1
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
Special Session
Wednesday, September 7, 2005
(Reconvened from September 6, 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
~i

z

1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2L
23
24
25
I N D E X
September 7, 2005
PAGE
(Meeting continued from Sept. 6, 2005)
1.2 Consider and discuss and take appropriate action
on county personnel issues in various departments,
including increase/decrease in staffing levels,
salary adjustments, reorganization, reclassification
and changes in job description. (Executive Session
as necessary or appropriate) 3, 33
(Meeting scheduled for Sept. 7, 2005)
1.1 Consider and discuss the ordering of an Election to
be held November 8, 2005 in Precinct 2, Kerr County,
Texas for the purpose of "The legal sale of all
alcoholic beverages including mixed beverages" as
required by Sec 251.14 of the Texas Election Code 27
(September 6th meeting continued)
1.1 Consider and discuss and take appropriate action
on the Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility
and budget, including staff positions, staffing
levels, designation of management personnel,
specification of salary grade/step levels.
(Executive Session as necessary or appropriate) 30
1.3 Consider and discuss approval by record vote of the
proposed FY 2005/2006 Tax Rate and set date, time
and place of first and second Public Hearings 151
--- Adjourned 156
y-~-n5
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, September 7, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., a special
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's -- let's come back
to order. We have been in recess since yesterday afternoon,
to reconvene at 9 a.m. this morning, September the 7th,
2005. It's a bit past that time now. We were working on
Item Number 2 on the agenda, which was posted for initial
consideration yesterday. I believe that the item that we
had under consideration was the item that Commissioner
Nicholson had brought to the table on personnel staffing
levels. Have we concluded all of that? Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure. I'd like
to come back to that, possibly.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to come back to
that later.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, later? Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I don't want
to get into any detail on that right now, but it does occur
to me that we seem to be focusing on the cost side -- I mean
on the revenue side of the budget instead of the cost side.
If I'm reading these numbers right, Tommy, our -- it looks
~ ~ ns
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
like our estimated revenues are up substantially from the
last year. Tax revenue and non -- non-tax revenue estimated
for this year compared to last year are up substantially.
MR. TOMLINSON: There has -- a lot of it has
to do with sales tax. Also, we've -- our volume as far as
fines and fees are, you know, beginning to -- they increase
some every year. The sales tax on auto sales, I think I
told you this prior to today about what TexDOT has -- has
done with auto registration dollars. They diverted the
registration on automobiles -- that fee to TexDOT. And, in
return, the counties will get the sales tax on the sales
of autos. So, it's a -- it's a wash with -- from one fund
to the next. And, you know, inflation has -- has something
to do with our sales tax also. I think, in general, it
looks like that -- that fee collections, you know, they
all -- they will grow as the population grows. They're
pretty much tied to that. So, I -- I don't -- I'm fairly
conservative when I estimate what our actual collections
will be, and I don't want to overstate what our fund
balances will be. So, I -- if I -- if I have an error, I
want to err on the --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's good.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- low side.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What I'm getting at
is, when we talk about how we got in this bind, certainly,
~-~-n~
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the $140,000 loss because of the over 65 and disabled is a
part of it, but it's a very small part. If we add that
$140,000 back, we'd still be in a big bind. Our revenues
are up. Costs are the problem. Our costs are too high.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's -- it just occurred to
me this morning, to analyze what our indigent health care
costs have done. And since -- since -- if we budget what we
anticipate budgeting for indigent health care costs for
'O5-'06, and that comes to -- comes to pass that we actually
expend that much, and we probably will, then indigent health
care costs will have risen 45 -- almost 46 percent since
'03-'04. You know, that's 200 and almost 40,000 dollars in
two years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy? At a recent
meeting Commissioner Letz and I attended, we heard county
judges from other areas of the state expressing not -- not
an opinion; their knowledge that unfunded mandates to
particular counties could range as high as 60 percent of a
county's budget. Would you venture to suggest how much
unfunded mandates require out of our budget?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, just -- just indigent
health care alone is -- is -- potentially could be 900,000.
It's hard to -- I think it's hard to define what -- what an
unfunded mandate is. I mean, there -- I mean, my office is
an unfunded mandate, because it's -- it's required by -- by
q-~-os
E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
state law.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand.
MR. TOMLINSON: So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's easy for those
folks to say we're going to do something and tell the county
to figure out a way to pay for it, and that's what the
judges that Commissioner Letz and I heard repeatedly from
large and small counties around the state talking about, the
magnitude of unfunded mandates on county budgets. I
don't -- I doubt that we're an exception to the rule.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know that this -- I
don't know if it's that high. I would really have to
analyze that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
MR. TOMLINSON: And I haven't done that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think when you
analyze it, you have to look at the personnel costs that
goes into those unfunded mandates as well. I mean, you
figure every -- not everything, but all of the indigent
defense, all those -- all of that is unfunded. The State
says that we have to do that, and we have to do it, and they
don't provide any funding for it. So, it depends also how
you define unfunded. Maybe you look at anythinq we're being
told by Austin we've qot to pay for, and there's a lot of --
MR. TOMLINSON: You know, of course, indigent
~-~-os

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
defense is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Huge.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- a huge amount.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Indigent health care,
indigent defense. We're talking about probably a million
and a half a year.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know if you'd call
this an unfunded mandate or not, but in order for the county
to receive state funds for juvenile probation, the county --
the county has to expend at least as much as they did in
what they call a base year. And our base year, I think -- I
believe is 2001, so the county has to -- you know, is forced
to expend at least that base year in order to obtain any
funds from the state. So, in my way of thinking, the base
year amount at least is an unfunded mandate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, just those two
items -- unfunded indigent health care and indigent
defense -- could run as high as 10 percent of our budget.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I want to change
gears just slightly. Mr. Trolinger's back there; you
probably know the answer. What is the cost of the Odyssey
if we go on a five-year payout, or five-year lease?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's -- I have a doctor's
appointment at 10 o'clock; I have to leave, so I wanted to
y-~-os
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~4
25
address that before -- before I had to leave.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: I've had a conversation
with -- with our financial adviser, Dusty Traylor. Bob, I
think, is on vacation. But -- but the question I asked him
was if -- if we purchase this software midyear, you know,
January, February, our -- our first payment -- our first
principal payment would be due in '07. Because, by
purchasing midyear, you cannot levy a tax for the sinking
fund, so that -- oh, excuse me -- that tar, has to be levied
in the '06-'07 year. I believe that we have a great
opportunity here to put this county in the -- in the current
century as far as technology. Software Group has offered us
a tremendous deal on -- on this software. And, I mean, this
is our opportunity to -- to have the technology it takes to
have a -- you know, online payments for -- for whatever,
taxes or fines and fees, and it gives us the -- you know,
the opportunity for our -- to really advance the service to
our citizens, because they -- as we are right now, we don't
have the ability for John Doe citizen to obtain information
directly without coming to the courthouse, basically. And I
know this is especially true for -- for the real estate
industry and the financial people in the community, because
they -- they depend a lot -- they do a lot of research in
county records.
