1
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 31, 2005
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
v0
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
August 31, 2005
PAGE
1.1 Consider/discuss Juvenile Detention Facility budget 3
1.2 Consider/discuss various budgeting subjects impacting
one or more County Departments or County Budget in its
entirety including, but not limited to, the following:
Extension Service 50
'05-'06 budget summary prepared by Auditor 61
Holiday schedule 78
Employee mileage and expense reimbursement 79
Capital Outlay items 85
Adjourned 114
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 31, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., a budget
workshop of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in
the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,
Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in
open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. Let me call to order the Commissioners Court
budget workshop scheduled for this date and time, Wednesday,
August 31, 2005, at 9 a.m. It's just a bit past that time
now. We heard from Commissioner Letz a few moments ago.
He's running a few minutes late; he should be here shortly,
but we will go ahead and get started. The first item on the
workshop agenda this morning is to consider and discuss the
Juvenile Detention Facility budget that we've been wrassling
with innumerable times. Ms. Harris, do you have anything
new or enlightening for us this morning?
don't know.
MS. HARRIS: New, maybe. Enlightening? I
JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
MS. HARRIS: We have 34 kids today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 34?
MS. HARRIS: 34.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the breakdown?
MS. HARRIS: 25 post and 9 pre. Also, we
8-31-05 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
have seven referrals -- kids. Seven referrals.
JUDGE TINLEY: Those are post?
MS. HARRIS: Those are post, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You mean on their
way? Or --
MS. HARRIS: We've got the psychologicals,
and we've read their psychologicals and we've accepted them.
Some of them have already gone to court and been
adjudicated; they're just waiting till September 1, two or
three of those counties, so they'll be here next week. So,
anyway, I do have -- I do have one more set of numbers I'd
just like you to just briefly look at. This is getting --
my folder's not even big enough any more. Let me make sure
I'm giving you the right one. Yeah, this is it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Before you get into those
numbers, Ms. Harris, of the 25 postadjudication residents
that you have now, what is the breakdown of those into
substance abuse, sex offender treatment, or general
programming?
MS. HARRIS: Five, six -- six are sex
offenders.
MS. SCHRAM: Seven.
MS. HARRIS: Seven, that's right. Sorry.
8-31-05 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
Seven. I forgot about the Monday intake. Seven are sex
offenders, and the rest are substance abuse.
JUDGE TINLEY: 18. What is the maximum
capacity of your substance abuse program right now?
MS. HARRIS: 18.
JUDGE TINLEY: So you're full there?
MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Of the seven referrals
which you have that are pending and in some stage of being
on the way, what -- what category do those --
MS. HARRIS: Four of those -- of the seven
are sex offenders, and three are substance abuse.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The first set of
numbers was 9 pre and 24 post? Or was that 25 post?
MS. HARRIS: 25 post.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 25 post.
MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: In addition to actual
referrals, what do you have in the way of potential
residents in the pipeline, so to speak?
MS. HARRIS: The potential residents that
we've got in the pipeline are the ones that I indicated that
we've got psychologicals on.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
25 ~ MS. HARRIS: Now, we've gotten some phone
8-31-05 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
calls from probation departments that are interested in
sending kids, but we haven't received psychologicals, so I
don't count those kids as pending intakes until I get the
psychologicals and we've approved those. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Beyond the psychologicals,
what degree of interest are you getting now?
MS. HARRIS: A great deal of interest. We've
even gotten some phone calls on wanting to send us some
female post. Now, we've kind of put them on hold, 'cause we
didn't know what was going to be the pleasure of the Court,
so we've just kind of put them on hold. Now, the males, you
know, we're working on -- we're working on those referrals.
The interest that I'm seeing, the phone calls that we are --
that we are getting, indicates that our -- probably our sex
offender population is going to increase very rapidly after
September 1. Of course, you know, we're full on substance
abuse right now. Now, we've got some kids that are going to
be graduating, and just food for thought, just for your
information, we have three substance abuse boys that are
writing letters to their probation officers asking to stay
longer, because they just don't feel like they're ready to
go home; that they need more treatment. Now, whether those
probation officers honor that, I don't know. We don't have
any way of knowing that. That's going to depend on that
25 ~ placing county's money. But we have one young man that is
8-31-05 bwk
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there for sex offender treatment. His probation officer has
indicated he would like for him to stay longer, plus the
juvenile himself is requesting to stay longer. But he has
to go back to his home county to go through the court
process, so he's going to be leaving on September the 2nd,
and if the Court agrees, he'll be back the next Monday for
another extended length of stay.
JUDGE TINLEY: What is the average length of
stay -- the normal length of stay on a sex offender
treatment resident?
MS. HARRIS: For them to go through the full
gamut of treatment, it's a minimum of one year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that all residential --
secure residential treatment?
MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And how many of -- of
our inmates -- do we call them inmates?
MS. HARRIS: Residents.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Residents, excuse me.
How many of our residents stay for that full year?
MS. HARRIS: Well, since we just started the
program, every referral that we've gotten so far, we still
have, since the time that we started.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see, yeah.
MS. HARRIS: Since we started the program.
8-31-05 bwk
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MS. HARRIS: Except for this one young man
that's going to have to go back to court to be
readjudicated.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that
MR. HARRIS: To stay longer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- four months? Five
months? How long ago have we started it?
MS. HARRIS: We started it in March.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Harris?
MR. HARRIS: Yes?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With 34 juveniles in
residence now, as we speak --
MR. HARRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- and the potential
of seven referrals on the way, that would get your census to
41, right?
MS. HARRIS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where -- what is the
staffing level today, and where will it be a week from
today?
MS. HARRIS: Our staffing level is right
where it should be today to take care of the number of kids
we have. If we get to 41, what we have today will take care
of 41.
8-31-05 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 WILLIAMS: And that will take
care of how many more besides?
MS. HARRIS: 48.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That will take you to
48?
MS. HARRIS: That will take me to 48. Now,
remember, you're going to have some kids graduating.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand.
MS. HARRIS: So -- like, we've had -- I wrote
it down. We have had six intakes this month, and two
graduations for the month of August, so that's a net gain of
four kids that we have for this month.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MS. HARRIS: So, we're making ground. We're
catching up.
JUDGE TINLEY: On your substance abuse
program, what is the average length of a resident's stay for
that program?
MS. HARRIS: The program is designed to be a
minimum of six months. The average length of stay is about
seven and a half or eight months that the kids actually stay
there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Politicians are never
8-31-05 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
supposed to say, "I'm confused"; however, there's something
that I'm a little bit confused about.
MS. HARRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm excited about
these numbers. This is great and wonderful. But about a
month ago, you stood there and said that the reason that the
numbers were down and wasn't going up is because of this
particular time of year.
MS. HARRIS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When counties run out
of money and there's just simply no more money to send kids
here.
MS. HARRIS:
COMMISSIONER
MS. HARRIS:
there was $100,000 availably
money. We've got some kids
COMMISSIONER
MS. HARRIS:
Diversionary fund.
COMMISSIONER
Correct.
BALDWIN: What happened?
Vicki Spriggs announced that
for Small County Diversionary
from that money.
BALDWIN: From small counties?
Mm-hmm, from the Small County
BALDWIN: Most of this 34 are
from that?
MS. HARRIS: No. No, the 34 is from --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ten or 15 of them are
from the -- from this new money?
8-31-05 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
MS. HARRIS: No. No, we got -- we got two,
three, four -- about four or five of them, our newest
residents. And then there are some counties that had some
money, like we've gotten some kids from Guadalupe County.
We hadn't had any kids from Guadalupe County for quite some
time, so Guadalupe County had some money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Okay.
MS. HARRIS: Out of their county fund, I'm
assuming. And, too, the kids that we're getting in
September that they've already sent us referrals, their
budgets kick in September 1, so they wanted to be -- they
wanted to have their foot in the door and have their kids
accepted so when they have their new money next week, they'd
be able to send the kids.
JUDGE TINLEY: Confusion cured, huh?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sort of.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good enough.
JUDGE TINLEY: Historically, though, I
believe you have said that beginning in late spring, the
census numbers at all facilities have a tendency to drop?
MS. HARRIS: That's correct. That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Because of school being out
and funds -- budgets running out of money and things like
that.
8-31-05 bwk
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARRIS: Counties are really watching --
county probation departments are really watching their money
at the end of the school year, so, yes, that's a typical --
that's a typical year. We've just been very fortunate this
year that -- this has been odd to get this many kids this
time of year. That says a lot -- in my estimation, that
says a lot for what we're doing, 'cause the word is out with
other counties.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm looking at the --
your new pro forma -- pro forma. We'll call this Number 11
or whatever.
MS. HARRIS: Oh, this is 13. This is Number
13.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I must have missed
two somewhere along the line. And it's interesting.
MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I note that you
projected it on 100 percent.
MS. HARRIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your revenue stream
at 100 percent. So, if we were to -- if we were to migrate
that down to a 70 percent factor for basic -- for purposes
of trying to look at an entire year, the ups and downs of an
entire year, 70 percent of the 48 resident beds is 34. And
my question is, can the staffing on the 70 -- what will the
8-31-05 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
staffing have to be on a 70 percent scenario so that your
expense load is reduced accordingly to your revenue load?
MS. HARRIS: Okay. It's going to depend on
what the Court decides about the long-term postadjudication
girls.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Explain that a little
MS. HARRIS: Okay. Because --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Help us through it.
MS. HARRIS: Because you have to keep the
postadjudicated girls separate from the postadjudicated
boys.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MS. HARRIS: You have to keep them separate
from the preadjudicated girls and the preadjudicated boys.
So you, in essence, have four different populations; pre
girls, post girls, pre boys, post boys, and you got to keep
them all separate. Now, if you do away with -- if we phase
out the post girls, then you're down to three populations.
And if you have to, if it's an emergency situation that, for
whatever reason, you have to put pre boys with post boys, or
pre girls with post girls, you can do that, but you still
have to have two separate staff. You got to have a separate
staff taking care of the pre boys and a separate staff
taking care of the post boys. They even have separate daily
8-31-05 bwk
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
schedules; never the two shall meet. But you can put them
we've had to in the past.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if we determined
that part of that female -- one of those female populations
aren't going to be there for the future, that would then --
that would then reduce your staffing requirements to what?
MS. HARRIS: What I have on the front page of
this, and what I indicated to you last week, that I had
added two full-time female staff. I originally had 16
detention officers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MS. HARRIS: That will take care of the three
different populations that would be at the facility if you
phased out the post girls.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MS. HARRIS: I went back and had second
thoughts, and I put two full-time females in that line item,
because you're going to have female pres. You may have
one; you may have five. You may not have any, but the very
next day you may have six. If you go strictly with
part-time female J.D.O.'s, your likelihood of being able to
pick up the phone, call somebody, and get them there if you
have a female intake, you're running the risk of somebody
not being available to get there to take care of the female
8-31-05 bwk
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
intake.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MS. HARRIS: So, if you keep two females on
full-time staff, you would be assured that you would have a
female that you could rely upon to take care of the pre
females. So, what you see -- what you see on -- as far as
staffing is what we have today and what it takes for 48, and
we have 34 kids today, and that's your 70 percent of your
48.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MS. HARRIS: So, what you see on here
wouldn't change.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many post females
do we have right now?
MS. HARRIS: Six.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Six?
MS. HARRIS: Six. And three phone calls from
counties wanting to send us females. What I did on this
budget was, the budget that I gave you last week, on your
revenue, I gave you the figures for ten sex offender
juveniles.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MS. HARRIS: And 26 -- and I think I put 26
other residents, and that would have included substance
abuse and just general corrections. I went back on this,
8-31-05 bwk
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and I left the substance abuse at 18; I didn't increase the
substance abuse, because I believe -- I feel very confident
and comfortable that we can keep 18 substance abuse kids.
We can keep those beds full.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're full right
now.
MS. HARRIS: They're full right now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At the reduced rate,
not at the $115 rate?
MS. HARRIS: No, 'cause you can't charge $115
for substance abuse kids.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see.
