four? Go with three? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three's fine. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that one? COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the second page, 571, Contingency, I'd leave that at 10,000, 'cause I think it's probably a good idea. I mean, or maybe 5,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. I think so, too. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then Merit Pool 8-24-05 bwk 188 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Increase. JUDGE TINLEY: That was the amount that we set per court order, if I'm not mistaken, the pool amount. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- JUDGE TINLEY: That was my recollection. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That started when we thought about a different kind of way of administering the merit budget. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Now I think merits are built into the departmental salaries instead of a pool that's administered by -- we're talking about the Court administering the pool, and that -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Didn't work. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- that didn't work, so I think we can take that out. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. I think we can take it out. COMMISSIONER LETZ: JUDGE TINLEY: What going to leave that at 10? COMMISSIONER LETZ: COMMISSIONER WILLIA COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Got 10,000 there. about Contingency? We Probably. MS: 15, you said. No, I think 10's fine. 8-24-05 bwk 189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: You can do what Gillespie County does. JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? MR. TOMLINSON: You can do what Gillespie County does. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Put all their extra -- MR. TOMLINSON: They put all their surplus in Contingency. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So they never declare an emergency. MR. TOMLINSON: Can you believe that? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leaving it at 10? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: That's when they quit using tomato cans. Okay, are we through with those now? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Think so. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Now we can go to the next item, correct? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that Permanent Improvements? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Operations. Isn't that right? JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's not on the list 8-24-05 bwk 190 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 here, but we can certainly do that if that's what you want COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do you go to? JUDGE TINLEY: Talking about coming right on down to County Operations, where we've got the airport. We know what that figure's going to be. That's -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not yet. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, but, I mean, it's going to be determined on a third-party basis, and we get plugged in for half of it, essentially. But you guys have still got that work to do, haven't you? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Some of that work to do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some of that -- I mean, I guess the -- I don't have -- do you have a copy of that budget with you? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got it in my office. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Airport Board has approved the budget, and if Commissioners Court were to say that that budget's too high, we would go back to the drawing board and reduce some things that probably can be reduced out of that budget. JUDGE TINLEY: Do you think we can 8-24-05 bwk 191 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 effectively do that in the status that we're here today? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you can give a direction. I think we can look at it and say that's too high a budget, and -- there's no action being taken on it; it's just a matter of a direction to Airport Board members. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Has it still got the $50,000 lawnmower in it? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It has some things that need to be -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's too high a budget. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. There are some other items, too, that Commissioner Letz and I have talked about that probably need to be addressed, so leave it open for now. We can refine it later. JUDGE TINLEY: Are we ready to move to Juvenile Detention? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Certainly. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Juvenile Detention, that is number 22, I think. Well, good afternoon. MS. HARRIS: Good afternoon. JUDGE TINLEY: Nice to see you, Ms. Harris. We don't see you very often. MS. HARRIS: I know. I know. 8-24-05 bwk 192 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where have you been MS. HARRIS: Oh, just here and there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me start by telling the Court that Ms. Harris and I had an interesting telephone conversation -- last Friday, was it? MS. HARRIS: Friday, mm-hmm. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I wanted her to know and I want you to know that what we're talking about in this budget, trying to find a solution that has absolutely zero to do with personalities, Ms. Harris, or even our probation officer who's been involved, and that as far as this Commissioner's concerned, all I'm looking to do is find a way where we can operate, but operate at a level that is an acceptable level, so that we don't have a bath in the red. And I know Ms. Harris supports that concept. Having said that, now, there are -- there is in front of the Court basically two philosophies on how to do that. Ms. Harris, at our request, has been very willing and able to provide us with a whole list of scenarios, I guess all the way from zero to 76 persons incarcerated and numbers in between. And Kevin Stanton, at my request, the Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, has also provided us with some scenarios which essentially are different. So, I guess what we have is a philosophical difference, and what I'm hoping that we can 8-24-05 bwk 193 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 do, Judge, is somehow or other try to understand the difference between those two. I understand why, in some instances, Ms. Harris' budget is larger and why, in some instances, Mr. -- Kevin Stanton's is less. And on that happy note, let me go get my file. Don't go away. JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have any new scenarios for us today? MS. HARRIS: As a matter of fact, I do. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We got to start putting names on them. JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't you go ahead and get those passed out here? We probably need to label them A through -- MS. HARRIS: Z. JUDGE TINLEY: -- double M or something. MS. HARRIS: I think probably A through Z. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Or at least date them. COMMISSIONER that I'm looking at any morf COMMISSIONER MS. HARRIS: if that's the only one that COMMISSIONER LETZ: These are the only two WILLIAMS: Which one are we on? Well, then, I wouldn't bother, you want. LETZ: That's what I'm looking at right now. 8-24-05 bwk 194 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me have one for Commissioner Baldwin. MS. HARRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me make a couple remarks that -- I don't know if it's exactly philosophy, but it may be strategy. I've been reading articles and letters to the editor and getting other information that says that -- that the county officials think that the Juvenile Detention Center should be -- should make a profit, and I don't know where they get this kind of information. It didn't come out of any discussions in this court. And after -- after having dealt with this a number of times now, I've come down to a strategy that I have in my mind, and that would be we need to have a preadjudicated facility. We need to operate that here in Kerr County. I would not be in favor of -- of shipping those kids out, preadjudicated. And then the second thing is, we should only operate a postadjudicated facility if the revenues meet the marginal costs, so -- with preadjudicated. And then, if we've got a case where we can do postadjudicated without us paying to house kids from other counties, without us incurring a net cost, then we should do it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- let me see if I understand that. If you -- it appears we're never going to get to the point of being able to charge the cost for post 8-24-05 bwk 195 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 or pre -- I mean out-of-county kids. So, if you can't do that, by definition, you're going to automatically be subsidizing them; however, it may be beneficial to the taxpayers of this county to do a subsidy to an extent because of the economy of scale. So, I mean, does that mean -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we can look at it like preadjudicated as fixed costs, and postadjudicated as some sort of a variable cost that has revenue associated with it also, and if those two lines are close, then we can justify it. But I don't think we should be using Kerr County taxpayer dollars, net dollars, to house other counties' juveniles. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I mean, I -- that's the only reason we're even looking at a post facility, is it reduces the cost. JUDGE TINLEY: You're never going to -- under every scenario that we've seen so far on post-adjudicated, you are not going to be able to charge your daily operating costs, monthly operating costs, whatever it is, per child. But what you are able to do through the economies of scale, you're able to hedge against the wide fluctuations in census count in the pre's, and by spreading some of the administrative costs and the nondirect ratio costs, you're able to bring down the overall deficit. I think -- I think 8-24-05 bwk 196 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 all of the figures show that one of your biggest deficit-type operations, especially for the number of kids that you have, is if you do a preadjudication-only. Most of the numbers I've seen look at somewhere around $800,000 a year. 21 22 23 saying. 24 25 cost. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all I'm JUDGE TINLEY: You're talking about the net COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: Whereas if you can ramp up and spread those administrative and nondirect ratio detention officer staff costs over a larger number, you bring down that overall deficit, but you're never going to get it where -- if it costs you $125 a day, for example, when you prorate that cost, you're not going to be able to charge that in the current environment. It just isn't there. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We may be saying the same thing. If -- if operating postadjudicated only -- I mean preadjudicated only is going to cost $1,000 a year, and -- but operating pre and post is only a net cost of $800 a year, then that's the right thing to do. But if the costs go up by operating a post, then that's not the right thing to do. 8-24-05 bwk 197 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand what you're saying, and as we talked about it before -- excuse me, Becky, but we talked about what the baseline obligation of Kerr County is if we didn't have a facility, if it wasn't there. We would fund through the Juvenile Probation Department taking care of our kids -- our kids -- to the tune of 285,000 to $300,000 a year. Baseline. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that -- now, is that over and above the 125,000 we're already paying? Or is that -- I'm asking Kevin. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Kevin? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That 200 -- that -- the number if we do not have a preadjudication facility, that number -- you've talked about it -- will cost the County about $300,000? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right now we're spending 125,000 on preadjudicated, so is that 300,000 additional? Or -- MR. STANTON: It would be absorbed into 125. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, what was MR. STANTON: The 125,000 would be part of 8-24-05 bwk 198 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rolled into the three. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's $175,000 additional for the preadjudicated if we don't have any facility. MR. STANTON: Because there's already $125,000 budgeted into -- I believe it's 125. I'd have to look, but somewhere in there. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Close enough. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Close enough. So, that's kind of the baseline, is an additional 175,000 over and above what we're spending now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's shutting everything down scenario. MR. TOMLINSON: Does that take into consideration the overhead of transport -- transporting and all that? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It did in the number that I rolled up when I said 285 to three. That included about 222,000 for -- that we would be paying to other counties, and about $62,000 worth of transportation and costs to get them back and forth. That was rolled into that number. JUDGE TINLEY: What about the additional 8-24-05 bwk 199 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 personnel it would take to -- to do that? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought it was in here. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought it was in there. MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, it's all in there. The numbers that Mr. Williams is quoting are the costs to transport the kids back and forth to the detention twice a week for detention hearings, and also the cost of the personnel to do those transports. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The nonquantifiable desirability of having one here is the convenience to parents, Hill Country Youth Ranch, 3-H Youth Ranch, whoever is involved in that preadjudication time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Plus what the Sheriff and the District Judges have told us repeatedly, that there -- that the operation of a facility here is a deterrent. I don't think you can quantify that. I don't think the sheriff can quantify that, but it certainly acts as a deterrent. You haven't changed your mind, have you, Sheriff? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Definitely not, and I wouldn't. I still stand by that we need some type of facility here. 8-24-05 bwk 200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It just makes it easier to deal with our local kids. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The question is, what kind. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, where we're at probably is we're going to have a preadjudicated facility. Now, what makes sense beyond that? That might be where we're at; I don't know. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your nickel or my nickel? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't make any difference to me. I was back where you were originally; I don't know if it's better to try to -- I see two approaches; to figure out which system is better and then figure out the number of beds that fits, or figure out the number of beds and figure out, then, which system is better. Ms. Harris has a set of proposals, and Mr. Stanton has a set of proposals, essentially, and they're different as to, you know, costs. But I'm not sure -- and I really would like to learn or understand more about the differences as to why they're different. And I'm -- when I look at Mr. Stanton's, I'm concerned about, I guess, his numbers being too 8-29-05 bwk 201 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 conservative on the expense side. You know, it seems to me Ms. Harris has more supervisors, or I guess they're deemed supervisor -- or shift supervisors, things of that nature, and I can see a value to that. I also think that you need to have a -- I think, you know, if we're going to have a facility, we need to have quality people there, and that means you have to pay quality people, you know, appropriately. And I want to make sure that those considerations are really imposed in the proposal. And, you know, I don't know how you -- I thought about how we proceed here. I mean, I don't want to get in a debate between Mr. Stanton and Ms. Harris. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And -- you know, because both of them are doing a great job and trying to -- they're slightly different philosophies, I guess. I'm trying to understand them, not get them to debate which is better or what -- why they did one thing or the other. So, if we can do that, it would be helpful to me. So, I'm not real sure how we get that done. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think we both want to try to achieve the same thing, and I'm looking at your latest 48, the one you just gave us. MS. HARRIS: The one I just passed out? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 8-24-05 bwk 202 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HARRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And on the salaries, MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And I see, by comparison, the one that was prepared by Chief Probation Officer -- and I believe this is the 48; that's what it says in the title. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are we looking at? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm looking at trying to compare 48 to 48, is what I'm trying to do. What I see -- excuse me. What I see there is a projected $818,000 worth of salaries. If that's reasonably close, I'd like to know -- I'm sure the other members of the Court would, too -- why the disparity in your philosophy versus the other philosophy. Help us get there. MS. HARRIS: Well, in -- in the $818,000, 48-bed proposal, I'm not seeing a health service coordinator. I'm not seeing a certified food service manager, and I'm not seeing a person that takes care of scheduling transports, takes care of all the county contracts. I'm not seeing anyone there in that budget to handle all of those things. I'm not seeing anyone there also to handle all of the preadjudication paperwork and 8-24-05 bwk 203 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 files and -- and case management for the preadjudicated kids. So, I -- that's some of the things that I'm not seeing. I'm also seeing a reduction in the shift supervisors of 50 percent. And, as I had shared with you in the telephone conversation on Friday -- and I think Commissioner Letz said it very accurately. The shift supervisors that we have on staff are the veteran core staff. Those are the individuals that can do any job in that facility, virtually, other than some of the administrative stuff. Those are the ones that are the most experienced in de-escalation skills, documentation, reporting abuse and neglect, recognizing abuse and neglect, supervising staff. You cut -- they are the hub of the program. You cut those individuals by 50 percent, there goes the quality and the experience. You're cutting your experience by 50 percent. And I -- and I believe that to be very detrimental to the program -- to both programs. You want to keep those shift supervisors. Those shift supervisors do a myriad of things. They are the ones that are trained to dispense the medication. They are the ones that do the laundry at night. They are the ones that discipline staff. They are the ones that respond to crises, such as PRT's, any crisis intervention. They are also the ones that fill in the gaps when allowable, which here lately is every day. They work the dorms whenever 8-24-05 bwk 204 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 staff calls in sick. We've got a staff member right now that is out on a -- an undetermined period of time due to an injury that he suffered at home, and he can't work the dorm. I've got shift supervisors that are coming in on their days off filling in those gaps. They are people that you rely on a lot to keep things going. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. If -- MS. HARRIS: And also, I put the cooks -- I put my cooks in as full-time. And I had originally had some part-time. I had put part-time cooks in a previous budget. I gave that some more thought. It would be very, very difficult to keep part-time cooks, because there's no benefits, and your ability to get personnel that will stay with you a length of time to cook, that pool is not very large. So, if you have full-time cooks that stay with you, and if you have -- and you give them benefits and they stay with you, it's worth it in the long run, rather than hiring part-time people every week. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a very -- I mean, we're talking -- on the cook, we're talking 33,000 versus 38,000. So, dollars, it's not that much difference. MR. STANTON: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's pretty much -- MS. HARRIS: Right. 8-24-05 bwk 205 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where I see a difference is, Mr. Stanton shows basically 20 detention officers, four supervisors, and six part-time detention officers, and you have 22 detention officers -- no, excuse me. You have 18 detention officers and eight shift supervisors. MS. HARRIS: Correct. Now, I had 16 detention officers in that line item. I increased it by two, and I'll tell you why. Because I had increased -- in a previous proposal, I had increased the part-time from six to nine when we were having the discussion about no longer having female detainees of any kind; no females, period. Well, I think that in subsequent discussions, we've been talking about we've got to have preadjudicated places for girls. Now, the discussion for postadjudicated girls, that's still up for discussion, but I think everyone agrees that we've got to have a place for preadjudicated females. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but on that -- okay. To have that ability, we have to staff all the time. MS. HARRIS: That's what I'm getting at. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. HARRIS: That's why I increased from 16 to 18 detention officers, 'cause I took -- I put two full-time females in that line item to keep females -- two full-time females on the payroll for the preadjudicated girls, and I left the part-time to six part-time 8-24-05 bwk 206 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 individuals. And some of those part-time -- those six need to be female part-time, 'cause your pre girls is your least population. So, I left the six part-time people. We just need to make sure that some of those part-time people are female. And I put two full-time females into JDO's to assure that we've got a female whenever we need one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Part of the difference in here, as I see it, the proposal of Mr. Stanton had a great deal more in part-time than you're showing in yours. He had, like, 116,000 in part-time, and I'm seeing for you -- from you 83,000 in part-time. Am I correct? Am I looking at -- MS. HARRIS: That's because I've got that part-time ASOTP in my line item. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's that? Y'all are -- y'all identical on that line. MS. HARRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's a big difference in the salary, the difference between four shift supervisors and eight, and the difference between two managers and one. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think it's the -- yeah. I think the -- Mr. Stanton's proposal has 24 detention officers and shift supervisors. Ms. Harris' has 26, so there's two additional. 8-24-05 bwk 207 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HARRIS: I put the two additional females so you would always have a female there when you need one. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But couldn't a female -- I mean, and I don't understand -- I mean, I'm trying to figure out how it works. You say female doesn't -- do the female detention officers for the females have to be females? MS. HARRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the males have to be MS. HARRIS: Yes. Now, what you can do -- you have to have the same gender for hygiene and for showers and for changing clothes, and their schedules need to be different, because you don't want to put girls and boys in the same classroom, 'cause then you're going to create a lot of discipline problems, so we keep them separate. Now, a male JDO certainly can escort the pre girls to school. You can do that. In previous years, one of the problems of alleged abuse and neglect and sexual harassment was having male JDO's checking beds at night. Girls are very prone to sexual harassment accusations, whether they're true or false, and if you have a male checking the dorms, checking the individual bedrooms at night, you increase that risk. If you've got a female checking those beds at night, you decrease that risk. Same thing for moving the kids. And 8-24-05 bwk 208 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you have to have a female pat-searching those kids. We pat-search the kids whenever they move from education back to the dorm, from the dorm to education. Those kids are pat-searched to make sure that they're not smuggling any contraband that they picked up anywhere, and a female has to pat-search females and males have to pat-search males. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question on -- right here at this topic right now. MS. HARRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it plausible for us to consider the facility being male only, both pre and post? MS. HARRIS: I turned in a scenario outlining that very scenario. And I know that the discussion came up about the necessity, not only for Kerr County to have a place to put pre girls, but also the surrounding counties that use the facility have pre girls. So -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What does that translate to, Mr. Stanton, in terms of placement -- female placements in this county and others that might come here? MR. STANTON: As far as -- I'm not sure what it would cost Kerr County to place our females. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Numbers of detainees? MR. STANTON: 39 percent of the -- 39 percent of our referrals in the past two years has been females. 8-24-05 bwk 209 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 39 percent? MR. STANTON: 39 percent of the kids that we've locked u p have been females. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, about one-third. MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. STANTON: And I did -- I thought I gave everybody one. Somewhere here I did a cost analysis of how much it would cost us to transport our females out of county, and I think it was -- MS. HARRIS: Like, 116,000, I think. MR. STANTON: -- $116,000 to transport our females out. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Hold that thought. What would the corresponding reduction in staffing be if we did that? MS. HARRIS: You would delete those two full-time females, so that would be roughly $41,000, then, plus the benefits that you would reduce. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Don't know that that's the answer, but thanks for the information. MS. HARRIS: If you will look at the 48-bed scenario that I just passed out to you -- you don't have this, because I did this after -- I did some more figuring, in other words. Okay. For the one building, if you had 30 8-24-05 bwk 210 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 post beds signified for post kids, and you reserved 18 beds for pre's -- because you've got to remember, we have the possibility of doing anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 in additional preadjudicated business with Hood County. That's how many pre's, and that comes from the Chief Probation Officer. He spends anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 a year on preadjudication. We're going to get the bulk of that. Okay. Leave that over there to one side. So, if you reserve 18 pre beds, you would have to have two and a half dorms signified for post and one and a half dorms signified for pres. Okay. The standard says that you can put male and female pre's on the same dorm. You got to have separate staff, which is not going to change your staffing ratio any, but you can put them on the same dorm, which allows you to increase your post beds a little bit. But, remember, we talked about the ability to charge $115? All right. Take 30 of those post kids, 10 of the 30 as sex offenders at $115 a day. All right. That brings in $419,000 a year on those 10 sex offender kids. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Give us that equation one more time, the number again? MS. HARRIS: Ten sex offenders. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Times 115? MS. HARRIS: Times $115 a day. 25 ~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Times -- 8-24-05 bwk 211 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HARRIS: 365 days out of the year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Equals? MS. HARRIS: Is $419,750 for those 10 kids. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MS. HARRIS: Okay. Substance abuse. And I had shared with y'all the other day that we're full on our substance abuse beds. We -- we now are going to have to start a waiting list on our substance abuse beds here pretty quick. So, 20 beds at $83 a day, 365 days, is a revenue of $605,900. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 606. MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm, 606. Now, let's say you've reserved 18 beds, but for the sake of conservatism, let's figure 12 pre's at $83 a day. That's $363,540 a year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Six -- MS. HARRIS: 363. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 363. MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm. Add all that up. Your revenue with that scenario is $1,389,190. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was that number again? MS. HARRIS: $1,389,190. That's just your per diem revenue. You add all the rest of the revenue that I've always listed in the back of the page, the NSLP, the medical reimbursement, the K.I.S.D. fee, and the JDO stipend 8-24-05 bwk 212 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 reimbursement, add up all of that and that brings your revenue to 1,474,024. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Brings it to 1 million what? Four -- MS. HARRIS: 1,474,024. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So that, on top of the 1389, is a plus of how much? MS. HARRIS: 30 -- about 84,000 in addition. An additional 84,000 on top of the 1 million 389. Okay. That's based on 42 beds. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 42? MS. HARRIS: Yeah, because you've got 30 post. And I told you, let's be conservative and figure 12 pres. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MS. HARRIS: So that's 42. We have 30 kids today; 25 of them are post and five of them are pre. We got another referral from El Paso today. We're looking at a possible of eight to nine kids coming in quickly. We got a -- remember, I've been telling you we've been waiting on the Calhoun kid forever? He got here today. We've got another Guadalupe kid that comes in Friday, so the 48-bed that I just gave you, on the conservative side, that you keep 42 beds filled, is an extremely realistic budget. Extremely 25 realistic. 8-24-05 bwk 213 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is our staffing level, 42 or 48? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 48. MS. HARRIS: 48. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 48. MS. HARRIS: Now, if you want to look at staffing, we can go the that chart that I gave you on the 36-bed scenario, and I can explain that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not yet. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. Keeping 42 beds full -- MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- is realistic? MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, this document that you gave us today -- MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm, your revenues. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- a 48-bed facility with 42 full, and the projected deficit's 273, is this -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not realistic. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is this using 42 full? You got a -- MS. HARRIS: No, that's using 48 full. What I just gave you was some homework that I did. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 8-24-05 bwk 214 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was the deficit under the new one, the 42? JUDGE TINLEY: The figure she just gave you? 338. MS. HARRIS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 338. MS. HARRIS: 338, mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Now, I'll probably ask the -- you probably already answered this question five times in the last six months. Will we ever have more than 12 Kerr County preadjudicated? MS. HARRIS: More than 12 Kerr County preadjudicated? How busy can you get this year? MR. STANTON: I don't know. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Have we ever had more than 12? MS. HARRIS: No. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question is the opposite side of that. Can we ever get to 12? That doesn't -- every time I hear the reports, it seems to me that we usually have anywhere from three to seven. MS. HARRIS: Yeah. There was a period of time this year that we exceeded 11 pres. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: From Kerr County? 8-24-05 bwk 215 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HARRIS: No, all together. All together. And we had a larger population than 11. And also what I'm saying again, too, we're going to get pre kids from Hood County. So -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My point there, going back to my thinking that we must have a preadjudicated facility, that if we -- if we start with a 12-bed pre, we'll never have to send a Kerr County kid out of county, most likely. COMMISSIONER you have to have basically MS. HARRIS: COMMISSIONER MS. HARRIS: COMMISSIONER LETZ: But to have a 12-bed pre, ~ 24, 'cause you have to staff -- That's right. LETZ: -- men and women. That's right. WILLIAMS: That's where the problem is. COMMISSIONER don't have to do that. MS. HARRIS: MR. STANTON: COMMISSIONER MR. STANTON: COMMISSIONER MS. HARRIS: staff for 16. I use the of LETZ: They're saying no, you Why don't we have to do that? Because you can staff for 16. LETZ: You can staff for 16. If you use the new building. LETZ: Oh, the new building. If you use the new building, you ~ building. You staff for 24, 8-24-05 bwk 216 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and it's because of the physical configuration -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, right. MS. HARRIS: -- of the dorms. MR. STANTON: Just trying to make it a little more complicated. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thanks, Kevin. I appreciate it. If we -- MR. STANTON: Could -- I mean, I think I might be able to help just a little bit. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Kevin, can you stand up so I can hear? MR. STANTON: I think I might be able to help just a little bit. I mean, if we're going to -- if we're going to do -- if we're going to run a pre and post facility, you know, I think that we need to go for a full blast and do whatever we can to -- to run it. If we're just looking at running a pre facility, if you subtracted the deficit from the -- what it would cost us to shut the whole thing down, you're looking at about right at a $100,000 deficit -- deficit running just a 16-bed facility in the new building. Because if you take the deficit running the 16-bed facility under my plan, and not Ms. Harris' plan, 'cause I don't know -- I don't know Ms. Harris', but it's about 280 -- or the deficit would be at -- I mean, everybody is saying at 80. Even at 80 percent occupancy, I mean, the 8-24-05 bwk 217 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 revenue would be 453,756. The budget would be 837,861, with a deficit of 384,105. If you subtract out of that what it's going to cost the County to transport kids out of the county if they shut the whole thing down, you're looking at about a $99,000 deficit. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I thought. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do you subtract it out? Wouldn't you add it to it? MR. STANTON: No, sir, because if we shut it down, the County's going to pay it anyway. The County's going to pay the $285,000 it's going to cost whether we have a facility here or not. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's our obligation. MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, are you saying, then, that the lowest-cost scenario -- MR. STANTON: I don't know the lowest-cost scenario, 'cause I haven't seen -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- is a 16-bed preadjudicated? MR. STANTON: I don't know, sir. I can't answer that. The lowest -- the lowest one that I have would be -- unless you -- unless you adopted Ms. Harris' 8-24-05 bwk 218 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 philosophy and raised the rates and take the kind of stuff which you can charge the $115 a day for the sex offenders and those types of things. If you look at the -- the other proposal that was provided, I think that it's -- you could actually make money. Forgive me for saying that. But in the proposal that I gave, you would actually come out ahead a little bit at 80 percent. MS. HARRIS: What it boils down to is you either go all pre, or you stay pre and post. And if you stay pre and post, you need to have enough post beds to help decrease that deficit, or all your Kerr County post kids will have to go out of county. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we just go pre. MS. HARRIS: If you just go pre, right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have no idea what that's all about. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The sexual -- or abuse -- MS. HARRIS: The sex offenders. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sex offenders, they get $115, or some of them do? MS. HARRIS: Right. Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why wouldn't you go more -- go with 20 or 30 beds there, as opposed to -- where you're getting more revenue, as opposed to going with -- and less than the drug abuse. 8-24-05 bwk 219 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HARRIS: I don't know that you can keep 20 or 30 beds full of sex offenders. I don't know that. This is a brand-new scenario that's come up this year, because of the increase of the sex offender crimes across the state of younger juveniles. This is a new phenomenon that has just started in this last year. The ability to charge the 115 and get 115 reimbursed -- and I'm talking about the county that places the kid -- that kid has to meet certain criteria, which they would be able to do. Getting El Paso on board with a contract, this facility's never had an El Paso contract. I've got some experience working with El Paso contracts, and if you provide a good program and do you what you say you're going to do, El Paso will give you a lot of kids. So, there is a possibility that we will have several El Paso kids, but I can't count on that. So, what I'm trying to explain to you, I don't want to tell you that we can keep 20 sex offender kids at this point in time; I don't know if we can or not. It would be great if we could. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what you're saying is you'd rather be conservative on your estimate and -- MS. HARRIS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- during the year, we could adjust it if we -- MS. HARRIS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- there was a -- 8-24-05 bwk 220 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MS. HARRIS: That's right. If we see we need for more sex offender beds, then we'll sacrifice substance abuse beds. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would account for a large anticipated influx of juveniles from Hood County? Is that -- would that be their proximity to Fort Worth? MS. HARRIS: They've been sending all of their -- 'cause Hood County's facility closed down -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I know. MS. HARRIS: -- two years ago, so all of their preadjudicated kids they've been sending to Garza County, which is Post. Post has been charging them $82.50 a day, plus mileage. And the Chief Probation Officer came down and -- and looked at the facility. He liked what he saw, and he also liked the long-term programs that we have, the sex offender and the substance abuse. And, as a matter of fact, we're getting a long-term sex offender from Hood County the first week in September, so he wants to use us for preadjudicated as well as long-term. He liked what he saw. And, too, Fort Worth -- Fort Worth has, of course, their own facility, and so they're going to take their kids first, and Fort Worth usually stays full with their own 25 I kids. 8-24-05 bwk 221 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I imagine. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's just a couple questions. I don't know whether it's on Becky's, but one thing you may figure too, if she didn't, 'cause I know most department heads didn't do this, but I think Kevin's budget also figures in the administrative salary, so I wasn't sure it was in that one. The other thing that I've just heard rumor to is that the Hood County contract on preadjudicated kids -- and this may not be true; this is what's going around -- is that we pay for the transporting back and forth to Hood County for them as far as that contract. MS. HARRIS: We do that for everybody, Rusty. We transport everybody's kids. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And pay for it. MS. HARRIS: That's right, 'cause that's how come we get so many kids. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't charge the county for transportation? MS. HARRIS: No. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The sending county? MS. HARRIS: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think unanswered was the question about Kerr County's postadjudicated kids. How many and where are they? And how -- or will that -- 8-24-05 bwk 222 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 whatever the current situation is, will it be altered? I guess I have to address that to Kevin. MR. STANTON: I'm sorry, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many post -- Kerr County postadjudicated kids do we have under your administration now? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. How many do we have right now? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. MR. STANTON: Six. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Six? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they're out of Kerr County, placed elsewhere? MR. STANTON: No. Off the top of my head, I think we've got one or two here in Kerr County. We have one in Hays County and one at Medina Children's Home, and one at St. Jude's and one at Villa Del Sol. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the nature of the program that the Judge put on these kids is such that they have to go out of county? It can't be taken care of here? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. I mean, they're -- Villa Del Sol is a nonsecure substance abuse facility. St. Jude's is a Level 2 and 3 -- 1, 2, and 3 nonsecured facility. Hays County is a boot camp. They're just -- they 8-24-05 bwk 223 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 offer different programs. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kevin, do you have any more copies of that 16-bed preadjudicated? Can you make -- give it to Kathy, if you would. Thank you. MS. HARRIS: Kathy? Would you make one for me? No, I mean that. MS. MITCHELL: Oh, this? Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: As you are able to see the substance abuse and the sex offender develop -- right now, what you've got allocated for substance abuse is full? MS. HARRIS: That's right, yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: As you're able to see that transition one way or the other, you can adjust those beds either way? MS. HARRIS: Yes. Yes. I have to -- when I'm looking at the population projections, I have to also consider and get a good understanding of what kids are going to be leaving soon, as opposed to how many beds that's going to free up for either one of the programs. And you're not restricted on -- on number of sex offender beds like you're restricted on substance abuse beds, because of -- of how much we -- we pay to license the substance abuse beds. JUDGE TINLEY: What is that, $30 a bed or something? 8-24-05 bwk 224 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HARRIS: It's a $100 administration fee, then $30 per bed that you want to add. JUDGE TINLEY: From a staffing standpoint, rather than 30 post -- and I believe you were talking about 16 pre's? MS. HARRIS: 18. JUDGE TINLEY: 18? MS. HARRIS: But then I said, realistically, let's just look at 12. JUDGE TINLEY: On the pre's? MS. HARRIS: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: And then you could convert some of those other beds -- MS. HARRIS: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: -- to post? MS. HARRIS: Exactly. That's why I was saying for 30 post kids, you'd have two and a half dorms. Okay? So, that leaves a half -- if y'all got y'all's chart, your 36-bed, the little colored thing that I gave y'all. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where would it be, under 36? MS. HARRIS: On 36, on the 70 -- it's either the 70 or the 75. Doesn't matter. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is this? MS. HARRIS: Looks like the -- 8-24-05 bwk 225 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's Kevin's 16-bed proposal. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I haven't seen that. MS. HARRIS: Okay. It's on your 36. I know, that horrible stack of stuff. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 36? MS. HARRIS: It's the 36, and I put one on the 70 percent occupancy, and I put one on the 75 percent occupancy. JUDGE TINLEY: Oh. MS. HARRIS: No. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To say this is getting confusing is an underestimation. MS. HARRIS: You're telling me. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure which one I've got. Here's my -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 36. MS. HARRIS: I gave everybody a 36. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've got it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got it. MS. HARRIS: But, remember, he had asked me to do a 70 percent and a 75 percent scenario. I gave everybody -- I made sure -- there you go. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got it. MS. HARRIS: Okay. I gave everybody one that 8-24-05 bwk 226 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 looks like this on the back. JUDGE TINLEY: Your schoolmarm skills are coming in handy here, aren't they? MS. HARRIS: Are we all together? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have that chart. I've got a 36. MS. HARRIS: I think I have -- hold on a minute. I think I've got another one that y'all can share. Yeah, I got one that you can share. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Here it is. MS. HARRIS: Did you find yours? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I had two 36's. MS. HARRIS: Okay. All right. Now, you'll see that I've got preadjudicated females on Dorm 2, okay? Now, let's flip-flop Dorm 3 and Dorm 2. Let's put the preadjudicated females on Dorm 3, because those are dry cells, and you can put pre's on dry cells. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dry cell? What's that mean? MS. HARRIS: No toilets or sinks in the bedrooms. And Dorm 3 is constructed that way. And you can put -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the old building? MS. HARRIS: We're in the old building. So, 8-24-05 bwk 227 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 let's put the pre females on Dorm 3. And let's put the pre males on Dorm 2. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MS. HARRIS: Okay. Very rarely are you going to have 12 pre boys all at the same time. You're going to have some empty beds on Dorm 2 that you can use for post. That's what I'm telling you; that 30-bed post scenario, you're going to fill up all of Dorm 4. You're going to fill up all of Dorm 5 and half of Dorm 2, or approximately. And you still have enough beds for pre boys and pre girls. If your pre boys exceed six, remember I said you can put pre girls and pre boys on the same dorm, but you got to have separate staff. That's how you can play with those beds if you have to. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, they'd go to Dorm 3? MS. HARRIS: Yes. Yes. That's how you can adjust accordingly. And it's a juggling game. Now, your staff -- you're not messing with your staff, 'cause you're full on Dorm 4. You've got to have four staff for Dorm 4. You're full on Dorm 5. You got to have four staff for Dorm 5. You got to have females for your pre females, so you've got your staff over there. And you've got your separate pre males and your separate post males on dorm -- on Dorm 2, and during the daytime you've got your separate staff. But at night you can get by with using one staff on Dorm 2 with 8-29-05 bwk 228 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pre's and posts, because you're doing dorm checks, but it's got to be a man. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got to be a man? MS. HARRIS: You see what I do every day? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You said it has to be a man? MS. HARRIS: Has to be a man on Dorm 2 'cause you're doing dorm checks. You're looking into bedrooms with a flashlight. You don't want a female doing that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A man can do it for females? MS. HARRIS: COMMISSIONER MS. HARRIS: Dorm 2, you can get by with checks on pre and post boys COMMISSIONER No. WILLIAMS: I didn't think so. No, that's what I'm saying. one man on Dorm 2 doing bed WILLIAMS: Got you. Okay. Okay. MS. HARRIS: So you're staffed for 48. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, it appears to me that, based on both Mr. Stanton's proposals and Ms. Harris' proposals, that while it might be a little bit -- the down side is a lot less going with pre only, if we can keep it, you know, basically at 70, 80 percent occupancy, you're better off going with a post and a pre. I 8-29-OS bwk 229 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mean, a 48-bed facility at 80 percent loses less money than a pre only. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Isn't that -- I mean, you showed -- Mr. Stanton shows you start making -- I won't use the word "profit," but you start making something that resembles profit at some point on 48-bed. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How much would that scenario cost a year? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it depends on -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: At 70 percent. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where was it? Just had it here a minute ago. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 48? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I got to find it again. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The total cost of 48? COMMISSIONER LETZ: At 70 percent, Mr. Stanton's was at losing $220,000, but if you go to 80 percent, you lose 68,000. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I've got this document that you gave us today. MS. HARRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 48, talking about 40 -- 48 residents, one building. 8-24-05 bwk 230 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HARRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And when you get down here to projected deficit, you got $273,000. I guess that's if it's full? MS. HARRIS: That's right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: At 70 percent, the projected deficit would go up about $400,000. Is that right? So, it would be 675,000? MS. HARRIS: Okay, what are you looking -- okay. Now -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm looking at this last page of the document we got today that shows a projected deficit of 275. And then it goes on to note there, 70 percent capacity for 48 beds is a million, three revenue instead of a million, five. Is that right? MS. HARRIS: One million thirty thousand, yeah. 1,030,000. Now, that's based on $83 a day for everybody, for all the kids. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, at 70 percent, the projected deficit is not 273, it's 273 plus 400,000. MS. HARRIS: Right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, 675,000. MS. HARRIS: That's right. And that's at $83 a day. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that the most 8-24-05 bwk 231 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 likely case, that we'd -- we'd have a $675,000 deficit? MS. HARRIS: No, sir. No, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Then why is that not the most likely case? MS. HARRIS: No, sir, because you're going to have more than 34 kids, and you're going to be able to charge more for those sex offender kids. And I think I put in 10. I figured for 10 sex offender kids. I think you're going to have more than that, but I'm trying to be conservative. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you were going to do this project, MS. HARRIS: COMMISSIONER MS. HARRIS: COMMISSIONER put your bottom line budget going to lose next year? COMMISSIONER MS. HARRIS: Yes. NICHOLSON: Yes. NICHOLSON: number in LETZ: The If we keep -- 48 residents, -- -- and it's time to sere, how much are you 338 number, isn't it? 42 kids, yes, sir. 338. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it -- losing 338,000 is a 48-bed facility with 42 kids? MS. HARRIS: 42 kids in it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now, let me ask a 8-24-05 bwk 232 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 question. MS. HARRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take the 338, and can we subtract from that 338 the $285,000, Kevin, that we have -- that ongoing obligation of 285? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. 'Cause, I mean, we'd have a place to put our preadjudicated kids. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then that takes it down to minus 53,000. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It does what? MS. HARRIS: Kevin's preadjudicated kid cost, subtract it from that 338, and that's your true deficit, which is around 53,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your red ink. MS. HARRIS: Your red ink is going to be 53,000, because you're putting -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your obligation for juveniles is -- MS. HARRIS: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- is 333. But the red ink to the facility is reduced by reason of your obligation. MS. HARRIS: Because you're putting all of Kevin's pre kids in the facility rather than shipping them out. 8-24-05 bwk 233 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. STANTON: Well, no -- well, I -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the difference? MR. STANTON: I'm sorry, I take that back. It's not -- I'm sorry. It's not going to be 285,000, because in the $285,000 proposal that you're looking at, that is hiring two transport officers, that's paying for mileage to and from a facility 104 times. So, the number's going to be a whole lot less than that. JUDGE TINLEY: Should be 175, roughly. Take the 125 out, 'cause that's going to go in anyway, so you take 175 off of there. Probably -- MS. HARRIS: So take 175 off the 338. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That gets it down to MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. Yeah. You could -- 'cause you'd have to subtract mileage and you'd have to subtract the cost of the officers. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is harder than drilling for oil in 10,000 feet of water. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've got to go cancel an appointment so I can continue this enlightening discussion. JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we take a break here? Our reporter needs a break. We've gone a little long 8-24-05 bwk 234 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as it is, so why don't we take about a 15-minute break here. (Recess taken from 3:26 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go ahead and come back to order, if we might. I think we're somewhat at an impasse now. We've gotten about all the information that we can digest with the possibility of trying to understand exactly how the offset occurs to the deficit based on -- I think we got two variables that -- that are not apparent in the documents that we have here. One is the -- learning recently that on certain Level 5 program children, we can charge up to 115. That's not plugged into the 48-bed proposal -- post proposal. It's not plugged into it. We've been manually given some numbers here. MS. HARRIS: So you want -- okay. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm thinking if you'll refine those numbers better -- MS. HARRIS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: -- and then, in addition -- MS. HARRIS: You want the 48-bed? JUDGE TINLEY: One building. And that, I suppose, would carry up to actual 50 or 51. MS. HARRIS: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: If I understand the capacity. MS. HARRIS: Right. 8-29-05 bwk 235 1 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: But to also include the -- the offset of -- against whatever deficit that may indicate of the net cost in trying to take the pre's elsewhere that we would have under our legal obligation if we had no facility at all. MS. HARRIS: Okay. So, what's the solid number that we're looking at if you had to take the pre kids someplace else? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 285. MS. HARRIS: 285? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I see people shaking their heads. Is 285 the number? If we had to take -- MR. STANTON: No, sir, it's not the number. The number is -- is 285 minus the cost of the two persons you would hire to transport, plus the cost of the mileage. I can get -- I can give Ms. Harris -- I'll give Ms. Harris a number. I'll get it to her before the day's over. MS. HARRIS: So you want a -- AUDIENCE: Less than 285? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. MS. HARRIS: So you want a 48-bed -- you just want me to take the 48-bed budget that I've already done, plug in the $115 revenue for -- 10? JUDGE TINLEY: 20. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whatever number of 5-24-05 bwk 236 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 beds you think you can keep full. MS. HARRIS: Okay. And then what -- what my deficit line is, subtract what the cost -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The number he gives you. MS. HARRIS: The number that he gives me. I COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- JUDGE TINLEY: And do we also have the -- the -- do we have a clear picture of what the pre only is? MS. HARRIS: Yes, I think you do, 'cause I've given you an 11-bed and I've given you a 24, and Kevin has given you -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 16. MS. HARRIS: -- 16, but he's also given you a 24 and a 12 pre. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got them all. MS. HARRIS: You've got them. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me tell you where I'm at in my thinking now. When we started off, I said I think we must operate a preadjudicated facility, and then going beyond that, only if it makes economic sense. It doesn't make any difference if our postadjudicated kids are here or somewhere else. I'm looking at this 16-bed preadjudicated facility budget that Kevin Stanton drew up, 8-24-05 bwk 237 1 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 when you look at the costs and then subtract the costs of closing the facility, having preadjudicated only, 16 beds, the net -- the total cost to the County would be somewhere between 100,000 and 175,000. I'm thinking that is the best -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's not -- that's based on an occupancy rate that I don't think we can get, 'cause our average has been 11. We've never gotten to 16 in three years on an average. MR. STANTON: The number he's quoting is at 70 percent occupancy at 16, which is 12. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: With 80 percent, it would be about -- cost us about 100,000. With 70 percent, it would cost us about 145,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My -- 433 at 70 percent. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's track the cost of sending children out of county from -- so the net cost is you subtract 285 from four -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: You subtract about 150 from the 433, 'cause you're going to take 125 either way. MR. STANTON: In that case scenario, you'd have to subtract the 285, because we wouldn't have a facility -- or we wouldn't have a facility in Kerr County to place our kids into. In the scenarios that Ms. -- Ms. Becky's talking about, we would have a place in Kerr 8-24-05 bwk 238 1 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 to place our preadjudicated, so you wouldn't need to add in the costs of the transport officers and the mileage costs. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if we only had -- to make it real simple, if we only had two choices, and that's no facility or preadjudicated only, 16 beds, the net cost to Kerr County would be, for the 16 preadjudicated bed facility, would be probably $145,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I'm not there. I need to see this on paper, because we've got -- it says here minus 433, but on Becky's proposal, she has something in that same area. I need to see how -- we're subtracting these numbers somewhat arbitrarily. I need to see a -- my mind can't envision all that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't want to throw a monkey wrench in this, because we got enough already, but I'm just wondering, Tommy, is there any way you can help these folks and put together a spreadsheet showing these various scenarios? MR. TOMLINSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I mean, this would be so much easier to do if we had a spreadsheet that showed each of these scenarios by comparison. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on -- and, to me, if we're in a preadjudicated-type facility, just because of 8-24-05 bwk 239 1 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 volatility, I think you have to have, like, a 50 percent occupancy. I just don't see -- because we're going to have to keep Kerr County beds. It's going to -- we're going to really look bad if we have a pre facility and then they fill it up with out-of-county kids, so I think you really have to look at 50, 60 percent max on any pre, whether it's Becky's or Kevin's. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you go postadjudicated, I think you can get up to the 70 to 80 percent, realistically. And I think those are the -- you know, based on the numbers, make sense. I think that's what you have to compare. You can't -- you know, just like the jail. Rusty doesn't -- well, he doesn't like to; occasionally he's had to actually fill the jail to 190. He wants to keep it at 150. It's the same -- you know, for Kerr County, a little bit of fluff there. I think you've got to do it with a preadjudicated facility as well. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, if these folks could work with Tommy and -- and we could -- and put this off to our next Wednesday full-day meeting, give a week to put this into a spreadsheet for -- you've already done the workups; it's just a matter of putting them in a spreadsheet so we can take a look at it, see where in the hell we are. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And try and list the 8-24-05 bwk 240 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 numbers that -- the 125,000, I mean, have it on your -- somewhere there; you know, we're spending 125,000 across the board in any column. Whatever we do, that's coming out of the budget. If we don't have a -- a facility in this county, then you have to add in transport costs, which is 285,000. I'd rather do it that way, rather than subtract that and if we don't do this, we have to subtract it out. I'm trying to figure out -- well, you know, it doesn't make sense to me, really. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Appreciate it. Thank 11 you. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MR. TOMLINSON: I'd like to narrow it down to the two or three most obvious answers. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I think so. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No facility, 48-bed facility, and the smallest pre that they can -- they want to do. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think that's it, those three things. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Zero, 12, 48. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or zero, 16 or 24. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or zero, 16, 44, 23 I whatever. 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't care, whichever one looks better. 8-24-05 bwk 241 1 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: Mr. Dozier wants to complicate MR. DOZIER: No, I wanted y'all to see if you could have Tommy talk to Bill Orr or something and find out what it costs K.I.S.D. to run whatever that 40-bed -- 48-bed is, which is just about pretty close to break-even, that high number. But with a low number like 6 or 8, it's tanking, 'cause ours is -- ours is just, like, on a 45-degree line. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it tanks for us if we staff at 48, and if we keep five or six, it tanks for everybody. It's got to be -- if you have a 48 facility, we have to be realistic that we can keep it at about 75 or so percent occupancy. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that certainly -- if there's some numbers that can be shown on the side as other considerations, that -- MR. DOZIER: That's all I was asking about. JUDGE TINLEY: -- it's going to affect the taxpayers -- MR. DOZIER: That's what I was asking. JUDGE TINLEY: -- one way or the other, that is certainly relevant information, yeah. MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, I'll sure do that. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8-24-05 bwk 242 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be helpful, thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Why don't we move to the Juvenile Probation Department? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I get rid of some of these old ones? JUDGE TINLEY: Number 18. These are the numbers that were approved by the Juvenile Board, as I recall. Is that correct, Mr. Stanton? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, they were approved by the Juvenile Board on 7-11 of '05. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll be right back; I just got to make arrangements to pick Sam up. (Commissioner Letz left the courtroom.) JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions of Mr. Stanton? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me look at it real quick here, Judge. Probably not. Alternate Housing, 1665. That's sort of what we've been chatting about, isn`t it? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, it is. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. STANTON: The only real big difference, I guess, in the budget this year compared to last year is the -- the $20,000 in residential housing, plus I've had to -- because of certain restrictions on the expenditures that 8-24-05 bwk 243 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we can use T.J.P.C. money for, I've had to change out one of my probation officers that was making a little bit more money and put them in the county budget, and would move one of my other probation officers into the state budget. So, there's a little bit of difference in the salary line items, but that's just because of the -- the new structure, the way that the -- what caseloads they can deal with and what they can't deal with. JUDGE TINLEY: The net difference is -- MR. STANTON: About $4,000. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, saying $3,000 to $5,000. MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think I have any questions. Commissioner Letz may have some. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is it reflected how much we get from the state? MR. STANTON: If you'll look at -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In support of your budget -- MR. STANTON: -- Fund 34, the -- Fund 34 is our J.P.O. Progressive Sanctions money. That's to pay one of our probation officers. That total is $27,567. Fund 35 is our Progressive Sanctions Level 1, 2, and 3 money that we 8-24-05 bwk 244 1 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 use on nonsecured facilities and diagnosis and JUDGE TINLEY: Not sure he has it. Do you have that backup? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm looking at Title IV-E. Is that what we're talking about? MR. STANTON: No, sir. The -- I only -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't guess I have it. MR. STANTON: I can show you this. Mine -- mine's a little bit different than -- than that, but the last -- if you look at the bottom two on there, the Fund 34, that's state money, and that's 27,567, Fund 34. Fund 35 is state money, and that's the 20,200. The Community Corrections and State Aid money for Fund 27, which is Community Corrections, we get $87,524. For State Aid, we get 68,055, and for salary supplement that we get from the state is $14,250. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, your budget that we have in front of us is over and above these funds and these expenditures? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. (Commissioner Letz returned to the courtroom.) JUDGE TINLEY: You got any questions on 8-24-05 bwk 245 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Juvenile Probation? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hope not. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I got one. I don't want to open this can of worms again. Are there -- do you know of any counties where Juvenile Probation and Juvenile Detention operations are combined? MR. STANTON: Out of the 54 counties that run pre or post facilities, 51 of them are combined. There's three counties that I know of right now that are separated. Kerr County is one. There's one that -- that Mike Lindemann runs, and I think it's in -- MS. HARRIS: It's private. MR. STANTON: Yeah, it's a private facility. Yeah, private facility, and then there's another private facility. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does anybody know why we decided to do it differently in this county? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. Since we just inherited this in February and didn't make those decisions, I don't know the answer to that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge says it didn't happen on his shift. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I can guess on some things. I mean, it was a private facility that we took over. It was run by Recor, a private company. 8-24-05 bwk 246 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Then we took it over, and they probably had some system set up, and rather -- it seemed -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- easier at the time to probably keep running it as a separate facility rather than try to integrate it into Juvenile Probation. I'm -- I guess that's -- and at the time, it was -- it was -- the plan was for it to make positive cash flow, and it did for a while. So -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's got to be it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I don't have anything. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me further complicate that for you. The Juvenile Probation Department is operated under the oversight and auspices of the Juvenile Board in each county, so put that in the mix. Thank you, Mr. Stanton. We appreciate it. MR. STANTON: Thank y'all. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, wait, don't leave yet. MR. STANTON: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. What -- the County Attorney isn't here right now. Does it change the relationship between the facility and the Commissioners Court if the facility comes under Juvenile Probation, as 8-24-05 bwk 247 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 opposed to if it's -- if we hire an outside person, being the fact that Juvenile -- you report to the -- MR. STANTON: Not -- no, sir, not according to the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- so, the Court would just -- if it were to go that route, the Court would just designate that you were the manager, and that would -- nothing really to do with your -- your Juvenile Probation job? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He's wearing two hats in that case. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And reporting to two boards. MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Looks like we've got volunteer fire departments now. I'm looking for them now. That's going to be under County-sponsored, I think, isn't it? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I hope so. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's under Tab 25, Page 73. It's pretty far back in that stuff. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tab 25? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, there it is. 8-24-05 bwk 248 1 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: 25, Fire Protection. JUDGE TINLEY: We've had a mass exodus here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nobody cares about -- JUDGE TINLEY: Nobody's concerned if the building catches on fire. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. Nobody cares about the volunteer fire departments. JUDGE TINLEY: Glenn does. MR. HOLEKAMP: You can open up the checkbook now. JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I made the allocations to the volunteer fire departments in the same way that we did last year; some that partially serve get a small stipend, and the rest of them 13,000. I pulled out that grant match, not knowing that it has any application this year. The one thing I did not address is the city fire contract for Kerrville South and Kerrville North, I'm going to call it for lack of a better term. Since that came under a City/County heading, that is left to the entire Court. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we have any reason to believe that that contract will not -- or it will cost us more? We haven't heard anything, have we? JUDGE TINLEY: In a general discussion with Interim City Manager Don Davis -- he has not said anything to me. In just trying to figure out what we've got to get 8-24-05 bwk 249 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 resolved, the discussion has generally been that the costs of housing prisoners, the tax collection, I think it -- recycle, everything with the exception, I believe, of the EMS and the animal control and the library, were pretty much automatic. Which would lead me to indicate that it's going to remain the same. Now, he's not specifically said that, but that's the sense I've gotten from what he has said. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think at this point, with the budget problems I see ahead when we get all these numbers rerun, I recommend we leave these the same. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to raise them, but I just -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't hear anybody squealing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also, I find it quite interesting that -- one, two, three, four -- six out of all the fire departments haven't got their money yet, so they must not be hurting too bad. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you know anything about Divide? You know, will they come in and have some 22 ~ receipts? 23 24 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we've had some conversation that we need -- we need for them to -- to do it, you know, soon if they're -- if they want to. 8-24-05 bwk 250 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All of them need to get it in pretty quick if they want to get paid this year. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I worry that Divide may not be fully -- I know it's not fully operational. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It doesn't take much for them to get -- come up with $13,000 if they do anything. If they need the money, they -- they can find it, I think. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Three of the four in west Kerr County are doing well. Ingram is in good shape. A new district in Mountain Home has helped them a lot, and they got a notice that they did get a grant approved, a significant one, so I don't feel bad at all about leaving it 13 at 13,000. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Neither do I. I've heard nothing out of my two that indicates that that's not a decent number. JUDGE TINLEY: And city fire contract is -- the consensus seems to be just leave it as-is. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unless you've heard something. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'd like to look at that, really, more with the emergency services issue. I don't like that contract, 'cause I don't like the fact that if we have a bad fire out in the city limits, they send one truck. 8-24-05 bwk 251 1 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: Limited service, exactly. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I don't think I want to open that Pandora's box at this date with the City. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have enough Pandora's boxes open, don't we? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: We are -- if there's nothing further on the VFD's and the city fire contract -- we handled Nondepartmental, didn't we? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we did. JUDGE TINLEY: Permanent Improvements. I'm not sure what we got cooking there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What tab is that? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hey, Judge, while we're here in this tab, why don't we do County-sponsored? We're right there at that tab. JUDGE TINLEY: Good plan. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What tab is that? JUDGE TINLEY: Same tab, 25, except you go back a -- one page to Page 66. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- on this one, Trapper Contract, I'm -- I've been in conversations with the state -- the local office and the state office a little bit about this. There is a desire by some east Kerr County -- 8-24-05 bwk 252 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 probably a few east Kerr County residents to try to get service out of Kendall County partially. Kendall County has -- funds two trappers; Kerr County funds one. And it just -- the one guy from Kerr County is Steve Adams. He does a real good job, but he's just spread real thin. And a lot of -- you know, I would -- either we can do it as an amendment later -- it's the first item, 320 -- or maybe we could add $5,000 this year, which would be -- which would only get paid if we successfully negotiate an interlocal agreement between Kendall County Commissioners Court, and it would allow -- and I'm not sure that will happen, believe me. But if we can negotiate that, that they could come into my precinct -- their trapper would have the ability to come into my precinct, and it could -- I'd probably estimate that 25 percent of his time would be in this county. I think it's a good way for us to increase that service. And I will say that that's -- we pay a part of it. The State kicks in a bunch of money there, so it's -- you know, it's pretty good dollars spent from the taxpayer standpoint. And this whole service is -- you know, I think historically has been driven by ranchers, but I bet in Kendall County it's driven by golf courses at the moment. Predators are -- with the urbanization of these counties, predators is becoming a real problem in lots of areas. Feral hogs, coyotes, all that are moving into residential 8-24-05 bwk 253 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 areas pretty rapidly. They're addressing that. So, anyway, I would ask that we add 5,000 to that. JUDGE TINLEY: So, take it to 26,6? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, 26,6. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know why none of the figures got moved over into the last recommended column, but all of those that are in the requested column should be moved over to the recommended, with two exceptions. One is, as you can see, Big Brother/Big Sister I put in there. And what I've done is, I have taken that from CASA and recommended them for $3,000, for a couple of reasons. One is, they terminated service to my juvenile court. Second is, the Kronkowski Foundation awarded them a $50,000 grant here a couple months ago. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is CASA a multi-county -- JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, they actually work in several counties. They would have to, to -- in order to get the Kronkowski; they'd have to go down to either Kendall or Bandera in order to be contingent. But they got a Kronkowski grant for 50K, so -- even before I had heard of that, I had reduced that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, 420 under Public Transportation goes down a little bit, goes back to the number in '03/'04, 7883. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 8-24-05 bwk 254 1 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: What's the 216th Task COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know what it is, but -- JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't plug that number in because it comes to the Auditor. There's a specific number. MR. TOMLINSON: It's the -- it's the benefits for our -- for our person on the task force. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: It will be here again? MR. TOMLINSON: Depending on what his salary is, we'll calculate the benefits, and it will be close to whatever -- whatever that is. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Why are we bringing Big Brother/Big Sister back in? JUDGE TINLEY: Primarily because of -- from the juvenile standpoint, I think they fill a void for me, and I just moved the CASA money up there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You use Big Brother/Big Sisters? I mean their service? Or -- JUDGE TINLEY: I don't -- I don't specifically refer to them, but -- but they work with some of the children that -- that are in my jurisdiction. MR. STANTON: Judge? On the Big Brother/Big Sister thing, we do refer kids -- we do -- we do -- we don't contract, but we do refer kids over through our Probation 8-24-05 bwk 255 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Department to Big Brothers and Big Sisters when -- when we feel like that's an appropriate action. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I have a concern there, Judge. Sometime in the past, the Court made a decision to not-fund them, and if you bring them back in, they're here forever. We can't quit. I -- and as you know, I'd like to quit funding some others, but it's impossible to do without being tarred and feathered. MR. TOMLINSON: I think we can -- I'm not sure about this, but I think at one time, we moved the funding of the Big Brother/Big Sister program to the Juvenile Probation budget. Do you recall that? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. About two years ago, that money did come out of the Probation Department budget, and then -- I think it was last year -- all that money was moved out of the Probation Department budget and put into the Commissioners Court budget. MR. TOMLINSON: So, the County has funded them all along; it just came out of a different place. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, like you say, you can't -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I can sleep good tonight. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other item that I have, and I -- Water Development, 447, I'm not positive that 8-24-05 bwk 256 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Region J is going to need a supplement this year or not, but if they don't -- last year we didn't ask for one, but we're spending quite a bit of money on administrative costs. Hopefully have enough to carry over, but there's another use for that money that I think is very beneficial to, certainly, all the taxpayers, and also keeps us at the table on water. Headwaters is doing a pretty massive study; they've hired outside consultants to basically do a mapping of the Trinity and the Edwards-Trinity out of west Kerr County, which has never been done in any kind of detail. And there's a lot of information now, a lot of data entry, a lot of work going into that. Headwaters is working on it. They're, by far, the primary person. U.G.R.A. is helping fund it, and I believe the City of Kerrville is as well. And I think that I would recommend that -- I would support us funding it to no more than $5,000 as well. I think it is a -- it goes a long ways in giving us the information that this county needs. JUDGE TINLEY: Kevin? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Gives the county information it needs for subdivisions, you know, other things that we work on down the road, so I would like to get that put back in. Last year I didn't think we were going to need it, but this year I do see a need for it. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've seen one of the 8-24-05 bwk 257 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 presentations of that geologist, and he does know what he's talking about, in my view, and the product is going to be valuable. And you don't always see that in -- coming out of these kind of projects. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's Headwaters' -- hats off to them, and they're -- they're basically leading the state on doing this on a local basis. So, I think -- and I put -- I think it gives us input into the state when we have money, so ... Should have mentioned it a long time ago. JUDGE TINLEY: When -- when the Big Brother/Big Sister was coming through your budget, do you recall the amount? Are you the -- or either one of you. MR. TOMLINSON: No. MR. STANTON: It was a total of $10,000. And -- but that was for CASA, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, and there was a third; I don't remember. MR. TOMLINSON: It was the -- I think it was the Child Advocacy. MR. STANTON: Child Advocacy Center. MR. TOMLINSON: Those three. MR. STANTON: Those three. The $10,000 was divided between those three. JUDGE TINLEY: You don't remember what the 8-24-05 bwk 258 1 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, sir, I don't. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions on that? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not on that, but we still need to determine what we're going to do with Historical Commission. JUDGE TINLEY: That was increased this year from three to five. All of those figures in the next-to-the- right-hand column need to be -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Carried over? JUDGE TINLEY: And the reason that that was increased was because of the sesquicentennial. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: I figured they were going to need some additional funds this year for that purpose. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's next? JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody find Permanent Improvements? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What tab is that? JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know; that's why I'm looking. MR. TOMLINSON: Judge, under -- for emergency 8-24-05 bwk 259 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 management -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On what? MR. TOMLINSON: On -- back to the last -- this County-sponsored, there's not anything in Requested for emergency management. Is that an oversight, or is it zero? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Guess they didn't put in a request, huh? JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, let me see what I can find here. Well, frankly, Tommy, I haven't found it yet. I don't see anything for that, unless it's under the -- the Health. But you're not talking about First Responders, medical directors, any of that. That's all rolled in under the EMS contract we just approved. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, there's been this -- this funding for emergency management since '03, and I don't know where that comes from. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, it's not related to Chief Holloway being the FEMA representative -- or emergency coordinator? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, I believe it does. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's Emergency Management Coordinator. MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that's -- I'm pretty 8-24-05 bwk 260 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sure that's where the -- what it's for. MR. TOMLINSON: 'cause he's the Emergency Management Coordinator. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So he has -- if we have a disaster, he's the one that has to request it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you want to inquire of him and see what he wants in there? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we -- I don't know if he wants it. I think we need it. JUDGE TINLEY: Under 21, we've got Health and Emergency Services, but that -- that has to do -- best I can tell, that's all the EMS stuff. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I think that emergency EMS is -- that's -- I'm pretty sure it's got to be the -- not the EMS. The -- MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think this line item has anything to do with EMS. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, this is separate. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Disaster. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is different. I think we ought to fund it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it definitely needs to be funded, 'cause without it I don't think you can -- 8-24-05 bwk 261 1 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: Where are you? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right here, on Emergency Management. JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 406. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County-sponsored line, 406. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does that mean we underwrite part of the Chief's salary? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You got it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, not really, not his basic salary. He's providing other services in terms of being the county-wide coordinator for emergency management. He's -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: What are you putting in there? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Four. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe we ought to put 3,000, see if he'll go for that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't you round it off at four? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Give him till Thursday to take it or leave it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Take it or leave it. He 8-24-05 bwk 262 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -- this -- I mean, this isn't just money for doing nothing. He has a book that's bigger -- about two or three of these on emergency management and how you do it and all that stuff. He's got to go to training to -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Has this got to do with -- MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we spent $2,142 so far. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, it's important. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What? MR. TOMLINSON: We've expended 2,142 this year. So, we've -- I would have to look at the history and see what that's for. COMMISSIONER LETZ: See what it is. But I think we need to put, you know -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, actually, '03/'04 was 4,234. MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So cut it -- why don't you cut to it 4,000? About where it is. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'd leave it at 4,400, but if Tommy can check it, that's certainly -- we certainly need that person doing that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okey-doke. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Unless Dave wants to take 8-24-05 bwk 263 1 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 on. Whichever J.P. wants some more money, we can give it -- JUDGE TINLEY: Did anybody find Permanent Improvements? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I did not. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is it, Glenn? Permanent Improvements. Where is it? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, this year it was just for the Ag Barn, 150,000 that we spent on -- MR. HOLEKAMP: The roof. Roof and the air conditioning. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it, all right. We don't have anything for next year? MR. TOMLINSON: Not that I know of. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. If we did anything, would it be the I.T.? The computer system? Does that go in Permanent Improvements? MR. TOMLINSON: No. I -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it's different? MR. TOMLINSON: I would just set that up as a -- depending on how we finance it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Some kind of tax anticipation or something like that. MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: So that brings us to Parks. 8-24-05 bwk 264 1 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 that's under Tab 15. Parks Maintenance, Page 45. I'm glad we got that EMS contract in place. MR. HOLEKAMP: Under Permanent Improvements, what about some new chairs for the courtrooms? With cushions? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nope. MR. HOLEKAMP: It was a try. I -- well, now that everybody left, I probably don't need to do any complimenting, but through being very -- very persistent with the two probation departments in Kerr County, the Adult Probation and the Juvenile Probation, the -- obviously, they get funds from the state to -- I think Kevin called it community -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Involvement, or -- MR. HOLEKAMP: -- involvement or something. I've gotten quite a bit of stuff from him, and we're going to get some more to set up for their community -- and it is to use for community service people. Also, through Howard Hollimon's office, we really did good. They had some money left over, state money for community service, and we just took delivery today on two mowing tractors, small -- they're small ones for Parks, you know, with the deck underneath the tractors. One's a 23-horse and the other one, I think, is an 18. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they're a real 8-24-05 bwk 265 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tractor? MR. HOLEKAMP: They're real John Deeres. And so -- and it was about $10,000 worth of equipment this morning that we took delivery on, and didn't cost us anything, but we have use of it, just like the weekend crews or community service. We have a real good relationship with community service. And I think -- not only that, and then with the trustee program. I think the Parks budget can hold the line. The only area -- and since the Judge and I sat down, fuel is going to be an issue. It -- I was thinking we had a little flash in the pan, that it just went -- spiked up, but I would -- I would like to ask y'all to maybe add some funds to the fuel-oil-maintenance line. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2,000? Up to 2,000, do you think? Or 2,500? MR. HOLEKAMP: I'd like to try -- you know, I think we'll be close. Because -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. HOLEKAMP: -- when you start fueling these tractors, it runs up pretty quick. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure that's going to be enough. We're looking at 1,500 estimated actual this year, and -- MR. HOLEKAMP: So -- so I'm just asking. The rest of the lines, I think we're going to be fine. Our 8-24-05 bwk 266 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 equipment isn't too old to -- to be able to stay within the equipment repairs. Plus, the guy I have doing it, doing the maintenance on that stuff in-house, he -- he doesn't require a whole lot of expenses. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much -- I would say the 2,500 or 2,000 or 2,200, maybe. Pick a number. JUDGE TINLEY: Do you think we need to go as high as 2,500? MR. HOLEKAMP: I'd like to. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's -- I thought that was the figure you were probably thinking about. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Glenn, do you have any idea of what the savings to the taxpayers is by the County using, you know, community service and trustees? I mean, two, three people? MR. HOLEKAMP: Average, yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's about -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Daily. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's probably $50,000 a year, something like that? MR. HOLEKAMP: Minimum. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Minimum? MR. HOLEKAMP: Minimum. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason I bring it up is that sometime maybe during this year, I would 8-24-05 bwk 267 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 recommend -- maybe I'll bring it up myself when they have a new City Manager in the city -- that if they would fund a deputy -- a second deputy to watch the trustees, let the city parks get cleaned up the same way. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it seems to me it would be a way to -- to save taxpayers as a whole money and get something done. And mowing and that kind of maintenance is -- is a little bit of luxury. Whether you mow on Monday or Friday doesn't make that much difference in the mowing, as long as you get it mowed. MR. HOLEKAMP: Three times a week, they're watering these pansies on the corners, two men. JUDGE TINLEY: The City, you're talking about? MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. And, you know, that -- I'm not so sure a deputy with the three trustees couldn't drive down the street and do those things. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. It's just one of those -- I mean -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Personal opinion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, that's just something I was thinking, just a thought that I had had MR. HOLEKAMP: I think you're absolutely earlier. 8-24-05 bwk 268 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 right, Jon. I'd really like to pursue that. And I -- I felt uncomfortable in here last time when we had the meeting COMMISSIONER LETZ: MR. HOLEKAMP: You in their mind that these guys are pillaging in the community. With doesn't work that way. COMMISSIONER WILLI Right. know, they -- they had it out there raping and a guard with them, it AMS: I thought they were all serial killers or serial rapists. MR. HOLEKAMP: And I think that maybe -- maybe we're not selling it. I don't know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- well, I agree totally on that. The good or bad news, depending on how you do it, is that due to some other legal reasons, that's off the table for this year MR. HOLEKAMP: I understand. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- on the airport, but it is on the table from the standpoint of the airport needs to figure out where to save some money in the budget. MR. HOLEKAMP: Commissioner Williams and I -- and I probably dropped the ball as much as anybody, is we -- we want to still do some restrooms for parks, but we need to 25 ~ visit with people. 8-24-05 bwk 269 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's in -- where is that? MR. HOLEKAMP: You got that in another line. I don't have that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's in another budget someplace. And I'll tell you what, Glenn. I'm kind of waiting on you to get your strength back. MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, yeah. And I appreciate that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we can engage in another discussion. Commissioner Letz and I had a discussion with the River Star Park folks. MR. HOLEKAMP: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you and I have had this discussion, too. If there's any way we can figure out how to get that restroom up in a closer proximity to the River Star Arts Park, it would benefit everybody, as opposed to trying to put it down in the park and having all those risks and problems that you've outlined before. MR. HOLEKAMP: Absolutely, yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So I think, you know, when you get to feeling a little bit better, we can do that, try to figure out if there is a solution there. MR. HOLEKAMP: And I tried twice now, or three times to have a conversation in generalities with Bob 8-24-OS bwk 270 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Miller. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, Jon and I did. MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, y'all did? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. MR. HOLEKAMP: He was kind of covered up when I tried to talk to him, because he had lost a secretary, or she had left, and -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, they're kind of in flux also in terms of facilities. They want to do a small pavilion. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And -- but they also have major plans for a larger pavilion. MR. HOLEKAMP: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the location of those two things is different in the park. MR. HOLEKAMP: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you know, our thought has always been to have it toward the rear of the park, which is closer to the sewer connection. MR. HOLEKAMP: Great. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we just need to sit down and brainstorm it. MR. HOLEKAMP: Be glad to. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let them get Peter 8-24-05 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 25 271 Lewis, their architect, involved in it and see where it takes us. MR. HOLEKAMP: Let me know. I'm, I think, strong enough to have a meeting with Bob. I'll be glad to sit down with you and we'll go over it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think I'm going to ask the Court to keep that number in place for next year. MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we'll take it whenever you get to -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Like I said, it's not in my budget. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's here someplace. MR. HOLEKAMP: But the fuel was the only thing that I had. And then, of course, it's not on -- on this part of the agenda, but I -- the Juvenile Detention maintenance thing's still open, my budget on that one, on the maintenance end of it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's open on everyone's budget. MR. HOLEKAMP: I figured that. So I'm going to leave that until we get to that area, and then we can discuss it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. HOLEKAMP: Have any other questions? 8-24-05 bwk 272 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't find County-sponsored or City/County. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Trying to find where I've got that -- where do I have that restroom and the lake cleanup and all that? Which one is that? MR. TOMLINSON: That's Fund 31. It's a separate fund, 'cause it's -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: L.C.R.A. grant. MR. TOMLINSON: That was where we used the L.C.R.A. grant moneys. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was for the restroom. MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. But -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What about the lake cleanup we budgeted this year? MR. TOMLINSON: It's also in there too. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. We don't have that in here in our book? MR. TOMLINSON: You should. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it's in here somewhere. Was it 61 -- MR. TOMLINSON: It's 31, is the number of the fund. It's called just Parks. 8-24-05 bwk 273 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We looked at it the other day, I remember. I thought we looked at it with Leonard. MR. HOLEKAMP: On that bridge thing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it's under that with the bridge. MR. HOLEKAMP: The money. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe. MR. TOMLINSON: Under -- three of the parks are listed; Flat Rock, Lions, and Ingram Lake, so there's -- there's accounts set up for each park. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know where it is. JUDGE TINLEY: Not under Road and Bridge, is it? MR. HOLEKAMP: No, huh-uh. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it's a separate page. MR. TOMLINSON: No, it's by itself. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What are you looking for? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Parks. Or -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Not 515, the other one. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe it's back under Commissioners Court or Nondepartmental or somewhere. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Here it is, Page 102. 8-24-05 bwk 274 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: Huh? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 102. JUDGE TINLEY: What -- under what tab? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioners Court. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under Commissioners COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We were looking everywhere, including the Probation Department. Okay, I'll find it. Here it is. Hey. Well, and that 78,150 was going to be the lake cleanup this year, and I'm going to come before the Court next month with a requested budget transfer, because we're trying to build that bridge across Third Creek, and Leonard's going to need some money for piers and abutments. So, the question is, what do we want to have in there for next year? I also talked to Leonard about taking another look at trying to figure out how to get the pipes out of the lake. There's two huge pipes out there. They belong to us; they're our county property, and they've been in there so long that I guess the tubes have filled up with gravel and debris and everything else. You can't -- you can't drag them. But if they're going to get out, they're going to have to be cut and pulled apart and taken out, so Leonard's going to take a look at that again 25 ~ and give me some ideas. And if any of you guys got any 8-24-05 bwk 275 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ideas, now's the time to lay them out there. JUDGE TINLEY: I'd sure come closer to trusting Leonard's judgment than I would my own. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Me too. That goes for two of us. The thought occurred to him, maybe we could figure out a way to cut the pipes, torch them and cut them in pieces and dislodge them that way, and winch them into shore. He's going to check on that. MR. TOMLINSON: Does he know how much the bridge is going to be? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much the bridge is going to be? MR. HOLEKAMP: Those piers. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Abutments and piers? I think he's thinking somewhere around 35,000, isn't he, Jon? COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER the range of 25, 35. MR. TOMLINSO COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER done this year, then I sure next year. LETZ: Probably 35,000. WILLIAMS: Yeah, somewhere in V: Can he do that this year? WILLIAMS: Well -- LETZ: He's having a hard time. WILLIAMS: If he can't get it want to carry those dollars over 8-24-05 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 25 276 MR. TOMLINSON: That -- so we need to have that 35 if he can't do it this year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think he's having a hard time getting a contractor. MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, he is? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He can't get a cement bid. Everybody's busy and -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Of course, the cost of steel and concrete goes up every single day. COMMISSIONER LETZ: He had a deal worked out with the contractor that's going to do the new bridge in Comfort; not the Hermann Sons, the -- MR. HOLEKAMP: The High Street bridge? COMMISSIONER LETZ: The High Street bridge. But that bridge got postponed. MR. HOLEKAMP: I heard. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that contractor's no longer coming up here, so he couldn't pick that up. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, he contacted Butler trying to see if Butler -- 'cause Butler's done concrete work for him before, and Butler hasn't gotten back to him yet. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. HOLEKAMP: I had Butler look at the job 8-24-05 bwk 277 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 originally over there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway, we need to put 35,000 i n Flat Rock? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if it's - - yeah, if it' s going to be in the next year budget, it will be 35, plus -- well, Tommy, in this 78, though, isn't the restroom in that 78 as well? MR. HOLEKAMP: No. MR. TOMLINSON : No, I don't think so. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're under -- MR. HOLEKAMP: The 78 was the original amount of the dredging. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, let's think in terms of 35 for next year for trying to get the pipes out. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, 35 for next year for the bridge. MR. TOMLINSON: The bridge. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then another -- what, another 25 to get the pipes out? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, I'm sorry. Yeah, 35 for the bridge. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And 25 for the pipes? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Sixty. 8-24-05 bwk 278 1 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: Sixty. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're at 60. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that presupposes we don't get the -- any of that done this year out of the current -- rolling the money back -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It goes into reserves and back in. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The last thing we have today, I believe we talked about City, talked about the airport. We didn't talk about recycling, but we don't spend any money on recycling, correct? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. JUDGE TINLEY: We own that facility, and the City operates it, and that doesn't cost us anything. But we don't get any money off of it either. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Permanent Improvements. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jon, a revenue source. A revenue source, Jon. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the last thing that I see that we have is library, which is the next tab, next page. Keep going and we get to library. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By golly, there it 8-24-05 bwk 279 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is. MR. TOMLINSON: 323, less 201. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What? MR. TOMLINSON: I said 323, less 201. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hey, I like that scenario. I don't think that'll fly. JUDGE TINLEY: You're under 2? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, .sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The last piece of paper. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The last one under 2. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm not sure I've got it. I got Permanent Improvements. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right after that. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I -- I run out of snuff there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You shortchanged yourself. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have anything after -- I got Page 125 as my last page. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's currently 323, Judge. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 83. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh, okay. 8-29-05 bwk 280 1 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: 323, less 201. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know -- JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm up a stump here. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here. JUDGE TINLEY: How many you got? Yeah, these page numbers don't run -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You haven't heard anything, Dave? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've been trading phone calls with Davis to try to sit down and talk about it. But also, I recall that in the city -- previous City Manager's last communication with us, he said that that was -- before he moved on down the career ladder, he said that -- that we would get the budget at the same time City Council got it. Well, I don't think we did. I think they got it and ruled on it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They just approved their budget. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Tuesday night, yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 300,000. Keep going that direction. Maybe they'll start looking at it right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I was thinking about subtracting 201,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what Tommy recommended, but that's a little bit -- 8-24-05 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 25 281 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a little drastic. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a little obvious. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 300? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 300. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, at some point maybe they'll get the message that they need to live up to their contract. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We haven't had any meeting on Animal Control, either. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe Janie heard something, 'cause I heard out there there's a message for you to call Janie about something from the City on Animal Control. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And she said it wasn't bad. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wasn't bad? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It wasn't bad. So, I presume they're looking at it, and it looks like the -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If I talk to them, I need to say the contract is great, but -- that's what we want, but we want to cover some small matter of administrative expenses. 8-24-05 bwk 282 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And administrative cost is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $6,000, their part of it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 6,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Six. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know we ought to have that spreadsheet. We've looked at it a lot of different ways. It's, you know, looking at the size of that budget compared to the County budget and the number of employees versus number of employees in other departments. Either way, it comes out real close, what the percentage should be. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do we have left to grapple with next week besides Juvenile Detention Facility? JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I was planning on doing a posting that would allow us to consider any department budget, and then specifically address salary issues. COMMISSIONER LETZ: New computer? JUDGE TINLEY: Capital outlays. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Personnel increases or merit. JUDGE TINLEY: Personnel, yeah. Personnel 8-24-05 bwk 283 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, all of that stuff. Kathy's got some notes that I just rattled off the top of my head. But, basically, my intention was to allow us to go back into any particular department's budget for any particular purpose, but then as a general matter, to consider the -- the major items of personnel, COLA, capital outlay, all of those things, salary increases. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's next Wednesday? JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I understand we've all tentatively got plugged in. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are we doing Monday? JUDGE TINLEY: We've got a special Commissioners Court meeting beginning at 1:30 to handle a couple issues that must be done before the end of the month. Then we've got the health benefits -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: -- workshop beginning at 2:00. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What time do we meet on Wednesday? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nine. JUDGE TINLEY: 9 o'clock, I think. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, between now and then, I'm going to be meditating on the benefits of a 16-bed preadjudicated facility merged into the Juvenile Probation Department. 8-24-05 bwk 284 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to wait till I see the spreadsheet. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I want to look at the spreadsheet. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before I start meditating any more than I already have. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We have not yet seen the numbers, the bottom line numbers lined up side-by-side. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we haven't seen scenarios run on a most likely case of occupancy, truly. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Kind of like, "Trust me." Let's quit. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We done, Judge? MR. TOMLINSON: There -- have you talked about the mile -- the mileage rate? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. We need another thing on the agenda. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We need to talk about that. (Ms. Mitchell handed a note to Commissioner Letz.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: That answers that question. JUDGE TINLEY: Now you're safe. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where does that come up, mileage rate? Mileage reimbursement rate. 8-24-05 bwk 285 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. I think it's just your decision, but I know the State just went to 40.5. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the federal also. JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, it did go up to that? MR. TOMLINSON: That's what we're paying Kevin's people now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is also the federal standard. MR. TOMLINSON: Is it? I didn't know. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. MR. TOMLINSON: Didn't know it was federal standard, but I knew the state did. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 40.5. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I remember when they were getting 6 cents and making money off of it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can't do it any more. You barely break even at 40. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we need to look at the other -- all that other stuff that's in our budget book. You know, the holidays, all those -- scheduling, the rules and procedures and all that kind of stuff has to be -- JUDGE TINLEY: Do we need to do that in a workshop status? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to go 8-24-05 bwk 286 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 through it. I think we have a tendency to not spend much time on that, just kind of put it in the book and don't think about it, and we end up with these problems with holidays being on the wrong day. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, every year since I've been here. And you can't do it right. If you coincide with the school district, somebody doesn't like that. If we don't do that, somebody else -- JUDGE TINLEY: Don't have any holidays. Okay, gentlemen. Anything else? Let's fold it up. We stand adjourned. (Budget workshop adjourned at 4:49 p.m.) 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 18th day of January, 2006. JANNET PIEPER,~ Kerr County Clerk BY : ------- _~~'~" "r_ ~ --------------- Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter 8-24-05 bwk