9 7-05
9
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-, 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~°` 2 4
25
So, I -- you know, and I've already -- I said
this once before; that -- that also, I think it gives us a
way to get ourselves into this century with purchasing. I
think we're -- you know, the county's large enough to have
centralized purchasing. And, I mean, I just believe that --
that that's something that we need to do; maybe not this
year, but sometime soon. I read an article in -- in County
Progress Magazine this week about -- just a paragraph about
Gray County, and that's in the panhandle, that -- that have
bought some software just to allow them online tax payments.
And, you know, that's a county of 22,000, 23,000 people.
So, you know, that's in the mind of -- I think of county
officials statewide, to make -- make records, county records
more accessible to -- to the general public. So, I think
that's -- that's a trend that will -- at one point, will
probably be demanded of us. I mean, I think that at some
point, you know, the public will demand that we -- that we
have that -- that they have that access. And I think -- I
mean,	if we wait, you know,	into the	next	year,	this --	this
same	software could double	in price.	In	fact,	they've	told
us that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm about sold on that.
So,	you'	re telling me	that	the -	- there's	no dollar	impact
in	this	year's budget	from	that	-- buying	that?	
MR. TOMLINSON: No, none at all.
a-~-i,s
Iii
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The way I look at
the numbers -- and see if I'm online here, basically. I see
that -- well, here's what -- if we did this, we would come
,lose to balancing. Reduce four staff somewhere -- I'm not
saying where -- in addition to everything else, pretty much
off of -- and they`re going to be, you know, possibly County
Clerk; I don't know where they're going to be. Roughly
figuring, if we reduce four staff, get rid of a dump truck
out of Road and Bridge, two-cent tai; increase, give a COLA,
and $200,000 loss at the KEDF (sic), all of that is about
balancing, and keeps our reserves about 20 percent, which is
horribly low. I mean -- well, the way I 1ooY, at that, a
dump truck's 52,000. Get rid of four employees -- I hate to
say "get rid of," but that's what it is, in reality.
$200,000 savings. Two-cent tax increase is $400,000. The
COLA's 235,000 to the negative, and the Juvenile Detention
Facility, no matter what we do out there, is going to cost
another $200,000 loss this year. So, I figured we -- the
COLA and the KE -- the Juvenile Detention Facility is
935,000. That's offset by basically a tax increase, and
then you have to reduce employees, as well as start getting
reserves up to 20 percent, which is still too low.
And, going back to what Commissioner
Nicholson saLd, the impact is only 150,000 this year. Next
year it's bigger, and the year after it's bigger. That's
a-7-OS
11
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
c 2
23
24
25
one cent right there, almost, that decision cost this
county. And what we're doing right now by that decision,
and we can't undo it, is that the young taxpayers are being
forced to pay a disproportionate part of the tax of this
county, and we're going to have to raise the taxes, as I see
it, on the young people that are paying the taxes now to
subsidize the elderly. That's my opinion; that's where ae
need to go.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I like
what you said, except the two-cent tax increase. I don't
think we've worked the cost side hard enough. I think we
can mete two cents worth of costs out of this budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see where there's
$400,000 in additional savings. I'm already taking,
basically, as I'm looking at it, probably one from the Tax
Assessor, one from the County Clerk, probably one from the
District Clerk, and one from Maintenance. That's where I
see the people. And I -- and I know -- I see Paula shaking
her head, and I know Jannett will as well. Linda wasn't
even on the chopping block yesterday, but, you know, they're
some of the bigger departments. We're taking, in Road and
Bridge, the equivalent of an employee by getting rid of some
of the equipment. I just don't see how we can balance the
budget. We cannot -- I won't vote for a budget that is
going to put our reserves at less than 20 percent. It's
r ~~ s
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
just -- it's -- it's not the right thing to do, especially
after we see what's happening in Louisiana, which disasters
can hit us, and that is horribly low. We need to get our
reserves back to 25 percent next year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy, what's in this
current printout?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it's a slight change in
non-tax revenues. But back to the issue about the sales tar,
and the autos, I had taken that amount out of the Road and
Bridge non-tax revenues, but I had not added it back to the
general fund.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That explains
why that fund balance went to 21.7 from where it was
yesterday.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. On the expense
side, anything different in that?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cost of living's not
in there?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: If it makes you feel any
better about -- about the fund balance, over the years our
trend has been for the ratio of non-tax revenue to tax
~~ 7 U 5
13
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
revenue to -- to increase, so we have -- we have -- over the
years, we've had a smaller dependency on tax revenues, as it
relates to the whole. And for the -- you know, for the most
part, non-tax revenues come to us on a regular basis. In
other words, they're a flat amount almost each month. So, I
think -- I think you can -- you could temper that -- that
fund balance ratio somewhat by the fact that part of your
revenues you receive on a monthly basis, so you don't
have -- you don't have to depend on the non -- you don't
have to worry about the noncollection of tax revenues in
October and November as much as we did 15 years ago.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But also, our reserves --
when I became a Commissioner, our reserves were in the
neighborhood of 35, you know, and now we're below 20.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That trend has got to
stop.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I agree that there --
there is -- there is a bottom to that, and I think it's
necessary to have a bottom. But I just wanted to bring that
up, just because of -- of the trend that we've seen in the
ratio of non-tax revenues.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we're also, this
year, in Road and Bridge -- and if we do the computer
system, we're buying things now and paying for them later,
y-~-ii5
14
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
<1
22
23
24
25
which is going to have an impact. I mean, it means that
next year we're just going to get worse -- it's going to get
worse and worse every year. We need to bite the bullet this
year. I think every department has told me that the new
computer program's going to save personnel, but yet no
departments have reduced personnel. Well, we need to reduce
personnel. I mean, everyone has said this is going to help
us, but no one's willing to take a cut there, and we just
can't do both. We just don't have the money. I've thought
about the option of trying to put a hiring freeze on due to
attrition, but as I recall, there was an Attorney General
opinion that said that's illegal, so that's not an option;
we can't go through attrition. As I recall, that Attorney
General opinion stated that once we have a position in the
budget, we can -- that position can be filled for the budget
year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we have to actually
cut; we can't reduce through attrition. That's my -- that's
where I see we need to go today. I'd like to be out of here
by noon.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you certainly
laid down the asphalt for us to travel on, didn't you?
JUDGE TINLEY: The reduction of four
employees that you're talking about, Commissioner, that's
n-~ u5
15
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
over and above the Juvenile Detention Facility, I assume?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, that's above the
reductions that we discussed in executive session with --
there. And it's in addition to the -- basically, the
reduction from the Sheriff yesterday of the security. So, I
mean, the Sheriff's is already included, as is Juvenile
Detention Facility. That's four additional employees
somewhere. I mean, I don't -- you know, I named four
departments. You know, that's mainly because those are the
departments that have the most people. I see it's hard to
-- I mean, you can't -- you know, obviously, we can't --
Commissioners Court can't reduce one; we only have one, and
I think other departments are in the same situation. Just
the way -- you know, the way I see that. There's some other
things I think I'd like to look at. I mean, if we took
those -- I think if we do what I outlined today, we'll still
have a horrible year next year. I mean, this is just the
first step. I can see next year another round of cuts or
something, 'cause we just can't keep on -- we just don't
have the money. And I'm putting in a two-cent -- I never
thought that I would recommend a two-cent tax increase.