MS. HARRIS: Okay. I increased the number of
sex offender beds, because the indications that we're
getting from out in the field and the phone calls we're
getting and the referrals that we're getting, it is
conceivable that we'll have a dorm full, which is 12. We'll
have a dorm full of sex offender kids, and probably some
overflow. So, that's why I put 18 sex offender kids in that
line item, which increases your revenue. Where I think
your -- I think where your population's going to fluctuate
from the 100 percent of 48 beds is going to be on your pre
end, and some of your post. But the majority of what I'm
hearing from probation officers, in talking with them, and
the phone calls that we're getting and the interest that
8-31-05 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
we're getting -- Mrs. Schram is our -- and she's here today;
she's our sex offender therapist. She talks to the
probation officers, and she's getting a lot of positive
feedback as well. It's not just me, and it's not just Skeet
that's hearing this, that our sex offender population could
increase substantially.
JUDGE TINLEY: How many -- how many
facilities in the state are there that have a viable sex
offender treatment program right now?
MS. HARRIS: Four, including us.
JUDGE TINLEY: Out of a total of 58?
MS. HARRIS: 54.
(Commissioner Letz entered the courtroom.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You missed all the
good stuff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I was hoping.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where are they
located?
MS. HARRIS: One is a private one by the name
of Pegasus. They're up around Dallas-Tyler area, aren't
they? Somewhere around up in there, Pegasus is.
MS. SCHRAM: I'm not sure.
25 ~ MS. SCHRAM: Laurel Ridge.
8-31-05 bwk
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARRIS: Which one?
MS. SCHRAM: Laurel Ridge has one in San
Antonio, but that's private.
MS. HARRIS: Yeah, that's private, though.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: None in close
proximity to us?
MS. HARRIS: No, sir. I -- Rockdale would be
the closest.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For Commissioner
Letz' benefit, would you run down your census numbers once
more so he could catch up with us?
MS. HARRIS: Sure. We have 34 residents
today; 25 of them are post, 9 of them are pres. We have
seven referrals in the pipeline. Four of those are sex
offender referrals, and three of them are substance abuse
referrals.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm ready to talk
dollars.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four -- one quick
question on this. This is based on 100 percent occupancy?
MS. HARRIS: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to work off
of this recap comparison. I think the County Auditor
provided it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The one Tommy did?
8-31-05 bwk
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. One page,
compares Facility Administrator estimates versus Chief
Probation Officer estimates. And I think either the Auditor
or -- or the Chief Probation Officer can answer my
questions. The -- the significant difference in the two
estimates are not on the revenue side, they're on the cost
side, and the differences are significant; they're about
$300,000 a year. So, tell me how we have that much
difference in the estimated costs. What's the -- what's the
difference in the Chief Probation Officer's estimated costs
and the -- and the Facility Administrator?
MR. STANTON: The main difference in the two
are the administrator's salary is not in -- in the figures,
and there's also some other administrative positions that
have been cut out of that budget. It's basically salaries
is the -- is the biggest difference. That's basically the
only difference.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What I see here is
the best possible or the lowest cost to the taxpayers
scenario we've seen is the Chief Probation Officer estimates
that a 48-bed facility, pre and post, at 80 percent would
cost us $71,000 a year. At 100 percent, it would be out of
the red. So, I think my question is, don't we start with
the -- the best case scenario and say why not that?
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- and I don't --
8-31-05 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
it gets into a -- in my opinion, a -- a personnel issue, and
-- I'm looking at Rex now. If -- I look at this as a
personnel decision as to how we run that facility, and I
would rather -- really rather have that discussion in
executive session if we can. And I think it qualifies,
because we're talking about basically a change in personnel,
being the administrator. I also had some concerns -- you
know, and I'm -- I don't have a preconceived notion one way
or the other on that. I suspect I know some things, but I
think it's a -- and I just don't want to get into a -- a
debate between the Chief Probation Officer and our current
administrator there. I think that's bad for everybody. And
I think that's how I look at it, is it's a personnel
decision and it's a hiring decision. The other question --
or part of that decision is going back to the Juvenile
Board. Based on the -- what I think the last memorandum
from the County Attorney says, is that the Juvenile Board
has to approve the administrator. And I think I'd leave --
you don't? We can do it totally?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It talks about the
credentials of the administrator. Is that correct?
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I
agree with you, and I'd like to have that conversation. I
8-31-05 bwk
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
think that's our next step, is to try to rationalize, why
not the best case? And I agree that it should be in
executive session. And just -- part of the commercial area
is that personnel costs are what we deal with. That's --
our budget is people, primarily.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's a -- you know,
there's -- well, that's -- what I said is what I said.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I've got a
question regarding that, to Kevin. Mrs. Harris said that
there is potentially new bodies coming here from certain
probation departments around the state. Are you familiar
with those specific ones?
MR. STANTON: No, sir, I don't -- I don't --
I mean, I know that the counties place more kids in
September than they do in August. You know, or October.
But I -- I don't have any -- I don't have any knowledge of
the psychologicals or what they received at the facility.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry, I didn't
state my question properly. Are you familiar with those
people in those probation departments in those other
21 counties?
22
23
24
25
MR. STANTON: Do I know other chiefs? Is
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Those particular ones.
MR. STANTON: No, sir, I don't know -- I
that what you --
8-31-05 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
don't know who -- I don't know who they've been in contact
with. No, sir, I don't.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can we move to
executive session?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think we can do it on
the agenda we've got posted, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, let me --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're shaking your
head yes, we can?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it we can't on the
agenda, or we can't on the topic?
MR. EMERSON: You can't on the agenda. On
the topic itself, you can move to executive, talk about
specific personalities, performance and so forth, but any
decisions you make are going to have to be in open court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure, I understand that.
But I have questions that I need -- that relate to someone I
would hire or ask any person in the county that was thinking
to hire a position, you know, to both of them. And, you
know, until -- I can't move much further than we are until I
have those questions answered. And I -- 'cause it's a --
it's -- you know, I need to understand the differences. And
I think that they're personnel and things of that nature
driven. So I don't -- you know, I certainly don't want to
8-31-05 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
have another meeting, but I don't see any other way around
it.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you want to go into
executive session, I think we're going to have to post
another meeting for the appropriate subject and provide for
executive session.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm wondering,
Commissioner, are we talking about questions regarding
personnel, or are we talking about questions regarding
personnel philosophy, staffing philosophy?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My questions go to
qualifications.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mine are a little
bit different; mine are more organizational. The question
I'd like to answer is, should we merge the two organizations
to get economies of scale and reduce personnel costs?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that goes to
philosophy of operation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Philosophy, I think, does
not qualify -- I don't have any problem doing that, but
that's not -- that's a piece of the puzzle, in my mind.
That's not the entire puzzle. I need to -- mine goes to
qualification-type issues.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, my questions are
8-31-05 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
similar, but I'm going to ask them right here in open court.
Is the fact that Mrs. Harris seems to be the type of person
or administrator that knows how to go out and market and
visit with other -- visit with probation officers and
counties and county judges and those kinds of things, to
market people to come in here -- it's pretty obvious to me
that she has done that, and done a great job. And then my
same question goes -- and that's what I was trying to ask
you. Do you have that same ability? Not necessarily to go
to a convention and hand out your little flyers and that
kind of -- I'm not talking about that; that's a waste of
time. But to know those people and have somewhat of a
relationship with other probation officers around the state
and other counties to do the same thing, actually? I mean,
we -- we can call hers marketing; we can call yours
relationship or whatever you want to do, but it -- the end
result is the same. Or would it be the same? That --
that's where my questioning is going to be. Can you do the
same thing as Mrs. Harris does with her marketing skills?
That's the question. And the answer is?
MR. STANTON: The answer is yes, I believe I
could. I mean, I believe I know the same people she knows,
because we are in the same business, I mean, so yeah, I have
relations with other chief juvenile probation officers who
place kids. Yes, sir, I do.
8-31-05 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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it's just as
simple for you to pick up a phone and call Billy Bob up in
Ector County and tell him, "Hey, send us some kids; we're
open for business," and you could do that just like anyone
else could?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, I can use the phone
like anybody else could. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't get cute on me.
MR. STANTON: I'm sorry, sir. It's a hard
question to answer, because, you know, everybody has
different philosophies and different skills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's going to be one
of the questions, though.
MR. STANTON: Oh, I know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm trying to get it
out here in the open.
MR. STANTON: Right. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I did have a participation
form filed, I assume in connection with the Juvenile
Detention Facility. I want to give this individual an
opportunity to speak, if she so desires, while we're still
on the subject. I'm not sure how quickly we're going to
move off of it. It looks like we're at somewhat of an
impasse, but Ms. Moore? You -- do you wish to speak?
8-31-05 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
MS. MOORS: I do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Please come forward and
MS. MOORS: With the reduction in --
JUDGE TINLEY: You'll need to give us your --
MS. MOORS: My name's Connie Moore, and I'm a
JDO with the Kerrville Juvenile Detention Center. And with
the reduction in budget from the probation, he's reduced
staff, but he didn't recognize what staff members he was
reducing at. He said it was upper management. In the upper
management that we have out there, I don't know what upper
management he would be decreasing that he didn't think would
be an important position for him to have. We have trainers
that train all of our people that come in. We have our
people that work with our time cards and vacation time and
all this kind of stuff. I think all those people are
important, so I didn't know if he was planning on taking all
of that and making his position to be all one person. I
would like for him to kind of clarify that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think we can
shed some light on that, perhaps. And Commissioner Baldwin
properly got us in the discussion, and we're not going to
get into names and so forth, but there is a -- some of the
distinction between the two proposals has to do with
therapists, preadjudication coordinator, cooks, control
8-31-05 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
operators, training officer, and placement officer. And in
Ms. Harris' proposals -- multiple proposals, those positions
appear. In some of the proposals we received from the Chief
Probation Officer, those positions are missing, which
prompts the question in my mind, is -- you know, if we have
a facility as of today that has -- whatever number -- 34
juveniles there, and seven or so in the pipeline, can we
operate with fewer of these people as -- as we are being --
as is being proposed or not?
MS. MOORE: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a question I
think, in my mind, we have to sort out.
MS. MOORE: Right. Well, all the training --
all the training that's expected whenever you go in and to
be able to do it appropriately, and then to stay in
compliance as -- as you rotate first aid, CPR, everything,
your PRT's, to be able to do it properly, you need to have
management in that position that can be proficient and --
and help and be there, because some people get it really
quick and some people don't. You have to follow back up.
And if you don't have the proper staff there to see that, I
think it would be really important to take that in mind,
that you do need to have that, and to have the procedures to
be able to follow through with.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- you know, I
8-31-05 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
guess the way I look at it -- and I'm sorry I missed the
first part of the meeting, but to me, we're down to two
options; we have a 48-bed facility or we have no facility.
Those -- that's what's on the table, in my mind, now. Based
on Ms. Harris' proposal as it is, I'm leaning towards no
facility at all, because that's -- it's less of a cost. It
costs the taxpayers less money to shut it down than it does
to operate it as it's being operated. And maybe that's the
right thing that we need to do and, you know, where we'll
end up. But I also look at the -- I see Ms. Harris has done
a tremendous job in turning it around in the past nine
months -- almost nine months, and I can see a glimmer of
light at the end of the tunnel. But I'm going to have to
ask her, probably, really to look at another proposal and
see if there's any staff reductions that can be done -- you
know, I'm not saying it has to be the same as the Chief
Probation Officer's proposal, but I'm saying it's got to be
more than what I see.
MS. MOORS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't know if
that's possible. And that gets into some issues that I'm
not real comfortable -- you know, we start getting more into
the personnel side that --
MS. MOORS: I was just looking at that as an
overall thing, too. But the facility itself -- I'll just
8-31-05 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
say this, and I'll go sit down -- is an awesome program.
And we have a lot of -- a lot of kids out there, and it's a
kid program. It's not about staff; it's not about trainers.
It's not about that. It's all these kids that we're helping
out there. And if y'all have never been out there and have
seen what goes on out there, it would be fair to the kids
across the state of Texas to go out there and look.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there's no question.
I think -- I have been out there, and I think it is a
facility -- I've been out there since Ms. Harris has been
running it; I think it is a great facility. The issue comes
down to -- and it's a -- it probably sounds very cold, but I
have to look after the taxpayers of Kerr County, not the
youth of the state of Texas. And that's just -- you know,
it's a harsh statement, but that's just what I have to look
-- what my job is. And so that's kind of where I am, and I
don't know if we can proceed further or not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Moore. We have
some other folks that have asked to be recognized, I assume
on this issue. If you would, in turn, come forward and
identify yourself and briefly tell us what's on your mind.