That's including a tar, increase. You have to reduce
employees. And I'm -- the only way that I can, myself, get
to the point of a tax increase is in conjunction with
reducing employees. It's not -- you know, I'm not willing
y-~-ri 5
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2L
~3
29
25
to do the tax increase if we're not reducing staff.
MS. NEMEC: Judge? On the figures that I
turned in to Tommy, I did not reduce the two employees that
y'all are talking about in the Sheriff's Office. Because
those were employees that were not filled again this year;
is that correct?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Those two that I gave
up, they were in this current budget.
MS. NEMEC: Okay, then they're in my figures.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And one passed away, and
the other one, I had it open. I chose, in the cutting of
employees, not to fill those positions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So they're probably
still in the figures.
MS. NEMEC: They are.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Of those two.
MS. NEMEC: They're in the figures that I
gave Tommy.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Which would be two that
just -- we decided we're not filling.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to figure out
what's in and what's out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, with regard to the
one on the courthouse security that you said was not
+- ~-us
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
essential, assuming us folks in the courthouse can live
without that, and certainly I'm perfectly willing to do so,
that, as I recall, was about a $40,000 difference. In the
discussion that we had yesterday, I believe you expressed
some concern about -- you see your fuel costs, based upon
your consumption rates, being considerably more by about
35,000 to 40,000 above what we thought was an adequate
budget this year because of recent increases in your -- in
your fuel usage by gallons.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, it's not recent
increases in our fuel usage by gallon, it's just recent
increases in the price of fuel. We're using about the same.
JUDGE TINLEY: Historical usage, I'm sorry.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In our historical usage,
my only concern is, right now we're paying about $1.95 a
gallon, okay, because we're a little bit less with the taxes
and the contracts we have. My concern is, if that fuel
continues the way it is, if it goes to $2.50 a gallon that
we're paying, which is already 50 cents lower than most of
us individually are paying, then that will be about a
$35,000 shortfall in what we got budgeted for fuel. Now, I
have not -- that line item is fuel and oil, okay? All our
oil changes come out of that same line item. The fuel alone
would be about $135,000. In our proposed budget for fuel
and oil, we only have $100,000, so I'm afraid that that
a ~-n=.
18
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
could fall short, depending on what gas prices do and oil
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess the point I'm making
additional courthouse security deputy is maybe a wash as to
the additional fuel costs that you're talking about.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Unless fuel comes down,
you're right. There was the -- the one other line item that
the State has brought home, you might say an unfunded one,
that will cost us about another $3,000 this year. We
budgeted in radio repairs $2,000. The State of Texas has
come out with six new radio frequencies for their
interoperability, so we don't have the problem Louisiana is
having right now, and all our radios will be required to be
reprogrammed with -- that's portables and car radios, which
total about 94 radios that have to have these new
frequencies reprogrammed into them at a cost of anywhere
from $30 to $40 per radio, depending on the type of radio.
So, that's an additional $3,000 that will have to be added
to that line item. Now, going back to -- to -- so that
could be a wash on the one courthouse employee, that
security we're giving up. Now, if Barbara had the other
employees still figured in the budget, in what you're --
you're looking at now, one of those employees, the pay would
-~ os
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
"' 0
21
?2
23
24
25
have been without the FICA and retirement, insurance and all
that. The County's base pay would have been about -- do you
have the current one, Barbara? I've got about 21,000 on
that one employee.
MS. NEMEC: It shows open position.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, do you have it at
the --
MS. NEMEC: That one and then this one here.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One of those was a 17-2,
which was a sergeant's position in the jail in that 17-2
position.
MS. NEMEC: It should have the amount on it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's 30,840 -- or 30,083
that could be added back in. Now, that was not --
MS. NEMEC: That does not include the
3.2 percent cost-of-living.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And it also doesn't
include the FICA and retirement and all that.
MS. NEMEC: No.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So it doesn't include --
so you got about almost 40,000 there. And then the next
employee that she has figured in that we're not filling is
another $20,036, so you're talking about 28,000 there. So
you're about 68,000, so somewhere right around there, 58 to
70 thousand that you can take off employee expenses there
U-~-us
20
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L5
when you figure in FICA and retirement. But she has figured
in that; y'all don't need to. So, the two you're talking
about, Jonathan -- or the four you're talking about, since
they're already in there, that could still be figured as two
of those four.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One's in the jail.
Where's the other one?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One is in the Sheriff's
Office itself; that's one of the clerks, and one was a
sergeant in the jail.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Paula, what is the
rollback rate going to be if we went with a two-cent tax
increase? Is that going to be --
MS. RECTOR: Let me --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which I suspect probably
would put us --
MS. RECTOR: I think you're going to be
under.
MR. TOMLINSON: I gave it to you yesterday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that sheet?
MS. RECTOR: 3975.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 3975?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
+ us
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
SHERIFF HIERHULZER: But the overall impact
of those three positions would be right at 100,000. Now, 30
of it would probably need to come back, or somewhere around
there. You may just figure -- if the gas price does come
down, we're doing good; you may figure 20,000 extra. I'm
just afraid the 100 we're at right now, the way the trend's
going, is not going to be enough, so if you add 20 more into
the gas, then you're still looking at an $80,000 increase in
your amount you have to deal with there with three
employees.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to
express my -- express my appreciation for Commissioner Letz'
thoughtful view of where we are. I'm not so sure that I'm
exactly on the same page in terms of a tax increase, but I
certainly am on the same page with his assessment of our --
our position, and there was some expressions yesterday about
what we did in our blind haste to rush to judgment on the
tax freeze, and that's exactly what it was. Some of us
favored a different approach. We didn't -- we didn't have
the political will to see that different approach through,
and now we're paying the piper to the tune of about
$190,000, and it will only get higher as the years go along,
so that's one of the things for which we can lay some blame
on our own doorstep. With respect to the numbers you gave
us, Tommy, we now know that the Sheriff has a couple jobs
4 7 n 5
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
22
plugged into that number that -- that shouldn't be there.
Yesterday, we -- you may not know, but yesterday we asked
Ms. Harris to take a look at -- at her staffing, and she's
going to tell us at some point in time how she can do some
things a little bit differently, which also should provide
some savings. I'm not sure how much, but I'm sure there are
going to be some somewhere along the line there. But I
don't hear anybody else stepping up to the plate, and I
think that we need to have some more thoughtful dialogue as
to how we can trim some expenses. We've got to do it from
both sides, both from the revenue side, and we have to do it
from the expense side, and Commissioner Nicholson's made a
pretty compelling presentation about the expense side. So,
I think we got to get with it.
MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, I will consent to get
rid of one employee, but there's no way I can get rid of
two.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, that's a plus.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Big help.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would you --
what would you project that cost savings to be?
MS. PIEPER: A Step 13.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 30,000.
MS. PIEPER: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you figure benefits
9 7 0 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
and --
MS. PIEPER: Oh. Well, yeah, that could be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With everything
rolled in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 30,000.
MS. NEMEC: With benefits, it would be
approximately 30,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Just picked up
100,000. Anybody else want to step to the plate?
MS. RECTOR: I would like to request
executive session, if I might.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else we need --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Holekamp has his
hand up.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I indicated to y'all yesterday
that I was willing to do what it took.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you want to
translate that for us?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, I think the proposal was
-- if I remember correctly, is combining two different
departments that currently are not together, and then I
eliminate two positions combined out of the two. Is that
correct? Am I -- am I close? That was Commissioner
9 - ~ U 5
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~,
23
24
25
Nicholson's proposal.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That was one
variation on the model. The other variation would be to
combine three departments, and that would include
Environmental Health also.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. The issue -- I guess
what I'm saying is, I'm willing to -- to do one employee,
but if I had to do two out of just Maintenance itself, it
would be difficult. But, as I said yesterday, I work at the
pleasure of the Court and I'll do whatever you ask me. So,
volunteering to cut people's jobs, as -- as just a
department head -- I'm not an elected official -- I think it
wouldn't be necessary at this time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what I'm hearing
is there's probably one -- one slot out there. I'm not sure
exactly about two, 'cause I'm not sure about that -- if it's
a good idea to combine those two departments, necessarily.
But I think that in Maintenance, there is -- there is one,
and I think there may be some reorganization coupled with
that. I'd like to talk with Mr. Holekamp in executive
session a little bit about how I'm thinking of that --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- working.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there's one in
9 - ~ - u 5
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
~4
25
Maintenance as well. Did I hear that?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah, that's what I indir_ated.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have
anything additional to talk about in open or public session
at this juncture, or are we ready to go into executive?
Wait a minute, we've got somebody coming here.
MR. TROLINGER: If -- if the Court's going to
go ahead and install the Odyssey, the tax and financial
software packages, next year, I'll have basically people
on-site, contractors giving training and -- and doing
installation work on a continuous basis, so Information
Technology, the additional full-time position could be
withdrawn.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I didn't hear you.
MR. TROLINGER: Information Technology's
additional full-time position could be withdrawn.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't stop.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's so rare I hear
that, that I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's some
creativity brewing out there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else that we need to
talk about in open or public?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- and this is a
y ~ os
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question. The new proposal that Ms. Harris -- we asked her
to develop, I see that as an open session item at this
point. I don't know that that needs to be back in closed
session. No, it can't be in open session; she's saying it's
personnel-related.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A nod of the head
meaning what? Yes?
MS. HARRIS: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Executive session.
MS. HARRIS: Executive session.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you cool with
that, Mr. County Attorney?
MR. EMERSON: As long as it's specific
positions and not classes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sure that's what she's
going to be talking about, based upon the discussions of
yesterday. At this point, then, we will go out of open or
public session. It is 9:43.
(The open session was closed at 9:43 a.m.,
and an executive session was held, the
transcript of which is contained in a
separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: We will go back into open or
public session of the special Commissioners Court meeting
that was recessed from yesterday. And it is now 10:13, and
u-~-o5
27
1
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
by virtue of another meeting that we have posted, I will
recess that special Commissioners Court meeting that was
reconvened from yesterday, and I will call to order a
special Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for today,
Wednesday, September 7, 2005, at 10 a.m. It is past that
time now. There's only one item on that agenda, that being
the consideration and discussion of the ordering of an
election to be held November 8, 2005, in Precinct 2, Kerr
County, Texas, for the purpose of the legal sale of all
alcoholic beverages including mixed beverages, as required
by Section 251.14 of the Texas Election Code. Commissioner
2, what do you have for us today?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. I
see no one who is representing the initiative drive in the
audience, but I would ask the County Tax Assessor/Collector,
who oversees voter registration and so forth, if she could
give the Court a report on what she knows about the number
of petitions, names that were certified as required by law,
so we know whether or not we have enough to call an election
or not.
MS. RECTOR: At this time, we've had no
additional petitions come into my office that I'm aware of,
unless they came in since 9 o'clock. I think the number
count yesterday was at 244 valid signatures.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that is what percentage of
9 - 7 - U S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
~3
24
25
28
the amount required for referendum?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: About one-sifth.
MS. RECTOR: Yeah, about one-sixth.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gosh.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hearing that, Judge,
I'd say that there is no action required of the Court with
respect to setting a date for an election -- a local option
election on the November ballot in Precinct 2.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have
anything further to offer with regard to that particular
agenda item?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll drink to that.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Anything further?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's cool.
JUDGE TINLEY: If there's nothing further on
that particular agenda item, and that being the only agenda
item, I will adjourn the special Commissioners Court meeting
scheduled for Wednesday, September 7th, 2005, at 10 a.m.,
and I will reconvene the special Commissioners Court meeting
that was convened yesterday, Tuesday, September 6th, and
reconvened this morning, so we're now back in public or open
session.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see. Which
meeting are we in right now?
JUDGE TINLEY: We're in the September --
9 7 n 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
29
we're in yesterday's meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yesterday's meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's where we are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Stepping back in
time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about if we take a
short break, and then when we come back in, we'll be in
executive session with the Juvenile Detention Facility
matter.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We will stand in recess
for about 15 minutes.
(Recess taken from 10:15 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, let's come back to
order. We've been in recess, so we'll come back to order in
our Commissioners Court meeting that we have resumed from
yesterday, after having adjourned yesterday evening. The
request that I recall having shortly before we went into
recess was to go back into closed session to consider some
more personnel matters. So, at this time, at -- at 10:42,
we will go out of closed or public session, and we will go
into closed/executive session.
9-,-os
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~,
23
24
25
(The open session was closed at 10:42 a.m.,
and an Executive Session was held, the
transcript of which is contained in a
separate document.)
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: We're back in open session now
at 11:28. We're on Item 2 on the agenda that we resumed
from being recessed yesterday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're on -- I'm sorry,
Judge, where are we? The general discussion or the juvenile
facility discussion?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I called the general.
If you want to go back to the juvenile, we can go there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'm ready to go
back to juvenile and make a decision on that one.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Let's return to
the first item on the agenda dealing with appropriate action
on Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility and budget,
including staff positions, staffing levels, designation of
management personnel, and specification of salary grade/step
levels.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the Auditor isn't
here. He's actually --
MS. UECKER: He had to go to the do~~tor.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I didn't know how
long he'd be gone. What needs to be communicated to the
5-,-os
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
Auditor, from my standpoint, is what I'd like to see in the
new numbers is the scenario of operating a 48-bed facility,
and there is a redu~~tion in staff of four, and reduction in
salaries of the administrator and the assistant
administrator. And the -- and request that Ms. Harris get
with the Auditor and get those numbers reflected into the
budget.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd just point out,
Commissioner, the reduction of four is four additional
reductions. There were three reductions in the current
budget, so it's a total reduction of seven positions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Minus seven.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Minus seven, and
reduction in salaries of the manager and assistant manager.