MR. KING: Yes. Commissioners, Judge, my
name's Cullen King; I'm one of the shift supervisors out at
the detention center. Commissioner Letz, you'd said that
taxpayers is one of your main concerns right now. I'm a
8-31-05 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
taxpayer of Precinct 1, and in my opinion, I think that as
taxpayers and citizens, it's our obligation to provide
programming like we're providing so that we, in turn, as
taxpayers, aren't paying for adult offenders. If we can fix
the issue now, we need to fix the issue now. And I've been
at the facility for two years. I've seen -- I've been under
two different administrators. I've been through the
allegations. I've been through numbers of 18 and 19 kids,
barely breaking even, and I can say that the reason we're at
34 right now is because of the programs and because of the
marketing that Mr. Wilbanks and Ms. Harris has done. And
I -- I feel real strong about this issue, because I feel
like, personally, I've been called to work with troubled
youth since I was 16, 17 years old. I felt like this is the
line of work that I need to be in, and here's where I'm at.
And I feel like that if we can provide the type of
counseling that we're providing now, that we need to
maintain that. Because, heaven forbid, I'd hate for a
taxpayer to be paying for adults when we could have
corrected the issue as juveniles.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am?
MS. LEBOW: Morning. My name is Lisa Lebow,
and I'm a JDO at Kerr County Juvenile Facility. And before
I came here, I worked at a T.Y.C. unit for eight years, and
a lot of the -- it was an all-male facility, and a lot of
8-31-05 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
the guys that came in had nothing in their past but being
locked up, locked up, locked up, locked up, and that's all
they knew. And we started having some type of therapy for
them and trying to turn some of them around, and sometimes
we did and sometimes we didn't. Sometimes they were just
too far gone. And I think that the program that we have out
there is -- it's really good, because I've seen the other
side of it, and this end of it is -- hopefully, it will keep
them out of T.Y.C. and out of the adult prisons. And it's
really, really important, and I don't think a lot of y'all
really understand that. If y'all could go through T.Y.C.
and the adult prisons and then see what we're doing out
there, it should make a difference.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. LEBOW: Hopefully y'all will take that in
consideration.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, every -- I'm
probably being very redundant, but every departmental budget
we review, whether it's an appointed head or elected head,
we don't -- we continue not to deal with the issue that
we're a very costly county, and the reason we're a costly
county is we got more people. And the answer I keep getting
from everyone is, we either have the right number of people,
or we don't have enough people. And I can't rationalize
8-31-05 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
those things.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if you look at
the two scenarios, as you have done, prepared by -- the
comparison put together by the Auditor, the Facility
Administrator's proposal at 100 percent shows negative
balance -- fund balance of $62,000, and at 80 percent on the
Chief Probation Officer, $71,000. Those are almost in sync,
when you really get down to it, so it really boils down
to -- to the staffing levels. And, as you pointed out
earlier, there's about a 300, $315,000 difference in
staffing requirements, and somehow or other we've got to
grapple with that, because I think therein lies the answer
of how we get to where we need to go. Which philosophy is
best? Which one can produce the results that are necessary,
required, and which one will continue -- enable to us
continue marketing these programs successfully? Apparently,
we've enjoyed some success in marketing to-date, or
Ms. Harris would not be able to report to us that there are
34 juveniles in residence and another seven on the way, so
we undoubtedly have enjoyed some success in that regard.
The question is, how do we get from where we are today to a
balanced or close to a balanced budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else we can do on
this particular subject at this point?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to make one
8-31-05 bwk
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
more comment and kind of piggy-back off Commissioner Letz'
point that we are hired -- elected and hired by the
taxpayers of Kerr County. And this year, this facility, we
will go into the red around a million dollars. And
regarding some of the comments from the employees, I wasn't
hired to take care of taxpayers of El Paso County or any
other county. I was hired to do this job, to take care of
the taxpayers of Kerr County. And so, you know, looking at
this whole thing and all these great sums of money, in my
opinion, a lot of it is going back to one of our original
conversations, is that we're taking -- we're spending a lot
of Kerr County taxpayers' money to take care of people from
another county. And that, to me, is step one. And I can't
even get my brain wrapped around step one. I just think
that's a wrong thing to do. That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further? Or do we
move --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think Dr. Troxel has
something to say.
JUDGE TINLEY: Dr. Troxel?
DR. TROXEL: I'm Dan Troxel, superintendent
of the schools in Kerrville Independent School District.
And, Judge and members of the Court, I appreciate this
opportunity to come and speak to you about an additional
8-31-05 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
aspect of the juvenile facility that I want to make sure all
of you are aware of. There are obligations that I have
throughout -- and opportunities to speak to the State
Legislature. I've spoken many times to our school board,
and I'll say the same thing to this esteemed body, and that
is that I do not set policy. As a superintendent, the
obligation -- the role that I have is to inform people who
do set policy what their decisions will have and the
ramifications they will have. And I wanted to pass out to
you, and I've passed out to several members of the audience,
an analysis of the revenues and expenditures that the
facility is actually costing or generating for Kerrville
ISD. And if you'll go across the sheet with me a little
bit, I can show you what the impact of this is on the
taxpayers of Kerrville ISD, which are also taxpayers of Kerr
County; they pay to both entities.
The average daily attendance is a little bit
different than what you may have for enrollment, and the
reason for that is the State calculates average daily
attendance based across a long period of time. It's the
number of kids that are in our facility for the entire year,
and then it's also kids that are in actual classrooms, and
that can vary, because a student may be placed in isolation
for some type of event or may be ill and not able to come to
the class that day. So, you actually may have more students
8-31-05 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
enrolled in your facility than you have the average daily
attendance. We took just the first three days of the school
year to look at '05-'06; we had 24 to 26 kids at that time
that were enrolled, and as you've heard, that enrollment has
gone up.
You can look at the second line; that shows
you the state revenue we get based on those students. Now,
funding for education is a little bit different than funding
for other entities from the state. The type of student you
have enrolled determines the amount of revenue that you
generate. If you have a regular student who has no special
education needs, has no other needs whatsoever, that student
generates less money than a student who actually has special
education needs. So, when the facility enrolls individuals
who have greater hardships in their life, actually, we
generate more -- we generate more revenue from the state.
And then you look at the next line, and that's our
expenditures. And that's very important, 'cause we have
payroll. That's the five teachers that we have out there.
We have to have five teachers. We have four in the core
subject areas; science, social science, math, and English
for the postadjudicated students. And then we have one
teacher for the preadjudicated students, because there's
usually less students in the preadjudicated unit, plus
they're there usually for much shorter durations of time.
8-31-05 bwk
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We also have a halftime counselor that we
send out to the facility who helps with various issues like
counseling, but also looks at schedules when these kids are
transitioned back to their home counties, particularly the
postadjudicated kids. We have contracted services. That's
for any individual who comes out and does training, and we
have training that we do with our teachers, and we allocate
the training per teacher across our entire district. So, if
we do training with the entire district, the juvenile
facility gets charged their correct allocation based on five
teachers being there. We have a supply budget, which we
have gone down significantly, as you can tell. We've gone
down across the district significantly on our supply budget,
and still making sure our teachers have what they need. And
then we have travel, and travel may be just a teacher who
has to go to a workshop, that may have to come to central
office for a meeting. There may be a special education
student that they're going to have an ARD on, and that's a
special meeting, and they have to travel to that meeting; we
pay for their mileage.
And so you can see, then, the excess revenues
are deficit. And I've heard some of the comments made about
the money that K.I.S.D. makes off of this facility, so I
wanted to be clear on this. In '02-'03, and if you look
down even further, it says number of students needed to
8-31-05 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
break even. In '02-'03, we needed 34.4 students. We had 41
that were in that facility, and so actually K.I.S.D. made
$6,948 that year on the students that were in the facility.
That's almost $7,000 to the plus for the taxpayers of the
Kerrville Independent School District and your taxpayers.
'03/'04, it dropped to 32 students, and because our property
values are going up in Kerr County, under what is called the
Robin Hood school of finance system, as we have more revenue
coming in from the local taxpayers, we get less state aid,
and so you actually see that we have less students. We have
a drop in the amount of revenues we made, and actually we
had a deficit that year of about $6,500.
Last year, due to a lot of the issues at the
facility, the numbers dropped, average daily attendance, to
22. We ran a budget deficit of $114,000. $114,839 was our
budget deficit; that's what it cost Kerrville ISD last year
to keep that facility open. If you look at the bottom of
the page, $114,839 is one cent on our tax rate, so last year
we could have actually lowered taxes for the citizens of
Kerr County that are in K.I.S.D. one penny. Now, this year,
we've obviously had to hire teachers. We've had to put them
on a contract, because they're going to be out there, and
under each teacher's -- they get a contract, the
professionals; it's under state law. There's $262,000
25 ~ obligated already to pay for those teachers. If you close
8-31-05 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
the facility tomorrow, we still have to pay those teachers.
That means we'll have no students out there; we'll generate
no state revenue at all, because there will be zero
students. That means that if you close it tomorrow, the
K.I.S.D. will have raised taxes two pennies more than what
is needed. We could have lowered taxes two pennies this
year without that facility being open if we had known that
back in June or July, but since that's already obligated,
those teachers have to be paid. And that's the equivalent
of two cents, so it does cost the taxpayers of Kerr County,
those in Kerrville ISD, if you shut that facility down
tomorrow, two pennies on the tax rate. And that is quite a
bit of money, actually.
So, I just wanted to be clear on that, that
it's very important -- if you do decide to look at whether
you're going to hopefully keep the facility open or
hopefully close it down, depending on what your perspective
is in the audience, it's important that you look at the
timing of when you close down the facility, if you're going
to go that direction. That's a critical factor. If you
decide to keep it open, you can see that we're going to need
about 48 students. If you have 48 students out there, we
should just about break even. And what I'm hearing this
morning is, it's going to be about 48 students that we're
looking to have enrolled, so if we can get the enrollment up
8-31-05 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
to 48 children, the net impact to K.I.S.D. will more than
likely be neither a gain nor a loss; it will be just about
an even. If we close it down this week or this month, it's
as much as a two-cent loss to the taxpayers of our county,
at least those in K.I.S.D. I don't know if you have any
questions about this, but I thought it was important for you
to realize that there is a bigger issue than just Kerr
County; it's also an independent school district issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what, basically,
you're saying is that our decision needs to be made in June.
DR. TROXEL: Well, actually, your decision
needs to be made for the following year in late spring,
because we start off in contracts with teachers in March.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: March?
DR. TROXEL: And so we would need to know by
March whether or not you were going to hold that facility
open. And what would happen to these five individuals, just
so you know, we would absorb them. We always have people
retire, people move on, and we would absorb them. They
would have jobs. They are Kerrville ISD teachers. As a
matter of fact, quite frankly, they're some of our very best
teachers we have in the district. And Ms. Harris does an
outstanding job at that facility. Again, I can't advise you
which direction to go. That's your decision, and certainly
that's one that you were elected to make. I just wanted to
8-31-05 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
make sure you had all the data and all the facts before you
went forward.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dr. Troxel?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you count in your
A.D.A. even those kids that come from other counties?
DR. TROXEL: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the school
district in El Paso counts the ones that we send from here.
DR. TROXEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, does it -- how --
how many days does a client/student/prisoner have to be here
before you can include him in your A.D.A.?
DR. TROXEL: Just one day.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One day?
DR. TROXEL: Because it's a cumulative over
the year average daily attendance. And it used to be, years
ago, and that may be some of the issue, that there was one
day, and it was called a snapshot day. That was the day we
took enrollment. Actually, it used to be even periods
during those days; we would take it second period at the
second-year level. That's no longer true. We have the
capability now, with the very good data system that the
State of Texas has developed, to look across the whole year,
look at every period. Those students, by the way, also
8-31-05 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
count on our accountability scores. If they are here in the
last day in October, which is called the snapshot date, they
take the State-administered test when they come -- when it
comes around in the spring in February or March. Those
students count against Tivy High School's scores. They are
considered Tivy High School students by the State of Texas.
It's something Harvey Hilderbran, our state representative,
was trying to get legislation passed to get changed, but
unfortunately the Legislature bogged down this last session
and wasn't able to get that enacted. So, not only do we
count them in the A.D.A.'s; those students that are there in
October and stay through the testing time count in our state
accountability scores. And I'm proud to say, last year --
and there were only a handful -- every one of those students
passed. That's the quality of teachers that you have out
there working with these kids; many, as Ms. Harris can
testify, who come in reading significantly below grade
level. It is really a -- a real compliment to her and the
staff out at the juvenile facility. They do really
miraculous work with the kids.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The A.D.A. is a good
thing. The testing could be a bad thing.
DR. TROXEL: It could be. It's helped us in
the past because the students have done well. But as we get
more students for long-term, which is what we're looking at,
8-31-05 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
my understanding, to keep kids there longer, we'll have more
and more students who count against Tivy High School or the
district's accountability, because they also go in the
district's accountability system. The State is looking at
taking them out of Tivy High School's accountability system
and rating, but still keeping them as a part of the
district, and that's going to be a Texas Education Agency
decision, hopefully within the next month or two.
JUDGE TINLEY: You expect there to be a
decision out of T.E.A. along that line?
DR. TROXEL: We do. Because in the last
legislative session, not the one that just ended, but the
one prior to that, there was a direction from the
Legislature that we need to count all students, regardless
of what kind of facility they're in, in some accountability
system. And what they're saying now is we need to look at
what high school -- and most of these kids are high school
kids -- did they come from, and hold that school
accountable. Not a system that they came to for just two or
three months, 'cause they may have been in, you know, the
district I came from, Cypress-Fairbanks ISD, for an entire
15 or 16 years, and then they get counted on the KISD
accountability system in high school. And I believe they
will do that. I still believe, though, that they will count
them against the district. And, I do believe that schools
8-31-05 bwk
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
need to be held accountable for every student, but they need
to be our students.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions for Dr. Troxel?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is good
information, and it's part of the formula that -- we need to
consider that along with everything else. And that reminds
me, as an aside, lately, I frequently hear people talk about
the City's people and the County's people, and they're
saying that our constituents are those that live outside the
city of Kerrville. There's not a person in Kerrville,
taxpayer or voter or citizen, that's not represented by one
of these four Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't see -- I
don't view any difference in my constituents that live in
Coronado area than I do in Mountain Home area, and I worry
about my constituents who pay taxes in Kerrville.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else for Dr. Troxel?
Thank you, sir. We appreciate you being here. Any other
member of the Court have anything to offer at this juncture
on Agenda Item Number 1?
COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	Judge,	I do.	I just
had a -- had a thought, that	back in	-- back	in the	olden
days, once, when we would purchase a police car, we would
8-31-05 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
see the $24,000 that we were purchasing the police car, and
never thought about the red lights that goes on it and the
siren that goes on it, the camera that goes on it. Or we
would purchase computers and never think about this big
software package and the maintenance of it, you know, et
cetera, et cetera. There's an issue that -- that is -- that
relates to the Juvenile Detention Facility in the same way,
and that is the maintenance of those buildings. If we -- if
we keep both buildings up and running, what is the long-term
maintenance? Are there problems with the old building?
Problems with the new building? Have we gotten all that
resolved? That was a few months ago, we were -- we had
some -- actually had sewer running out on the ground, et
cetera. But I think Glenn has done a study, and I think
we're going to talk about that later on, but I wondered if
he had a -- Glenn Holekamp had a comment or two of his
recent findings on that old building. That is -- you know,
it's like Number 4 just said; it's one of the -- one of the
pieces of the cog here that we need to look at, in my
opinion. Glenn?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank you, Commissioner. And
a "study" might be a premature statement, but, you know, in
all these discussions, I hear 48 beds, 16 beds, whatever --
doesn't really matter -- residents. One of the issues that
should have been brought up, are we talking about the old
8-31-05 bwk
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
facility? Are we talking about the new facility? Are we
talking about a combination of both? There's some issues on
the old building. They're very costly issues for -- I'll
call them repair. But we're -- for one thing -- and
Ms. Harris understands this -- there's no generator on the
old building, which should have had a stand-alone generator.
That's never been done, and no fault of theirs. That was
prior to Kerr County getting that facility, that it was not
installed. They have also an air-conditioner, and this is a
big unit, a 7.5-ton unit that, in the opinion of the air
conditioning people, is nonrepairable, so we're talking
about $7,500 there. Now, this is the old building, not the
new building, 'cause I really have no knowledge on the
maintenance on it at this point.
And then some plumbing issues that, due to
the nature of the fixtures -- and the Sheriff has got the
same situation. Institutional fixtures are a completely
different ball game than what you have in your house. A
Delta don't work in a facility. So, what you have is -- and
it was a facility that was built with low best bid. And I'm
not accusing, because this is pretty much standard in the
business, is the contractor went out and met specifications,
but he didn't say that you couldn't get parts for them. So,
we're faced with some replumbing issues, costly repair
issues to fixtures and that sort of thing as far as plumbing
8-31-05 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
is concerned. So, you know, this is -- is approximately
$20,000 right here, in my estimation, as to -- in the old
building. Now, I have no clue on the new building as far
as, you know, the condition of it. I hear that they -- they
flush the commodes twice a week to keep, you know,
everything flowing and working. And -- but I think that
part of my concerns are -- is have we defined which
building?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The answer is no, we
MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But all the
discussion right now is around a 48-bed facility versus
something less. If it operates at anywhere from -- from
anything plus 24 to 48, it's in the old building. If it
operates at 24 or fewer, it's in the new building.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. And I guess that's my
question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Am I correct,
Ms. Harris?
MS. HARRIS: That's right.
MR. HOLEKAMP: It's really difficult for me
to put numbers into a maintenance budget until we identify
that. There's numerous issues that would come into play as
far as, you know, supplies and everything else based on
8-31-05 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
numbers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I mean,
everything I'm seeing from all the proposals is that it's
got to be at a 48-bed, so it's got to be the old building we
have to do.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, that being said, I
mean, at 24, it's shut down. There's just no question about
that.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I understand. But I have --
and this is my fault. I have not been able to -- to put any
numbers as to the -- a lot of these line items because of
the unknowns. And I'm not --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I'm not saying y'all need to
tell me that today, but, you know, there's some -- the
repair thing and custodial maintenance is going to be
relative to the numbers --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. HOLEKAMP: -- of residents.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Glenn, the -- are there
any pieces of equipment in the new building that can be
used -- taken out and used in the old building, such as the
plumbing fixtures?
MR. HOLEKAMP: I really don't know that
8-31-05 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
answer. I couldn't --
MS. HARRIS: I wouldn't --
MR. HOLEKAMP: I have not studied that part
of it.
MS. HARRIS: I don't know, Commissioner. My
first gut reaction would be no, because the fittings are so
totally different. Because in the new building, your
plumbing fixtures are modern, up to date, whereas the
plumbing fixtures in the old building are not. And you
can't even get replacement parts. As a matter of fact, I
know that -- that Glenn's department has had to fabricate
some fittings.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That may be something --
I mean, if we end up, you know, operating the facility, it
may be worthwhile looking at that, because I don't see any
short-term use for that -- for the new building.
MR. HOLEKAMP: But, there again, I'd need the
direction from the Court as to, you know, that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to point
out that there's another piece of the pie that we have to
consider. I mean, there's a long-term cost here.
MR. HOLEKAMP: And Ms. Harris has worked with
me for quite some time on trying to prepare me for this, but
-- and it's really difficult with the unknowns of how many
residents and which facility and that sort of thing that we
8-31-05 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
need to do. So, I just need a direction, and then I can go
from there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This may be a foolish
question, Judge, but I've got to ask it anyhow. With a
population that exceeds 24 now, if you were to pare down
your population to 24 and operate out of the new facility,
what would the corresponding staff reductions be, and where
would that take us?
MS. HARRIS: You'd have -- you would have to
have 12 JDO's and your shift -- and then your shift
supervisors, of course. In my proposal, I have control
operators, because that's the safest -- in my mind, that's
the safest scenario, is to have control operators, so your
shift supervisors are free to respond to whatever it is they
need to respond to. But it would -- for 24 kids, it takes
12 JDO's.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on this
particular agenda item from any member of the --
MS. HARRIS: I would request, respectfully,
that we try to come to a conclusion quickly. We do have
these counties that are waiting to hear, and we need to be
able to tell them something. There's a possibility the
8-31-05 bwk
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
longer we wait, if -- if you decide to keep the facility
open, we may lose some of those kids, because they've got to
place those kids somewhere. And so I would respectfully
request that we -- that you make a decision quickly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- I mean, I
have a few questions I really would like to ask under the
personnel side. If we can post a meeting for Monday
afternoon -- or Tuesday afternoon, I think we can pretty
much make a decision Tuesday afternoon.
JUDGE TINLEY: That would probably be the
earliest. Considering posting requirements, that's the
earliest we could get that. Anything else by any member of
the Court? Let's move, then, to Item 2, which is kind of an
open-ended cleanup item. Some folks are going to -- we're
going to let them clear out here for a few minutes. We did
not get the opportunity to consider any issues, if there are
any issues, relating to the Extension Service. That's under
Item 23. Let's go ahead and get that disposed of.
Mr. Walston?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Claudio, would you
turn the air-conditioner down? I'm about to freeze to
death. Please?
are?
MR. HOLEKAMP: I got it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 23? Is that where we
8-31-05 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
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, under 23.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Somebody has stolen my
23.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Walston was unable to be
with us previously when he was on that long list. Are there
any particular items in your budget that is -- the draft
that's been worked up by the Auditor and reported to you,
Mr. Walston?
MR. WALSTON: Not anything, other than --
that's changed since our proposal. The only other thing
that we're looking at is -- is the possibility of a
part-time secretary position. Which I realize, you know,
may not be available, but if it is, we'd like -- if we're
able -- it looks like, with the additional funding from the
IV-E funds, that we're working on a new position. That
would give us four agents and four full-time positions, and
one secretary, and that would be more than any one secretary
can handle, so we would need to try to figure out some way
to work around that somehow.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's the only issue
that we have that was out of the ordinary?
MR. WALSTON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Any
questions? Or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's contributing
to the need for another secretary?
8-31-05 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
MR. WALSTON: Well, we're looking at -- at
adding a Juvenile Probation position, which would be funded
through IV-E funds, through Juvenile --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Juvenile Probation
MR. WALSTON: It's a position that will be
funded through the Juvenile Probation funds. It's -- it
will be a youth position that we'll be working with kids
that are on probation, and it will be a part of the 4-H
program, and that one individual will be working with those
-- with those kids.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that have
anything to do with the gardening program and so forth?
MR. WALSTON: They'll be doing some master --
they'll be working with our master gardeners as a junior
master gardener program. They'll be working in -- working
in character development. We're looking at this position
breaking this group into two different -- two different age
groups. The younger age group will be working on character
development, junior master gardeners and some things like
that. The older group would be working with career
education, career planning, as well as master gardeners,
junior master gardening. So, it's going to be -- it's a
whole new program. There's not another one in the state
like it. We're trying to get these kids that have, for
8-31-05 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
whatever reason, made a bad choice at some point in time,
that they're going to have an opportunity to be mentoring
with some of our older senior 4-H'ers that -- and hopefully
give them some positive peer pressure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question, and I don't
know if it's to you or Kevin. I guess it's coming out of
Kevin's, is where the money's coming from. Is this position
used for -- basically, is it -- how does it tie in with the
juvenile facility? Is it all those kids we're talking
about, or is it Kerr County kids?
MR. STANTON: It's Kerr County Juvenile
Probation's kids. It has nothing to do with the facility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nothing to do with the
facility, so just Kerr County kids. And is there a -- I
guess, a benefit at all to the facility? I mean, what I'm
looking at, is this a way to get state dollars to help pay
for someone that's going to help the facility?
MR. STANTON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, this is a totally
different program.
MR. WALSTON: And we originally -- when we
started this, we were trying to go through A & M to see if
we could get it as a state position, and they're not adding
any new positions in the state now, so we weren't able to
get -- you know, the state dollars are -- you may be
8-31-05 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
referring to his rather than Extension dollars. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: The whole effort is -- I
guess, what, six, eight months ago, I started talking to you
about this. We want to try and integrate especially some of
the younger youthful -- the young offenders for the less
serious offenses into the 4-H type programs. They've got a
lot of character development, leadership, and mostly it's
going to -- it's going to expose them to positive peers, as
opposed to what may be largely responsible for them getting
where they are, being subject to negative peers. And it
also gives the 4-H -- existing 4-H leadership, the children
in the program, an opportunity to be mentors and positive
influences on these younger individuals and to demonstrate
and exercise their leadership that they have learned at 4-H,
and it's trying to integrate them into the 4-H programs that
are very positive programs for them.