And there's some other operational issues that will be based
on the recommendation of the facility manager.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 48 pre and post.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 48 pre and post.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we through with the
juvenile facility?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we need to take a vote
on that? As a -- I mean --
DODGE TINLEY: We can certainly do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make that -- what I
just stated as a motion.
~_~_~~
32
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve the staffing and -- and salary structure at the
Juvenile Detention Facility.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm wondering, Judge,
if we shouldn't include the salary structure, the actual
numbers, in that motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think what we can
do is, I think we can accept the -- this big number -- the
step's the first number? We accept the steps of those
positions.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The manager will be a
Step 34. The assistant will be a 28.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the grade.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the grade?
JUDGE TINLEY: Grade 34, Step 6.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, grade. So bring
that --
JUDGE TINLEY: And the assistant will be
Grade 28, Step 7.
MS. NEMEC: 28-7 and 34 what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sir,.
JUDGE TINLEY: Six. With that clarification,
any further question or discussion? All in favor of the
~ ~ ~~s
33
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We
will now go to Item 2, consider and discuss and take
appropriate action on county personnel issues in various
departments, including increase and decrease in staffing
levels, salary adjustments, reorganization,
reclassifications, and changes in job description.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, just to get this
started, after communication I've received from the Road and
Bridge Department, they'd like to reduce staff by one, and
as a trade-off, they get their dump truck. So, a staff
reduction of one, but the dump truck is back in the budget.
And I -- I support that change.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would too. Well,
the newspaper wasn't far off this morning. They identified
15 potentials. As I look at it, that's 15 potentials right
there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're not through
yet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to talk
about Animal Control now, if you're ready to talk about
--~-us
34
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that. Because of the uncertainty over whether or not Kerr
County will be providing animal control services to
Kerrville, I'm proposing to revise the Rabies and Animal
Control budget to reflect a staff reduction from a total of
five employees to a total of three employees, which is based
on the expectation that we will not be providing services to
the city of Kerrville.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If the alternative
occurs, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If the alternative
occurs, the revenue coming from the City basically funds
that staff difference.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I wanted
to get in the record.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, that's a good
point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the city -- it's a --
it's a kind of a wash from the standpoint of the reduced
revenue coming in from the city.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me just also say
that that would have some other implications. Rolling
stock, we wouldn't need as much as we've got, which is a --
maybe a timely sort of a thing, since we blew an engine on
one of our trucks recently. It would also defer the need
for a sizable capital expenditure in the next few years,
5-~-us
35
1
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
because we wouldn't be outgrowing the facility at the rate
we are now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then I guess a --
back to a topic we've touched on before when we start
working numbers in. In the Maintenance Department, a
reduction of one, and the function of booking of the Ag Barn
will be moved to the Commissioners Court, and there will not
be a -- a combining of those departments at this time, or of
any -- you know, the Animal Control, Maintenance,
Environmental Health will all stay separate for one more
year -- or for a while.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We'll look at that
outside the budget process during next year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other one that I
think I would like to see pursued is reduce one-half an
employee in the Treasurer's office and move the functions
of -- I don't know how you describe it -- personnel
function, being the employee manual, job descriptions,
handouts with insurance, those such functions, everything
except payroll and the actual financial matters we can move
to Commissioners Court, and there is a new position added to
Commissioners Court. So, basically, the net change is
reducing one and a half and adding one. I hope someone's
keeping a rally of where we are and getting all these
comments so we can figure out where we're going to be.
v-~ os
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. NEMEC: I'm sorry, reducing how many in
mine?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Half.
MS. NEMEC: Half? With all personnel
functions going to Commissioners Court except payroll?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And we need to
get --
MS. NEMEC: Retirement? All -- all benefits?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MS. NEMEC: Insurance, retirement, workers
comp, all that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that handled by a
half a person now?
MS. NEMEC: No, the only thing that my
part-timer handles is revenues and accounts payable. My
chief deputy handles all personnel, retirement, workers
comp, insurance, all the other type of insurances that we
offer, all the other deductions, unemployment, all that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the percentage
of her time devoted to those functions?
MS. NEMEC: Well, that's all she does, that
and payroll, and she can't do that in a 40-hour week as it
is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we need to
-~ vs
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
talk about that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: May need to look at that
a little bit more.
MS. NEMEC: There's a lot to personnel.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we need to
talk about that a little bit more --
MS. NEMEC: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- with Ms. Nemec.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I got the
scorecard where we are at this point, gentlemen. Road and
Bridge, minus one. Maintenance, minus one. Information
Technology, minus one. Treasurer, minus one-half. Animal
Control, minus two. Sheriff's Office, minus one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought it was two.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, two were --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Actually, it's three.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's three.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if there -- there are
two included that shouldn't have been included, then we're
taking the one courthouse security, but the two are in
there, so it would be minus three, correct?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Minus three.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. County Clerk,
minus one. What did we do with Environmental Health?
Anything?
-~ cs
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No change.
DODGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Juvenile Detention
Facility.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That budget's up --
since we staffed it, it's up 42 percent, one and a half
people versus three and a half when we staffed it. Wrong
direction.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, I agree,
except my feeling is that we didn't staff it strong enough
when we started, and I think I voiced that at that time. My
concern there is the complaints that I'm -- that I do get is
-- we're going to make even worse if we cut the staff on the
solid waste -- I mean on the environmental health side.
O.S.S.F., the issue is scheduling -- that I hear is the
scheduling of the inspections, is what's causing time, and
if we cut back there, that's going to make that problem
worse. Now, I don't have a -- you know, I guess I could
live with it, but it's -- we're going in the direction of
getting more complaints, and I think solid waste is
something that -- you know, I guess I would be more inclined
to reduce a half in solid waste than I would be on the
O.S.S.F. side, because I think solid waste is something that
we need, but I also --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's -- I suggest,
~-~-o e.
39
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
like we're doing with Animal Control and Facilities and
Maintenance, that we study that issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In the off-season.
I think it's too many people, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Have I got the scorecard
correct so far, gentlemen? Juvenile facility, minus four,
in addition to the three previously cut that are not
included in the -- were not included in that budget that was
brought to us.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The IT function, did
you get that one they gave up that --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you get the
County Clerk?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yep.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then there's a plus
one on Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My quick math tells
me that's about $450,000 worth of reductions, roughly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- I mean, I think
we're at a point that we've made so many changes, we need to
get Tommy to rerun the numbers and see what the --
~-~-vs
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 L
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because the next step
is -- hopefully we're -- maybe we're there, but my -- I
suspect there's still going to be a tax increase in addition
to all this. Judge, the Maintenance Supervisor has a
question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Holekamp?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. Now, y'all -- y'all
approved a 48-bed juvenile facility; is that correct?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. And I'm asked to reduce
maintenance, and I'm going to get another building --
another jail, basically. Now, how are we going to address
that? I've got a man in this budget, so I'm not going to --
what's the intentions of the Court here?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ms. Harris, in your
proposed budget that you presented on the juvenile facility,
what have you -- is there a maintenance number built into
there?
MS. HARRIS: No, sir, because y'all asked
that the maintenance person that we had out there full-time
this budget year, that that line item be moved to the
Maintenance Department so we would be in conjunction with
all the other departments. So, the maintenance person that
I've had in this budget year, his salary is not in my
a-~-us
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
budget; we were putting it in Glenn's budget. That was the
wish of the Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The jail maintenance,
the full-time position, one of your staff takes that up?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does he actually work
full-time in the jail?
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
MR. HOLEKAMP: 7'd say 90 percent of the
time, yes, sir. 10 percent of the time, I utilize him here.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The jail -- the actual
adult jail maintenance is a major part of Glenn's deal. We
probably -- 'cause I approve all the maintenance requests
every morning, and we're probably averaging anywhere from 10
to 20 maintenance requests per day on either leaky faucets,
different things, and the pipe chase, different blocks or
stuff like that. So, that is a -- a large amount of that
person's time, and that's not counting his people coming
over doing the cleaning in the Sheriff's Office part.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the level of
maintenance that you're experiencing right now, Ms. Harris?
MS. HARRIS: I'm sorry, is what?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the level of
maintenance you're experiencing right now?
MS. HARRIS: Quite a bit in that older
o ~ os
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
29
25
building. Plumbing issues are the major part, and -- and
the cleaning of the facility and keeping the grounds, and --
and, of course, you've got the second building that you
stil] have to have some maintenance on, you know, 'cause you
need somebody to go over there and keep those toilets
flushed and keep the water flowing over there. And he works
all the time, every day.
COMMISSIONER. WILLIAMS: "He" being someone on
your staff, or somebody from Mr. Holekamp's staff?
MS. HARRIS: Currently he's on my staff for
this budget, for the '04-'OS budget. For the 'OS-'06, he
will be on Mr. Holekamp's budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got you, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We may have to relook at
the maintenance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Might have to look at
that. But that does sort of raise another question here,
another -- not a question, but perhaps an opportunity. If
-- now that we've decided what the size of the juvenile
detention facility is going to be, that's going to spring
open a building for a possibility of other uses, and I think
the Court should take a look at figuring out how to retrofit
that building to accommodate Adult Probation from both
districts and move them out there and utilize that building,
cut out the rent that we're paying elsewhere.
y_;_ t
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
]1
12
13
t4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that, but I
think that, you know, we have enough on our table just
trying to get a budget hammered out without trying to figure
out moving --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't mean today.
I mean we need to take a look at it; I don't mean today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it goes --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just an initiative.
We need to take a look at it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Harris has some thoughts
on that, I think.
MS. HARRIS: When you're discussing that,
please keep in mind that there are not enough classrooms in
the 48-bed building, in the old building, so we are
utilizing the two classrooms in the new building for KISD
kids.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's something we,
you know, have to examine in terms of --
MS. HARRIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- how it could be
done or if it could be done.
MS. HARRIS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: What else do we have,
gentlemen?
g-~-I)S
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I got a couple
questions. Have we agreed that we don't want to fund the
fourth agent in the Extension Office?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. Have we --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The position will stay
open; we're just not going to fund it this year.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What are we going to
do about the opportunity to put two J.P. offices together
and reduce clerical staff?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see that this
year right now. I think it's something that needs to be
looked at, though.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was wondering if --
Judge Castillo is in the room. Wonder if he'd want to
reduce his staff by two or three.
JUDGE CASTILLO: Well, let me tell you what
we do. Since January, we've generated $144,000 in service
and fines, and my clerk is busy up to her hairline, and I'm
in there trying to do as much as I can. If you reduce that,
I'll -- I'll be in there by myself. And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Claudio, I'm joking,
okay? You didn't get the joke? Sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think, you know, my
view is where we go on -- I'd like to see a new run with
9-~-..s
45
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
this plugged in on the salaries. I mean, we've made so many
changes, I think that there is a -- I don't want to put
it -- you know, the numbers aren't that big, but I think we
need to look at the Commissioners Court situation, step and
grade of the new person, where that would be, and versus
also where Ms. Mitchell will be. I think we also need to
look at the Information Technology Department, since we're
not adding a person there, on that step and grade issue and
what that entails. And then, based on the numbers tomorrow,
just so -- if we need more staff reductions, I'm going to
look to the elected officials. That's going to be Sheriff's
Department and District Clerk. That's where I think
there's -- you know, I mean, I just -- we've come a long way
today. Hopefully it's far enough, but I think we're at the
point now with Rusty -- and it's deputies, which I know
you're going to object strongly, and I don't want to do it
either, but there's a limit to how much we can go up on
taxes.
DODGE TINLEY: If I might mention, with
regard to the Extension Service position, that position that
you're speaking of is funded FO -- 65 percent, thereabouts,
by the State. And Ms. Mapston, who's the district director
out of Uvalde, had indicated earlier today that she was
going to be sending me some information dealing with the
impact on county residents, and she had hoped to get that up
9-7-i15
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
here sometime today. And I -- I told her that if she would
get me that information, I would give it to the Court, and I
think I owe her that courtesy. I think there's -- number
one, we need to look at the information, and number two,
from a pure economic standpoint, not -- not funding that
position is -- because of the amount the State pays, is not
that much of a savings to us. But those two factors, I just
-- I just wanted to get the information before you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Except that the -- when
Mr. Walston was in, adding that spot was the justification
for hiring a secretary, which is our responsibility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, the cost of that
position may not, but there's some ripple effects if we get
four agents out there, because bringing in the one -- the
juvenile -- the new one funded primarily through Juvenile
Probation, we have the Extension Agent, we have the 4-H
Coordinator. Mr. Walston's comment was, with four people
out there, we need another secretary. And I think that
that's -- you know, you get to the point that -- don't know
until you fund it, but it's just a consideration.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, now, from
your -- your point of view there, I think, you know, you
look at -- most of these reductions that we've made today
could possibly reduce the service to the taxpayers. So, you
y ~ os
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
-~
23
24
25
know, I mean, that's just the name of the game when you --
that's what they hired us to do, and that just -- that's
just part of the gig. I want to bring up another point.