MR. WALSTON: And it -- you know, with the
number of kids he's talking about, it's -- it would take
a -- you know, I think, to make it a successful program,
it's going to take somebody that can be devoted to that
program. And with the hopes of getting a new FCS agent,
we'd get a full staff. If we have four agents in there,
it's a handful for Jamie to handle.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many Kerr County kids
8-31-05 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
would it be envisioned that would work with this new person?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many?
MR. STANTON: 40 to 60 kids.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it can be a
requirement that they have to go through this program?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, it would be
court-ordered through the court that they participate in the
program. Then the other component that they're also -- that
they're also going to do is, we're going to be tying it into
our community service program, where we're going to be able
to expand our community service program to -- right now
we're only able to do it on weekends or during the
summertime during the week. We're going to expand our
community service program also to during the school year,
doing it on Saturdays, one Saturday a month, so it's also
going to help in that aspect also.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you're taking a
kid that has made some bad choices and putting them in a
program where older folks can mentor them and guide them.
Where's the down side of that? I like that.
MR. STANTON: There's really not. And the
financial aspects of it, we -- we are -- initially, we're
going to be using -- possibly trying to use IV-E funds,
8-31-05 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
which is federal money that the Juvenile Probation
Department receives to pay for this position. We are also
going to try this year -- and this will be something new
that's never been tried. We've cleared it through Alamo
Area Council of Governments the other day when we had our
initial community planning meeting that we can also apply
for grants through them to fund these positions, and also
fund the program. So, we're going to be writing grants
through AACOG to do this, and also using our federal money
to fund the program.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need to be running
to that kind of stuff, in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're making some pretty good
progress on it, Commissioner. We're trying to move forward
on it pretty good here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good
investment to make.
MR. WALSTON: Any other questions?
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for
Mr. Walston?
MR. WALSTON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We appreciate
it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a comment
8-31-05 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
on the budget. Looking at Page 68 --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 68?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Same tab.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second page in the
Extension budget, estimated actual versus requested.
121,000 versus 146,000 is a $25,000 increase, or 20 percent
increase, and like everything else, that increase is related
to people. And I wondered if the performance of the
Extension Service hasn't been pretty good while operating
one agent short, and question the need to staff up from
three to four agents.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you saying that we
shouldn't do the new program, or we shouldn't hire the
vacant position?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Shouldn't hire the
vacant position.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Roy, can you go over the
duties of the three existing --
MR. WALSTON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- positions? 'Cause,
obviously, one's vacant right now.
MR. WALSTON: Yeah. In Texas, what they do
is we have -- basically, in Kerr County, we have three
positions. We have the County Extension Agent,
Agriculture/Natural Resources. We each -- we work as
8-31-05 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
Ag/Natural Resource agent. I spend about half my time as a
4-H and youth development coordinator. Currently, we have
our 4-H County-paid position, which Laurinda Boyd holds, and
it's a 4-H Program Assistant, and she works primarily with
our after-school program, the club managers, some of our
senior and junior council leadership teams, and -- and
basically trying to build -- like we mentioned earlier,
building community initiative is trying to bring kids into
the 4-H programs from other areas of the community. The FCS
position is -- is the other state-paid -- Family and
Consumer Science position is a state position, which is
both -- the Extension and the Ag and FCS are the only state
and county-partnered positions that we have here in the
county. And her responsibilities are foods and nutrition,
family health, diet, diabetes education. And with a
community as we have here in Kerr County that's a large
percentage of elderly people, it's -- diet and health and
nutrition has been a key part of our overall program. And
it's -- as well as she works with the 4-H and youth in the
foods and nutrition and -- and consumer science categories
and areas. So, those are the three positions that we have
now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you go over the
salary breakdown as to how the county versus the state
funding goes into these salaries?
8-31-05 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
MR. WALSTON: The -- what it is, as far as
the county funding, is there's a -- as far as what we're
actually putting into it, I really could -- I'll have to --
I'd have to -- 'cause I really don't know what her salary
is, or -- you know, percentage-wise, you know. It's -- I'm
going to say, percentage-wise, you know, we're looking at
probably -- I'm going to say 30 percent is County-funded,
not counting travel.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- but -- so, with --
MR. WALSTON: Just salary.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- your position and the
FCS position, those are, the majority, state-funded
positions?
	MR. WALSTON: Yes. Yes.
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then the 4-H is a
majority, or	totally Kerr County-funded position?
	MR. WALSTON: Yeah. Yeah -- yes, sir,
Laurinda's is	totally Kerr County, but as far as the only
two -- like I	say, the ag and FCS positions, I'm going to
say anywhere	from 20 to 30 percent is --
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is local?
	MR. WALSTON: -- is county-funded.
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
	MR. WALSTON: Mm-hmm.
	JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on that
8-31-05 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
particular one? Why don't we take about a 15-minute recess
here, and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Great idea.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- come back, and we'll start
wading through some of these more general items, if we don't
have any specific ones to cover. We'll be in recess for
about 15 minutes.
(Recess taken from 10:20 a.m. to 10:39 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to order, if
we might, to our budget workshop. We were in recess for a
few minutes, and we'll come back to order. With respect to
Item 2, is there any particular department budget that any
member of the Court feels like we need to get back into,
either any specific item or in its entirety?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I do, but a
little later on in the cap -- probably the capital outlay
items, I have one issue. But I think Mr. Letz has some -- I
believe he's going to bring something up. Are you?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I will. The -- we
received from the Auditor several days ago this sheet.
Tommy, can you explain what's in this? What --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- made up -- what
numbers are in here and what numbers aren't in here, and is
8-31-05 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
there any cost-of-living built into this? Exactly what's in
here? 'Cause this is kind of the starting point, in my
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good question.
MR. TOMLINSON: Does everyone have the
'05-'06 budget summary?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the -- the tax revenue
numbers are -- are the taxes on the current levy, so that
would be -- the taxes that we collect are really for
'05-'06.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what we got from
the Appraisal District or from Paula Rector?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At the current tax
rate per hundred?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: And then the non-tax revenues
are my estimates for '05-'06.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: The -- the expenditure
column, all of the -- all the dollars are the same as
'04-'05, except for the -- the debt for the 2005 Certificate
of Obligation. And there -- there is not a number in there
8-31-05 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
for the juvenile facility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you didn't plug in
the budget numbers off of -- you just used what was in
there?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I didn't have salary
numbers, so I used -- I used last year's budget, is what I
used.
JUDGE TINLEY:
the longevity and educational
under our existing policy?
MR. TOMLINSON:
COMMISSIONER L
JUDGE TINLEY:
just what those numbers are?
MR. TOMLINSON:
JUDGE TINLEY:
MR. TOMLINSON:
So, that does not even include
increases that are mandated
No, it doesn't.
ETZ: Well, this --
Do we have that figure yet,
I think the Treasurer does.
Okay.
I think she's prepared for
that today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tax anticipation note
is what is currently in the budget, not what is projected?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's projected. That's the
new debt that will -- for the 2005 certificate of
obligation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
8-31-05 bwk
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did we -- is that the
last payment on that one, or is there --
MR. TOMLINSON: No, that's the new one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the new one, okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: The last -- we made the last
payment on the other one August the 15th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's not in here any
more?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: What is the tax anticipation
note?
MR. TOMLINSON: That -- that is for -- wait a
minute. Okay, that -- that does come out. I'm sorry, I
missed that. That is the old debt.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is the old
number?
MR. TOMLINSON: That is the old number.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're -- 448 comes
off of this?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wait a minute. You
got to plug in a new number.
MR. TOMLINSON: I did. I already did. It's
about a wash.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 472?
8-31-05 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
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 2005 certificate of
obligation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
the 448,4 comes out?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
about -- that just about gets us in b
but it doesn't include COLA and other
MR. TOMLINSON: Nor --
facility.
Oh, I see it. So,
we're 448 -- okay.
Okay. That gets us
dance on this sheet,
things like that.
nor the juvenile
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nor the what?
MR. TOMLINSON: Nor the juvenile facility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, what's the '05
certificate of obligation?
JUDGE TINLEY: He's talking about
operational.
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm talking about the
operating budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got you, okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: Nor does it include --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, it --
MR. TOMLINSON: -- any of the major
increases, like for like EMS, for example. That does -- it
8-31-05 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
does not include that in here either. The reason I -- the
reason I gave it that approach was that it's to show you
what the fund balance would be if we used the same numbers
as we had last year, or for '04-'05.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Based on the certain
tax base that's given to you for '05-'06?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. I don't know if you --
you have that worksheet I did for you a couple weeks ago. I
did one to show you what the total increase over '04-'05 was
for -- for taxes, and it's 592,000 for -- for the -- that's
for the general fund. For Road and Bridge, the increase was
approximately 26,000, new money, with --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What was that first
number?
MR. TOMLINSON: 592,374, to be exact.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's in here.
That's in this sheet.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it's in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The increase is in there.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: And Road and Bridge is 24?
MR. TOMLINSON: 27. 27,000 in new money for
Road and Bridge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, I mean, it's just
-- intuitively, I'm -- we're further out of balance than I
8-31-05 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
thought we were going to be. I mean, if we received -- if
we're looking at holding the line on expenditures on this
sheet, basically the same expenditures as we had last year,
and increasing revenue by almost 600,000, why aren't we --
where's the problem? Or where are we losing revenue? Are
we losing non-tax revenue?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, that -- I think the
non-tax revenues are fairly -- are relatively flat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Flat.
MR. TOMLINSON: We did lose some for
out-of-county prisoners for the jail, but it was -- that was
offset by -- by sales tax. I estimated one and a half
percent -- or 2 percent increase in sales tax for the year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- well, I guess -- I
think I just figured out the answer to my question. The
answer is the million dollars we spent on the juvenile
facility that went out of reserves this year.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why we're here.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's why we're at
3 million 8 to start with. The loss is in the first column.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We also lost about
$140,000, you told us, because of tax freeze; is that
correct?
8-31-05 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
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. The total --
the total -- the total levy, or the total valuation for
'05-'06 was 2 billion, 734 million dollars. The net
after -- the adjusted net after the property associated with
the freeze was 2 billion, 45 million, so we -- we lost --
there's $700 million associated with -- with the properties
that are in the -- that are associated with the tax freeze.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you say
700 million?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dollars?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In tax base. That
translates to about $140,000 in revenue?
MR. TOMLINSON: $140,000, yes. As you can
see, the -- if you add Column 1 -- add Column 2 and 3
together, we're almost -- if you use last year's numbers and
take away this tax note, we're fair -- we're right -- with
those numbers, we have pretty much a balanced budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, wouldn't you add
Columns 2, 3, and then the final column as well?
MR. TOMLINSON: No. I'm -- I'm trying -- I'm
comparing total revenues with total expenditures.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I really would
like to see this rerun, plugging in the -- all the
8-31-05 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
longevity, those type of increases, and -- as one. And then
another scenario with a COLA of --
JUDGE TINLEY: Three and a half.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three and a half? I'd
say three, but I thought 2.7 was the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 2.6 or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've got the
cost-of-living here from the Department of Labor I'll pass
out for everybody on the Court right now so you can see
exactly what it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're welcome.
MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, all --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you look at Page
2, you get the number.
MR. TOMLINSON: Everything that we've done so
far, I have loaded in the accounting system. All I -- all I
need is -- is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Salaries.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- salaries.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I'm thinking.
We just add the salaries in, because, you know, it -- it
appears to me -- I'm afraid that number, that when we put
salaries in here, we're not adding any people and we're not
adding a new computer system. I mean, that's kind of what
8-31-05 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
it looks like. I -- but, you know, until we run it,
sometimes the numbers are different than --
MS. NEMEC: I'll give y'all what I have on
that position schedule. I gave Tommy one, and then the
holiday schedule's attached there also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Tell me how I read
this cost-of-living data.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The top page shows
you the -- if you go to the second-to-last line, the '04
where I've got the green highlighted of 183.7, that's where
the cost-of-living index was at the beginning of our budget
year. And go to -- if you take a look at the bottom line
through July, the index is at 188.5, and it's adjusted to
the first half to 186.1. When you flip to Page 2, through
July, the index shows that cost-of-living adjusted for all
consumer goods and services about 3.2 percent, but that does
not take into consideration the fact that in the month of
August, the index spiked by about a half a point nationwide
because of fuel and related charges -- costs. So, you know,
3.2 plus whatever is about where we are in terms of what the
actual cost-of-living is for our fiscal year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 3.2 plus whatever.