This new position in the Commissioners Court, are you
thinking about going out and advertising for that position,
or are we going to move somebody around? I wanted to bring
up a point that we have a county employee today that is
stationed with the D.P.S., and a longtime county employee
that is an excellent employee, and it may be -- in my
opinion, it's high time that the State starts picking up
their own tab. If that were to happen, if the State were to
hire their own secretary for the Department of Public Safety
in Kerrville, that county employee could come back into the
courthouse system. And I worked with her many years ago
here in the courthouse, and she's a super excellent
employee, very knowledgeable in many, many things, and just
a -- just an option.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is an option.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think my -- to answer
your first part of your question, I think we should look
within first.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's fine. I
agree. I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need to stay in our
9-7-u5
48
1
2
3
9
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
family if we can.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, there's less
risk hiring somebody you know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As opposed to
someone that looks good on paper.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a final comment I'd
like to make, mainly for the benefit of the public and the
press, is that the long-term reason why this is -- why we're
in the situation we're in, there's two main answers. One is
unfunded mandates coming from Austin. And to make it very
clear, there's another one this year related to indigent
defense that we are going to have to fund, and it's built
into the budget. Tommy made the comment earlier that our
indigent health care has risen 45 percent in recent years.
Our legal defense goes up every year, indigent -- our
current indigent defense goes up, and there's countless
other ones. So, you know, if people are upset, call Harvey
Hilderbran and call Troy Fraser and call the governor,
lieutenant governor; they're the ones that are causing the
problem long-term. The other one is, as Commissioner
Baldwin brought up this morning, the Juvenile Detention
Facility. We got handed a real mess this year, and that
cost us a million dollars. And we, I think, have a plan
that I feel is going to stop the bleeding as -- or anywhere
~j-~-us
49
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~,
~ L
23
24
25
near as bad as it is. It's still going to run at a deficit
of -- I don't know till it happens, but somewhere around
$200,000 a year out there. But I think there's -- you know,
all things considered, that's the best option for the future
of the facility. But I just want to make it real clear,
this is -- you know, it's been coming a couple years because
of the unfunded mandates out of Austin, and it has caught up
with us in a year when we had an unexpected major
expenditure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the name of
the game.
DODGE TINLEY: Anything else to be offered in
connection with the second agenda item? Are we in a
position, gentlemen, to -- without having the benefit of
these numbers, to consider Item 3? Or is it necessary that
we again recess?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before we go there,
Judge, I really need -- I think the Court needs to talk to
Ms. Nemec about what we're considering with respect to her
department and the transfer of responsibilities to
Commissioners Court. What does that entail? What is on her
mind? I think we need to know more about that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- my
recommendation on that would be to let Ms. Mitchell and
N-~-oS
._
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
29
25
50
Ms. Nemec get together and see what -- Ms. Mitchell
understands from her previous positions, you know, a lot of
that work that we want to get transferred up here, and see
how that works, and if it can -- you know, I think it -- the
idea -- my idea in moving this is to help Ms. Nemec's office
where her chief deputy's working way too many hours right
now, and reducing some of that, but -- and get it up here,
and hopefully as a half-staff reduction, this will work and
it's not too much to get up here. But I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather have them
talking, 'cause they know more about the details than I do.
Personally, I'd rather get a recommendation -- feedback from
both of them, you know, today or tomorrow, at some point.
MS. NEMEC: So, what you're wanting me to do
is take my chief deputy position, and all her duties except
payroll go to Commissioners Court?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I want you and
Ms. Mitchell to visit about -- I think there's -- and maybe
there's a way to -- to split it differently.
MS. NEMEC: That would be the only way that
we could do the revenues and accounts payable without a
part-timer is if -- if she did nothing but payroll.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think where
we're coming from, Ms. Nemec, is detailing exactly what the
y-,-ns
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~3
24
25
personnel function's all about, and determining whether or
not this particular move makes sense or is
counterproductive. We need to know that. We need to know
what the added burden would be in Commissioners Court,
whether or not Ms. Mitchell can handle any or all of that or
part of that, and whether or not that fits with the -- with
the idea of adding one more person to Commissioners Court
and what that job would entail. I think we have to flesh
out those details.
MS. NEMEC: So you'll be adding a full-time
position to Commissioners Court?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is picking up some
of your function and some of the maintenance function.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're talking about
billing -- I mean the booking also coming into that
position. We just need to itemize it and take a good, hard
look at it, if it makes sense.
MS. NEMEC: It would make more sense to me to
hire a part-timer in Commissioners Court and keep my office
like it is than to move all the functions. But, you know,
whatever the Court desires.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we're going to --
our plan is to reduce the staff by half.
MS. NEMEC: But you're reducing a part-time
employee in my office --
q_~_ _i c
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And a part-time
position --
MS. NEMEC: -- and adding a full-time
employee in the Commissioners office with benefits.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's functions
also in Maintenance, a reduction over there, and we're
looking at that because of additional juvenile facility, but
see if that would work. We're moving multiple functions up
to Commissioners Court, and if they don't work, the other
option is to leave your office more as it is and put a
part-time person up in Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And Commissioner
Baldwin brought in a pretty good suggestion in terms of
transferring of an existing employee from one set of
responsibilities to -- back into the court. I think that's
a plan that really makes some sense.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, the feedback that
I'm getting is that your -- you need part-time work and you
need -- and your chief deputy's working way too much.
And -- well, we're fixing that problem as well. You said
you have a problem there. We're moving that work up here
with the personnel to do it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What does this do for
their Odyssey program?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the question?
9 - ~ C 5
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Odyssey program is on
to buy.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is on?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, based on what
the Auditor told us.
MS. NEMEC: And so is the cost-of-living?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, 3.2 percent. I'd
like the new numbered run with the cost-of-living,
3.2 percent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there anything additional
that we need to do today, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only question I have is
to the Tax Assessor on setting the tax rate.
MS. RECTOR: Tomorrow is the absolute
deadline.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For what?
MS. RECTOR: We need to get -- I have to have
the first quarter-page notice published on Monday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. RECTOR: Two notices that have to be
published; two public hearings and two notices, so that's
why I gave a little bit of leeway from yesterday through
Thursday to try to hope that we could get this all wrapped
y-~-cs
54
1
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
up so that I could get the notice prepared, get it to the
newspaper for them to publish on Monday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When you say
"deadline," you're talking about just reservation of space,
or actually --
MS. RECTOR: No, the space is reserved for
Monday's paper.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. RECTOR: But I have to have that time to
prepare the notice after y'all take your record vote and
discuss your proposed tax rate, which y'all are obviously
not there yet. So, tomorrow, hopefully that will happen so
that I can get the ad done and get it to the paper by Friday
for them to put it into Monday's paper.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd recommend --
MS. RECTOR: It has to be published on --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I recommend we recess
this meeting and readjourn at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Can you do that?
MR. EMERSON: You can't keep carrying
meetings day after day. You can go one day; you can't go
two.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can't go two. Then I
recommend we post an emergency meeting for tomorrow.
JUDGE TINLEY: We can't do it.
-~-os
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2~
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only choice we got. I
think it qualifies; you have to have a tax rate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's still a
couple components that we haven't -- that involve us with
the City we haven't talked about -- or have we?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're at a point
that we're going to have to set a tar, rate with some
unknowns.
COMMISSIONER
Tommy's updated numbers?
COMMISSIONER
this that we did today.