What is the "whatever"?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's a good
8-31-05 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
question. All I know is that in the month of August, I
read, either in the financial pages or heard somewhere, that
the Consumer Price Index spiked by half a point because of
fuel charges and related costs of fuel.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, that 3.2 could go
up to 3.7. It could go somewhere between 3.2 and 3.7.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we need to rerun
the numbers with the 3.2?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, I think for our
purposes, 3.2 is an acceptable estimate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Add in all the salary
increases. What about -- what about each individual budget?
There was some increases just on the lines. Have they been
added in, or can we add them in too so we can see the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Tommy said he's
added those in as we've -- he's inputted things we've --
MR. TOMLINSON: Mostly -- well, the changes
that we've made to all the budgets are in the system, except
for any payroll-related issues.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay. All right,
I misunderstood.
MS. NEMEC: And on my position schedule, I
8-31-05 bwk
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
don't have any changes. It's just what's in place now, plus
the longevity.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we need a new
run that includes payroll adjustments due to longevity or
education, plus 3.2 or 3.5 percent, something like that.
MR. TOMLINSON: I'd like to suggest
something. Entering all that data into the accounting
system is time-consuming. If -- just to save time, if --
would it be okay to -- to load the longevity into the
system, and then get one number as far as the -- that
relates to the COLA?
11
12
13
14
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As long as we're -- I
mean, as long as it's close. As long as the total is, I
mean, close enough that we can make a decision on.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think -- I think that's
15
16
reasonable to be able to get the COLA amount that relates to
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
all the total payroll.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Total payroll. But you
can adjust, then, all the other related categories as well?
The retirement and insurance and --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we could apply -- we
apply the rate to that, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That's fine with
MS. NEMEC: On the position schedule also, on
24 me.
25
8-31-05 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
the Juvenile Detention Facility, the ones that were 10's, a
step and grade 10, we had talked sometime during the year to
bring those up to 12, 'cause we had talked about us not
having any 10's, so those are at 12's on my schedule.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: And then on the County Attorney's
office, I just got his numbers this morning on their
positions. You know, they were going to include the Hot
Check salary funds that they've been getting, and so I'll
have to adjust those three or four employees that it
affects.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, how hard is it to
give us a number, one including the juvenile facility and
one excluding the juvenile facility, the salaries?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I could give you one
total budget without the facility --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Without their salaries.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- and then give a separate
number just for salaries.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me hack at that
from a different angle, if I might. You show no revenue on
the juvenile facility, but you do show expenses in the
expense side?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
8-31-05 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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing in there at
all?
MR. TOMLINSON: I didn't put anything.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, to find out what
Commissioner Letz wants to know, we also need to crank in
anticipated revenue?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. As well as
expense load.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, really, I guess
what I was getting at when you -- Barbara's number has
juvenile facility -- or not number; her schedule has them
included. I'd like to pull all those out and let's look at
that as a separate -- I mean, I think we have enough
scenarios to know what that does financially. But I'd
rather look at it was a separate piece.
MR. TOMLINSON: I just felt like that that
was such an unknown --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- that it really didn't --
it really didn't mean anything to include it in these
numbers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I guess what I'm
-- when you go off Barbara's numbers, make sure that those
are not included.
8-31-05 bwk
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One more time; I
asked you on an earlier occasion. Is the revenue that's
received to the County through the Collections Department,
is that in here? And, if so, where?
MR. TOMLINSON: There -- all that revenue is
in the non-tax.
non-tax?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the tax --
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, what about the
insurance issue and the cost of it?
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the number we got from
the consultant indicated that we needed to run it to $628
per employee per year. If my recollection of those figures
is correct, that's how we needed to calculate that. I'm not
sure how it's calculated in here, but the figure which he
gave us on the projection was --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 8.8.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- $627 and 80-some-odd cents,
and we can round to it $628 or $630 for purposes of -- of
obligation of funds.
MR. TOMLINSON: That makes some difference.
If we -- if we apply his numbers to the total number of
8-31-05 bwk
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
staff, then that will make some difference.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to make
an insurance -- we have a pretty good idea. I mean, I
didn't remember that number; I remembered the -- that it was
an 8.5 percent overall increase.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: But the actual dollar figure
number went from 594 or -97 up to 627 and change, was the
actual dollar amount that he gave us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doesn't that number --
doesn't that number need to be in here somewhere?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the number that's in
there is actually a higher estimate than what -- that was
made before we had that figure, obviously. And so --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay. All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- I think it'll -- it will
make a positive difference in where we are at this point. I
don't know what figure was plugged in.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think -- I think it was
around 650, I believe. Isn't that right, Barbara?
MS. NEMEC: Well, actually, what we're --
what we're contributing for the employees right now is $505
per month. And when I was getting calls from the different
departments, I told them to add 15 percent to that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much?
8-31-05 bwk
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. NEMEC: $505 per month.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What percent?
MS. NEMEC: $6,000 a year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What percent add-on?
MS. NEMEC: 15.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 15.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Which, in my budget,
upped it for the Sheriff's Office -- not the jail, but the
Sheriff's Office alone, we increased that line item for
insurance by 41,936. In the budget preparation which is
already in there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't the consultant
indicate to us that the increase was going to be about
8.8 percent aggregate?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's about right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So you can cut that in
half. Instead of that 41,000 which is in mine, you can cut
it back down to 20,000 just for the Sheriff's Office. And
the jail would be that again.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Reduce your number
considerably?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, it would reduce
that. But it would reduce the Sheriff's Office budget by
another 20,000, and would reduce the jail budget, what y'all
looked at, by --
8-31-05 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
JUDGE TINLEY: We may have to get with
Mr. Looney to make sure we've zeroed in on that number
correctly if we need to, but we -- that was part of what he
was to do was to give us that figure for budgetary purposes.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It will reduce the jail
budget by 15,000, Sheriff's Office by 20, so you're talking
35,000 right there in reductions on what we turned in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, let's make sure
we're --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we're using the right
numbers.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MS. NEMEC: So, y'all are saying something
like 620, 630?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I'm saying.
MS. NEMEC: And I'm -- you know --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm saying we need to
doublecheck that.
MS. NEMEC: -- 505 --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because if we're at 505,
I know 8.5 percent was the total, and that doesn't mesh with
the 630. So, there's --
JUDGE TINLEY: No, it sure doesn't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we need to check with
8-31-05 bwk
7s
1
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. Looney and figure out what that -- verify what that
number is. I think we can at least dispense with the
holiday schedule today. I think we will be here next year,
though we may not have some things we hope to have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I gather we're moving
to the holiday schedule, then?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this the same
schedule we have this year?
MS. NEMEC: It is; there's just one day less
for Christmas holidays. Last year we had 13 and a half
days, and this year I'm showing 12 and a half days, taking
one day away from Christmas -- the Christmas holiday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because the holiday
falls on --
MS. NEMEC: The 24th is on a Saturday, and
the 25th is on a Sunday. The bank holiday is on Monday,
which is the 26th. And I added -- you know, I figured
Friday, half a day on the 23rd.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's good figuring,
in my opinion.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the Veterans Day holiday
was moved to the day, as opposed to the Monday, if my
recollection serves me correctly.
MS. NEMEC: Veteran's Day, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
8-31-05 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
MS. NEMEC: And that's also the bank holiday.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: On the 11th, Friday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the 4th of July --
MS. NEMEC: Is a Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is -- we're doing
it on the 4th of July, and that's --
MS. NEMEC: Right. And that's also the bank
holiday. And I'll run a new sheet, because I had the bank
getting the 25th and 26th, and it's 24th and 25th. So, if
this is approved, I'll correct that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I still think we need
to take Texas Independence instead of Martin Luther King.
MS. NEMEC: Well, since we're a day -- a day
less this year, we can just add it. (Laughter.)
JUDGE RAGSDALE: I like the girl's thinking.
MS. NEMEC: Would y'all like me to do that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The trade's what I'm
interested in.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I used to know a
union steward that sounded just like Barbara.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Have we pretty well got
that one thrashed out? Okay, let's come back up from the
bottom, I guess. Employee mileage and expense
8-31-05 bwk
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
reimbursement. Ms. Mitchell has been monitoring the
MS. MITCHELL: 35.
JUDGE TINLEY: Whatever. Earlier this week,
the Juvenile Board approved an amendment to the Texas
Juvenile Probation Commission master funding contract for
'05-'06, and the purpose of that amendment was to set new
reimbursement rates. And those rates were $85 for lodging,
which we've not been paying any attention to; we've been
using actual reimbursement. But the per diem for meals went
to $36 a day, and the mileage rate went to 40.5. Now, that
has not shown up on the Comptroller's web site. I'm
thinking it probably hasn't because we're not --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not in a new --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- to the State's fiscal year
yet. So -- but the -- the Juvenile Board was, I'm going to
say, required to approve it. That was how it was going to
work for the coming fiscal year with Juvenile Probation
Commission, under those reimbursement rates. So, I can only
assume that's what the State is going to.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's also the
federal standard now, 40.5.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I just think
that we need to simply adopt the state schedule and whatever
8-31-05 bwk
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
that's going to be. We probably need actual numbers to plug
in somewhere, though.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well we've -- what we did
previously is adopt the state, with the exception we deleted
the lodging and provided for actual reimbursement upon
demonstration of what that expense was.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd be in favor of doing
that same thing again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I still kind of
10 like that.
11
12
13 back.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Got a question in the
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir?
JUDGE RAGSDALE: For many years, the Justice
of the Peace, since we're required to do a lot of in-county
traveling, which we don't -- we're, I guess, not supposed to
turn in a voucher for -- to reimburse us; that's usually
out-of-county travel. We were given $100 a month for many
years, I think, until maybe two years ago, when y'all
decided to just say that that was part of salary and not
have a reimbursement line item. But we were given $100 a
month for 13 years. And, quite frankly, I can't afford to
do this. I've had a -- I notice in my vehicle, I had a
8-31-05 bwk
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
50 percent increase in gas; just in gasoline, not
reimbursement for using my vehicle for employment. I had a
50 percent increase in gasoline since last year. And that
is getting to the point that I can't afford y'all any more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I believe we
rolled that $100 in, and I believe there was also an
adjustment last year for salary for all elected officials.
You didn't lose the $100; it was just added in.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: No, I didn't say that, but
I'm losing 50 percent now because of fuel. And I'm not -- I
don't believe that any of us are really being reimbursed for
the use of our vehicle at -- we are not being paid for the
gasoline we use.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that every
elected official's in the same situation, and --
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Well, I don't -- I don't
know of any elected officials that drive a couple hundred
miles a month back and forth to the jail --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right here. We do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're looking at two
of them right here.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: I tell you what. Should --
maybe we'll trade? Because I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll be glad to trade
that, the dollar -- trade the mileage expenses on yours.
8-31-05 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
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Okay, I'll tell you what.
If the Court doesn't want to give us any more gas mileage,
then we`re probably going to have to cut back considerably
on what we do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I'm saying is that
you're not unique, and I think I'll consider that when we're
looking at our budget numbers as we consider everything. I
think every elected official that uses their car
substantially needs to look at getting an adjustment because
of that, but I'm just saying that J.P.'s aren't unique in
that area. Certainly, I drive countless miles daily for the
county in my vehicle, and I get the same hundred miles that
you get. And I think that there are other elected
officials -- the Tax Assessor drives, you know, a fair
amount because of the substation out -- which is your office
also.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Well, she's had to cut back
on that, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I'm just
saying that the thing -- it is a problem facing all elected
officials.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: We got off in an
argumentative state that we didn't need to get off into. I
was just trying to remind you that we are having to curtail
-- it is probably a 50 percent increase within a year, okay?
8-31-05 bwk
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And so I'm just asking that -- because it doesn't fit under
normal reimbursement, 'cause that's usually for
out-of-county travel. All I'm asking is that y'all would --
would help increase that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree, and I think it
is in my consideration to do that for --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- elected officials.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think it was 2002
that the $1,200 was folded into base salary, and I think the
Judge's point is that if that was still segregated and we
experienced the kind of fuel cost increases, we wouldn't be
thinking about increasing that $1,200 by 3.5 percent; we'd
probably be thinking about increasing it by 20 percent,
something like that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reality of it is,
when we did that, we rolled it in, that $1,200 became
taxable income, so it netted out -- it netted down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was taxable before.
It was taxable income before.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Well, you're supposed to be
paying tax on any vehicle reimbursement. You're supposed to
be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, it was
on -- and that's the reason it was rolled in, because it was
8-31-05 bwk
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
being taxed. It was part of the salary, so it didn't affect
that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Anyhow, the bottom
line is that 3.5 percent increase on $1,200 doesn't pay for
additional gasoline.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it doesn't.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Whether or not we
want to deal with that is a --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I think it's
probably a good one to weigh with everything else.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure, I agree.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Point's well-taken,
Judge.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Thank you, I appreciate it.
And I can't -- well, that's all right. I'll sit down.
JUDGE TINLEY: Capital outlay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have one.
Part of my statement y'all are going to find hard to
believe, and that part is that I was down here the other day
minding my own business, when a -- (Laughter) -- when a
gentleman came to see me, and he had a -- he had a copy of
something that he was -- he's a land man. He had been up to
the County Clerk's office doing research with his business,
and the copy that the copy machine put out, you couldn't
read one word on it. There was a whole bunch of lines and
8-31-05 bwk
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
just smeared ink, is what it was. So, being the good
representative that I am, I trotted down there to see about
this microfilm issue in the County Clerk's office, and
there's, I think, three copiers sitting there, and not one
of them work. Not one. And the place is packed with all
kinds of title people. And I just think we need to revisit
that a little bit. That was -- that's kind of embarrassing.
Of course, the answer is -- in my opinion, is
the title companies need to get together and purchase one
and put it back there for their use, but I don't see that
happening. I don't -- I don't even know if the County Clerk
requested anything. I know that there was a conversation in
here about it. Her and the District Clerk as well. But I
just think it needs to be revisited. And she has handed me
something here this morning, a bid of some sort. But, in
order to serve -- serve the public, I mean, they have to
have copy machines. You have to have one that works.
MS. UECKER: Are you talking about copy
machines or reader-printers?
MS. PIEPER: No, he's talking about
reader-printers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The printer, I'm
sorry. Forgive my misuse of terminology.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In relation to
25 microfilm?
8-31-05 bwk
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In relation to
microfilm?
MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, it --
JUDGE TINLEY: We have one that does print
out of three machines, correct?
MS. PIEPER: Yes, but it went down when a
gentleman -- a land man from Houston was here, and he was
very upset as well. So, we took our microfiche and went up
to the District Clerk's Office, and their machines didn't
work, so then we ended up calling a title company and drove
over to the title company, and we were able to use their
machines. But the gentleman was not happy, because he
needed to get his copies and get back to Houston, and that
threw him much later.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I hope he was a
lawyer.
MS. PIEPER: In the meantime -- in the
meantime, I called San Antonio, and they got a repair person
down as soon as they could, that afternoon. But what I
handed Buster was a quote for a new one. We can lease it
for $200, or we can purchase it for 10,000, $200 a month,
plus $400 maintenance a year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it's guaranteed at
the end of four years that it works perfect or --
8-31-05 bwk
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. PIEPER: Five years. Five years. I
believe it would be a five-year contract.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doesn't it actually
say that? Didn't it actually say that?
MS. PIEPER: Yes, I believe it does.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I mean, if --
that's the type of thing that we need; really don't have an
option on. We have to do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are our options?
What are our options there? I mean, if everything just
breaks --
MS. PIEPER: Either fund it or not fund it,
and me go through the same thing I've been going through.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we tell the title
companies, you need to go somewhere else?
MS. PIEPER: No, I can't do that. I have to
produce it. By law, I have to produce copies.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Guess we better fix
it, huh?
MS. PIEPER: That would be the best solution.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's not a
capital outlay item; that's a -- I mean, the way we're doing
it, it's a -- well, I guess if it's 10,000 -- what's the
limit?
MR. TOMLINSON: 1,000. 1,000.
8-31-05 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
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1,000?
MS. PIEPER: Our best option on that is the
lease-purchase for $200 a month. Rather than buying it
outright.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That way it's not a
capital outlay also.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's built into your
operating budget.
MR. TROLINGER: And I might mention one other
point. What Linda's doing with microfilm is converting it
to digital images and putting it on C.D. And instead of
having the microfilm available to the --
MS. UECKER: The reader-printers, yeah.
MR. TROLINGER: With the reader-printer, to
use the computers we have now. And I don't know if you
wanted to look at the cost of that.
MS. PIEPER: No, I don't.
MS. UECKER: I ain't purchasing no more
microfilm reader-printers. I'm done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why do you not want
to look at that, Jannett?
MS. PIEPER: Because we are in the process of
putting everything on the computer, so there's no sense in
8-31-05 bwk
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
having books, scanned items and discs and microfilm. That's
just kind of going to add to our -- add to what we've
already got. I mean, it's taking us a while, but we're
getting stuff in the computer on our system.
MR. TROLINGER: I guess you have quite a
larger volume than --
MS. UECKER: Well, what I'm going to do is,
the stuff that's already -- that we're scanning right now,
putting on the system, that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about the stuff where I have microfilm only,
before we got the imaging system two years ago. That's the
stuff I want to get off the film and get it onto C.D.'s.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's your cost to convert
your microfilm or microfiche to C.D.?
MS. UECKER: I think it's three -- three a
shot, and that includes the indexing of it as well, and the
program to read it on each computer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three what? How does
that translate to something I can understand?
MS. UECKER: Let's see.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Per page?
MS. UECKER: 5,400 shots, which is probably
two rolls of microfilm, is $162. And I had plugged this
into my budget request at, I think, an extra $3,000, 'cause
I've got -- I've got about 300 rolls of film I want to
8-31-05 bwk
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
convert.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's -- once it's
on -- I'll play boy-dummy here. What's the difference
between your putting it on C.D. -- isn't that the same as
putting it in the computer, essentially?
MR. TROLINGER: It is.
MS. PIEPER: But you won't -- I won't have to
go look for the C.D. that it's on. I can sit down at my
computer and just call it up right there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But once you get on a
C.D., you can just load it overnight.
MS. DECKER: Right. Once we get the C.D.
made, probably Jonathan will -- Jonathan -- John, sorry;
that's you -- will load it. He's advised me that we have
plenty of room on the hard drive so that we can load those
C.D.'s on the hard drive, and not be able to have to
actually go get the C.D.
MR. TROLINGER: We do, and that's the
long-term plan. Linda's found a very inexpensive way to get
the images -- to get the microfilm digitized. Once it's
digitized, we simply move it to the -- move it to the online
storage.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have a cost to digitize
the microfiche that the County Clerk has in her office that
we're dealing with with these reader-printers?
8-31-05 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
92
MR. TROLINGER: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know how many
microfiche you have?
MS. PIEPER: Cases. File cabinets. I
don't --
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
of them was $100, or a little bit
MR. TROLINGER: $8
MS. UECKER: Well,
be probably about $162.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
I mean, based on -- two
over.
0 per.
two of them will actually
So, about $80 per
microfiche. Or --
MS. UECKER: But, now, that's for a roll.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's for a roll. She's got
hers on individual sheets that only have about --
MS. PIEPER: I have rolls as well. I have
rolls as well. I have rolls and fiche, the sheets.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- I mean, it
would be interesting to know what the total -- what it would
cost to get yours -- to hurry up the conversion by going
onto C.D., and then letting John load them in.
MS. PIEPER: But if it's on my hard drive,
how's it -- when the web site gets built, how is it going to
get -- be put out to the public?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's in the hard
8-31-05 bwk
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
drive, that's Mr. Trolinger's problem. I mean, that's --
that's the whole -- that's where it goes -- it goes to the
indexing of the C.D.'s, that it's digitized, and after that
it's all about moving around some files on the computer. It
simplifies the -- the -- the expensive step is the $80 per
roll, and Linda's found an inexpensive -- that's relatively
inexpensive to have that work done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think we -- we
need to get a machine, 'cause this probably isn't going to
happen overnight. We have to have a machine that works, so
we need a machine. But I'd really be interested to see how
much it would cost to get all of yours on C.D. And, also,
that would free up one of your records people, correct?
Isn't someone doing that right now?
MS. PIEPER: No. I have part-time that that
fund is coming out of Records Management doing --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But, I mean, it's
still -- dollars are going into it. I mean, and we could --
those dollars could go once we get it changed.
MS. PIEPER: And the stuff -- well, let me
rephrase that. The stuff my part-time people are doing are
things that is not on microfilm or microfiche or the
computer. They're doing stuff that I have just in books.
8-31-05 bwk
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, who -- I mean, how
are you getting -- currently getting your stuff into the
computer?
MS. PIEPER: Well, because my -- my full-time
people -- like, when they get through with daily work, then
they're going -- then that's when they're trying to play
catch-up with the stuff on the microfilm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it will even -- I
mean, the sooner we get this done, it's going to help your
staffing situation.
MS. PIEPER: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, they're spending
hours in the day doing this, and if we get it done, those
hours of the day are going to be used for something else.
MS. PIEPER: As long as those images can be
uploaded to Ableterm, I don't have a problem with that.
That's my concern.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Mr. Trolinger
said that's --
MR. TROLINGER: It's doable.
MS. UECKER: We did a test -- we did some
tests. As a matter of fact, last -- last week or week
before, he came back with a C.D. and put it on Ableterm, so
it's doable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
8-31-05 bwk
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. PIEPER: But that was a test in your
criminal and civil packages. I have --
MS. UECKER: Right.
MS. PIEPER: -- my land records package.
MR. TROLINGER: For Jannett, this is a
long-term issue. I don't think it's a this-year issue that
we're going to be digitizing. I just want to bring up,
you're looking at a 5-year or 10-year obligation with that
machine, and we're going to make a change in that time
period.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Pieper, a few months ago,
didn't we visit this issue about your reader-printer
machines? And I think you had located a reconditioned
machine or something of that sort?
MS. PIEPER: No, I bought a brand new machine
a couple of months ago, but it's the only one that we have,
and it -- it did go down on us the other day.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, I had some
recollection that a few months ago, we had authorized the
acquisition of a new reader-printer because you were having
problems with it.
MS. PIEPER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: So you've got one new machine
there now?
MS. PIEPER: And it is the only one that
8-31-05 bwk
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
works, and I have had to call the repair man out. And we
have it in a side room so that we can hopefully detour the
public, because if public comes in and -- and we have -- you
know, one of the free deputies can assist in using the
machine, rather than just turning it over to the general
public. But they get swamped in there, and it doesn't
always happen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would -- I mean, if we
need a new machine, we need a new machine. That's a given
for you to conduct your office, but I still would like to
know the cost. And maybe Mr. Trolinger can get it to get
the clerk's records into the computer, because it seems to
me -- I mean, again, I just heard her say that a deputy, if
available, goes in and does this. That's personnel time
being, in my mind, wasted, having to go in to that machine.
If we can have the technology to get it into the computer,
which gets into Ableterm, and then we don't even need the
people coming into your office; they can get it off the
website. And that's --
MS. UECKER: If we -- if the Court decides to
go with the Odyssey package, that would be even easier.
Isn't that right, John?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes. Well, that's the only
way we could provide web access.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
8-31-05 bwk
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TROLINGER: We cannot right now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: While we're talking
about County Clerk issues, can you update us on the status
of the purchase of the voting equipment required by --
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- law, and your last
MS. PIEPER: I've talked with the vendor, and
there is another contract that is on
tweaked it to where it had -- it was
computers, and so he took me down to
know why I needed three. But he adj
that, and he's got it to where it --
than what we would be allocated from
the way. They have
listed with three
one computer. I don't
~sted some stuff like
it is a little bit less
HAVA from the grant.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MS. PIEPER: In order to do this, though --
because he did give us an 11 percent discount, and they
could not go in and give more of a discount, because he said
if he did us, because they're with the Texas Building
Procurement Commission, they have to go all through the
state of Texas and give everyone else more of a discount.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But he's not going to
give us less than the 11 percent?
MS. PIEPER: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's not reducing the
8-31-05 bwk
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
discount, but he's just not going to give us more; is that
correct?
MS. PIEPER: Right. He's not reducing that
discount by any more. He can't.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my point. But
MS. PIEPER: Right. Or whatever percent he
quoted, that's correct. However, in order to get the
numbers adjusted for what we will be allocated, before, I
was going to get the software that I could program the
ballot styles myself and do other stuff like that. And he
is -- he's had to take that off, and so we will -- each
year, we will pay them to do that. But he -- by taking off
some of the services, then --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, bottom line is,
you're back within the amount that the State gave us?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MS. PIEPER: And the contract should be on
its way for the County Attorney to look at again.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- there's a bid
on this table somewhere, and I'm wondering, would those
numbers hold till October 1? Or --
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
8-31-05 bwk
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, if we put it in
the budget and not crank it up or do the purchase or lease,
whatever, until beginning October 1, and then everybody's
real happy, and -- that's what I'd like to see done, without
actually voting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would agree with doing
that without voting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we -- do we need a second
new machine?
MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir. Unless you want the
general public back in your office more, complaining.
JUDGE TINLEY: All I've heard so far is
somebody in Houston. I don't think you have any
constituents from Houston that vote for you.
MS. PIEPER: No, this gentleman, I believe,
was local, wasn't he?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, he is. You don't
want him in your office, believe me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on the capital
outlay?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, did you get all
that? We need to add that in.
MR. TOMLINSON: We can.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As you heard, in
Jannett's budget.
8-31-05 bwk
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: A lease or a purchase?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Lease one machine.
JUDGE TINLEY: 2,400 a year.
MS. PIEPER: What about the $400 maintenance
a year?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's 200 plus 400.
MS. PIEPER: Isn't that what it says on
there? I don't know how that works.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's 200 plus 400,
it's cheaper to buy the machine.
MS. PIEPER: No, no, no, not 200 plus 400.
The 400, I believe, is just a yearly fee.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maintenance, 400 a year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2,800 is what you're
saying.
MS. UECKER: They usually provide the first
year's maintenance free.
MS. PIEPER: I have -- I just called him last
night, so it's --
JUDGE TINLEY: It's 250 a month.
MS. PIEPER: Oh, is it? Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Looks like it's going to be
about 3,400, including the maintenance. But you're exactly
right, the first year -- if they're not wanting to stand by
it the first year, I don't want it in the first place.
8-31-05 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
MS. UECKER: That's what I tell them; if you
don't give me free maintenance for the year, I don't want
it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, read down in
the middle of that -- no, the first page -- yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It said something in
there, after four or five years, that you will have a
perfectly running machine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a
lease-purchase, right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: May not run the first
three or four years, but after four years, it will be
running?
JUDGE TINLEY: Our rental agreement states
that you will have a perfectly operable machine for 60
months.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, for 60 months.
JUDGE TINLEY: During the lease period. So,
presumably, at the end of that 60 months, it's still
operable.
MS. UECKER: That sounds like a maintenance
agreement right there, without -- included in that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds like planned
obsolescence to me.
8-31-05 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
102
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on capital
outlay?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We've talked about
COLA, and we're awaiting figures there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're doing 3.2 or 3.5?
I heard both figures.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 3.2.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 3.5.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three --
MS. NEMEC: 3.5.
MR. TROLINGER: Do I hear 6?
JUDGE TINLEY: You joined the union stool; is
that correct? (Laughter.) The personnel schedule, we have
that. Personnel adjustments.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I really need to look at
the COLA -- the number first, and see if there's any
latitude for anything else.
JUDGE TINLEY: Would that be true also as to
salary increases over and above longevity and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Absolutely.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I thought I'd get that.
8-31-05 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
MS. DECKER: What about the issue that we
brought up -- and I haven't heard, you know, whether you've
decided to consider this or not -- to bring the 12-1's
within the offices -- to move that up, as opposed to
Maintenance that has 12-1's that don't speak English or
whatever?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'm somewhat
sympathetic to that, but I guess I have to look, really -- I
mean, I'd like to see -- the COLA's the most important thing
for the current employees, and that affects everybody. I'm
looking at the numbers that Tommy's given us. It looks
really bad for anything above the COLA. I mean, there's
going to, obviously, be a few adjustments. You have to do a
few things. We have to buy machines; we have to do things,
and that's one on that list. I think that once we get --
the way I look at it is, once we get the new run that's, you
know, kind of the -- the base line, then we look at the
things that are -- that we'd like to do to make adjustments
in certain positions and in all departments, including the
computers, going with that long-term, whether we go with the
Odyssey program or not. And -- but, I mean --
MS. DECKER: Does that include also merit --
I know I had put a minimum amount in for a merit increase.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
25 ~ MS. DECKER: But I really would like to
8-31-05 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
encourage you to consider the 12-1's to 12-3's, and office
staff from 13's to 14's.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, you'll have that
number by our meeting on Tuesday?
(Mr. Tomlinson nodded.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Linda, I would come again
Tuesday.
MS. UECKER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just to make sure we
don't -- 'cause, you know, we get thinking of lots of
different things.
MS. UECKER: I understand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's on my list, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me remind you now,
we're going to have a meeting Tuesday on the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Juvenile facility.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- Juvenile facility.
We already have a meeting on Wednesday, the day after.
JUDGE TINLEY: At 10 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At 10:00.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's on the local option
election for Precinct 2. That one's already plugged in by
date and time by prior court order.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why don't we just add
to that day, as opposed to --
8-31-05 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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That local option
thing may not -- it might not be alive, but we've got the
date reserved.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that meeting posted?
That's fine. I'd forgotten about that.
JUDGE TINLEY: It has not been posted yet, so
we can -- we're okay for either Tuesday or Wednesday, but we
can't change the date or time of the local option.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do it all Wednesday,
then.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm wondering -- you
know, we're going into executive session. Would that be a
place to discuss this issue that Linda just brought up about
the 12-1's and Maintenance employees? And I don't know what
all that's about, but it kind of intrigued my ears a little
bit. Seems like it will be something that needs to be
discussed with the County Attorney.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know if
that's appropriate for executive session or not. Is it?
JUDGE TINLEY: It's general policy, I would
think.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I really don't know.
That's what I'm asking.
MS. UECKER: It would be general. I mean,
8-31-05 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
106
it's not going to be --
MS. NEMEC: Personnel.
MS. DECKER: Yeah, personnel.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that I
be honest with you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Generally, what I've
seen so far is that I'm sympathetic with some of the
requests for reclassifications, the 12-1 issue. Sympathetic
with some of the requests for merits. And, in fact, I even
see a couple of salaries that we had a lot of money I would
adjust upwards that aren't even requests. And what keeps me
from acting on that is that the same issue we're going to
have more people next year than we have this year, and we've
already got a lot of people.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the other
thing -- you know, I don't want to sound draconian, but we
had a really bad year. I mean, that's a -- you know, and
all the employees need to understand that. We -- we
basically took a million dollars out of our reserves, and we
didn't have a million dollars to take out of our reserves.
And that's why we're -- you know, keep having -- been
harping through the whole budget process that we don't have
money for a lot of these things. And it's just -- it's not
that -- you know, we've had the luxury of a lot of growth in
8-31-05 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
recent years and no big problems. And we had a big problem
this year, and it cost us a million dollars to the juvenile
facility, and it's just -- things may have to get deferred a
year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Rector, did you have
something?
MS. RECTOR: I have a question. Do you all
have a time frame that you're looking at to wrap all this
up? Because --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We were going to ask
you.
MS. RECTOR: -- tomorrow's the 1st of
September, and we're not even close to a proposed tax rate.
And this year, with the new legislation, I have an
additional quarter-page ad that has to be published, and
depending on where we go from there, there could be -- of
course, then there's the notice of vote, which is another
publication that has to be done. And these all have the
seven days prior to your public hearing notice before --
that it has to be published, and then you're no less than
three, no more than 14 for your vote, so it looks like we
are going to go into a new budget year without an adopted
tax rate or an adopted budget.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When's the last day
that we have to give you a proposed tax rate?
8-31-05 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
108
MS. RECTOR: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When's the drop-dead
date? When do we have to tell you?
MS. RECTOR: I think we're probably past that
drop-dead time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think we're going
to be pretty close next Wednesday.
MS. RECTOR: To a proposed rate?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Proposed budget. I think
it's just a mathematical thing to get from there to --
MR. TOMLINSON: We have to have -- you have
to vote on a proposed tax rate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I know.
MS. RECTOR: You have to have your public
hearing -- I know y'all have been all through all this -- to
vote on your proposed rate before I even start my
publications, and then the time frame there, we're extending
-- we're going to be squeaking it close to the end of the
month.
JUDGE TINLEY: Can you give us two scenarios,
one worst-case scenario, and work from the back towards the
current date as to how the timetable has to work, and
another scenario maintaining the current tax rate.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think that matters.
You've already -- if you use the same tax rate, you're
8-31-05 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
already going to have to have the two hearings, because --
MS. RECTOR: 'Cause you're going --
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand we have to.
MS. RECTOR: -- still going over your
3 percent.
COMMISSIONER
have two hearings no matter
MS. RECTOR:
COMMISSIONER
rate, and I just can't see
COMMISSIONER
LETZ: So we're going to have tc
what?
Yes.
LETZ: Unless we lower the tax
that happening, unfortunately.
NICHOLSON: What we need is a
calendar.
MS. RECTOR: What we need to do, when we
decide what dates these things are going to happen, you're
going to have to hold the meetings when I say you're going
to have to hold the meeting. That's the only way we're
going to get it done.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. We will be
looking at --
MS. RECTOR: By the end of September.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the absolute deadlines.
MS. RECTOR: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: But you're going to provide us
working from October 1 back towards the current date?
MS. RECTOR: 'Cause -- and the problem I have
8-31-05 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
is, if we adopt a rate, which is going to be by the end of
September, my work begins. Which tax statements will not go
out this year till November; I can pretty much guarantee
that. Which means there will be no revenue coming into the
county for that month, which we normally do have. Plus, all
the other taxing entities, I'll be holding them up also.
The City of Kerrville, City of Ingram, and U.G.R.A.,
Headwaters have already -- they've already
rates, and they're already adopted, so one
they're still waiting on the County before
bill out. So, that's revenue that they're
for the month of October either, so I have
also, since I am their tax collector too.
got proposed
they adopt,
I can even mail a
not getting in
to consider them
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we have a
schedule with drop-dead dates we have to have so we can set
our meetings in advance accordingly?
MS. RECTOR: That was one of the things that
I wanted to get with the Judge about, and let us sit down
and put a calendar together which would work for all of
y'all, if that's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. I mean, you
know, if we need to move up -- I mean, if it makes a
difference, we can certainly meet next Tuesday, as opposed
to next -- and next Wednesday.
MS. RECTOR: Because the starting point would
8-31-05 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
be a proposed rate, and that would be -- the budget is going
to trigger that proposed rate, as to whether that proposed
rate can cover the budget.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you tell us what
is the last day that we can give you a -- a proposed rate,
then we'll just --
MS. RECTOR: That's what my concern was, is
hammering out all the details of the budget and the
finalizing of it, which is what you're trying to accomplish
right now. I hate to push you, but that's something that's
going to be critical.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we're pretty
close. I think in a few hours, we could --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ask her that again;
see if you can get that date.
MS. RECTOR: Let me get with Judge Tinley,
and we'll -- we'll work a calendar up. And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that's fine. And
they're going to get together and do it.
MR. TOMLINSON: There's also --
JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to get together,
and she's going to do it.
MS. RECTOR: Well, more or less.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One of the things
8-31-05 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
issues, and we need to dispatch with that so we can move on
and make a decision. So, is there any reason why we
couldn't schedule a meeting for Friday to do that?
JUDGE TINLEY: For Friday?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can't post it in time,
can we?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Tuesday is the earliest
we can do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tuesday, okay. We
got the holiday in the way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe we need to
reconsider Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
MR. TOMLINSON: You also have a drop-dead
date on -- on publishing the proposed budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're probably
back to a Tuesday meeting and a Wednesday meeting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we are too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Tuesday at 1:30 is probably
what we're looking at.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think the first
order of business is to dispose of the juvenile things.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so.
8-31-05 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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Other stuff starts
falling in place behind that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is the executive
session on the Juvenile Detention Facility on Tuesday?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Needs to be.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Needs to be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I would -- I don't
know that we need another executive session on personnel in
addition to juvenile facility, but we may, 'cause I know
there are some -- there's been some other changes in --
personnel changes that we've talked about that may need to
be discussed. They may not, but I think we should post it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do it all at the same
time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think we should
post other personnel in executive session at the same time,
so we don't get put in a situation that we can't do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And the meeting on
Wednesday is for 10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That cold air makes me
hungry.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else we can get done
8-31-05 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
today, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're right on
schedule.
JUDGE TINLEY: Hearing nothing further, we
will adjourn the workshop.
(Budget workshop adjourned at 11:44 a.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 31st day of January,
2006.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY : --- - ,y,~G-----------------
Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
8-31-05 bwk