COMMISSIONER
going to let us do an emerg
MR. EMERSON:
yourselves open to have the
COMMISSIONER
BALDWIN: What do we need?
WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. Based on all
BALDWIN: I don't -- are you
=_ncy meeting tomorrow?
I think you're leaving
order be challenged.
BALDWIN: Let's come back in
here tonight.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Emergency meeting?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not an emergency
meeting; just this is still open, today's agenda --
yesterday's agenda.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have until --
~-~ OS
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Until midnight tonight
on this agenda?
MR. EMERSON: You're good for today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Today would be through
midnight tonight?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the earliest
time we could get Tommy's numbers?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good
question.
MS. MITCHELL: I'll find out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Boy, he conveniently
had a doctor's appointment, didn't he?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He planned that.
MS. PIEPER: Why can't Mindy run the numbers?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
MS. PIEPER: Mindy. Can she run the numbers?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, he'll be back. What do
you want to shoot for? 3:00? 4 o'clock this afternoon?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Letz,
do you have an idea what -- after running the numbers,
what it's going to look like?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I really don't.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We made a lot of changes.
y ,~ u ~
57
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
^9
25
I mean, I suspect we're still going to have the reserve
level below 20 percent, 'cause, I mean, we have to add what
was not in the last run. We have a -- a ballpark number of,
you know 200,000, 250,000 deficit at the juvenile facility
which is not in there, and we have a $235,000 increase for
the COLA, so we're at 450,000 we're adding in, and I don't
think we've reduced $450,000 worth of personnel, so I would
say that we're probably still looking at a tax increase.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we got pretty
close to 400,000.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Of course, I need to
see the numbers, but my preference would be to go back in
and do some more cutting rather than raise taxes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think that some
of the cuts that we have outlined are questionable at this
point. There's a couple -- there's maybe two spots that may
need to be added back in to be able to function with
maintenance due to the juvenile facility maintenance issue,
and pending the Treasurer's office discussion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner, I agree
with you that raising taxes is a bad thing to do. This
Commissioners Court -- or Kerr County Commissioners Court
has done that very, very rarely. I think three years ago we
bumped it some, but prior to that it was 10 or 12 years or
something like that, that it --
y-~-n~,
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
MS. RECTOR: It was seven.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seven years, thank
you -- that it had been touched. And although I don't like
tax increases either, sometimes they're a necessity. And
our tax rate is so low compared to the other entities around
here. I -- another thing. These entities that are lowering
their tax rate, I mean, that looks good and that's cute, but
I've been through that one time, and that can catch you into
a major bad storm. And that is, things are running pretty
good right now for them and they've lowered their tax rate.
Who knows in two years what's going to happen? And one time
when I was on the Hunt School Board, we did exactly that and
things got bad. We not only had to bump it up to where it
was, but we had to go way above that to catch up what we had
lost in those few years, and it was ugly. And so I never
recommend lowering the tax rate, although it looks good and
it's comfortable. But --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I also think,
though, Commissioner, about the -- the opportunities to
reduce costs that we've missed. First one that comes to
mind is the $400,000 that us and the City are paying to make
up the deficit in EMS. That was unnecessary. We could have
saved the two sets of taxpayers $400,000 by just adjusting
the prices.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree 100 percent.
~-~-os
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the verdict?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 3:30 this afternoon.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll be here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I have to be. I
can't afford to drive home. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would you rather we go to
4:00 to mare sure it's ready?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's go to 4:00.
JUDGE TINLEY: Have we got anything more that
we can --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- thrash out today?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What time Thursday do
we want to set the tax rate? Oh, sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're setting it today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As soon as we get the
new numbers.
MS. RECTOR: When you say "set the tax rate,"
all you're doing is discussing r_he proposed rate; you're not
actually setting the rate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But it's our --
Q ~ ~ S
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~,
23
24
25
60
MS. RECTOR: And that is always subject to
change once you do -- I publish a proposed rate. That does
not set that rate in concrete like it does for some of the
other taxing jurisdictions.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we could do our
best guess this afternoon?
MS. RECTOR: Best guess this afternoon, as
long as you're pretty close to where you think you want to
be. 'Cause we've got to do the first public hearing, I have
to publish a second quarter-page ad, and then the second
public hearing before you can adopt the rate, so there's
still some time between there to make some adjustments as
needed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is today the voice
vote?
MS. RECTOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Isn't that crazy? Do
a voice vote on adopting it as well?
MS. RECTOR: On the proposed.
COMMISSIONER. BALDWIN: Yeah.
MS. RECTOR: We take a record vote on the
proposed rate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MS. RECTOR: Proposed is not necessarily what
you adopt; it's what you're proposing to adopt.
a-~-ns
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~,
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is just so
ridiculous, that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is a record
vote?
MS. RECTOR: It's a record vote.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is a record
vote.
MS. RECTOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN
On something that may
or may not happen.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before we even adopt
the budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MS. RECTOR: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Then, when you get
down to really adopting the tax rate, it's just a vote.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. See y'all at
9 o'clock.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we will be in recess
until 4 o'clock this afternoon.
(Recess taken from 12:06 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.)
DODGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to
order. We were in recess until 4 o'clock this afternoon,
September 7th, 'O5, and it's a bit past that now. The
y-~-os
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
Auditor was kind enough to rework some numbers to
incorporate some of the things we've been doing, and I think
everybody has a new summary sheet. Any questions of the
Auditor about what's on the summary sheet or how that was
compiled?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a -- a question on
the juvenile facility. Can you walk me through that a
little bit, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, let's see. I wasn't
sure what -- which one -- which one to use. I used the
48-bed with 80 percent capacity.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, okay. It's right.
I looked at it. You know, I thought there was a --
something left off, but I think it's correct.
MR. TOMLINSON: Basically, what I did, the --
I plugged in the deficit, the 288,84E, into the tax revenue
line item, so that -- that made it a balanced budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess that's my
question. Why would you put it there and not take it off of
the estimated balance at the end of the year? Why wouldn't
you use that -- show that as an estimated tax revenue? I
don't understand why it's in that column, why the deficit.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, because it takes that
much tax to -- to offset the expenditures. The tax plus
the -- the --
a-~-os
63
1
G
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Revenue.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- revenues.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Those two add --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that's how you make it
balance?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Tommy?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When you look at
calculating reserves, the desire for 25 percent, is it this
total number up here or the bottom total?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's what I'm using, is the
top -- the 3,473,tS30.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we're at
20.5 percent.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. The -
Bridge stands on its own, since that's a cep
then the bottom third of the page, those are
funds. They're not -- you know, they're not
being used by -- by the other funds, so they
own also.
- the Road and
crate tax. And
special revenue
subject to
stand on their
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In Road and Bridge, their
reserves, though, are decreasing 220,000.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, no.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Including -- total, I
9-7 -1] 5
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
mean.
MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, total. But -- but part
of that is the Schreiner Road Trust.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, because we're using
the Schreiner Road Trust for part of it, so the reserves are
actually going down 115,000 or so.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. Now, this does --
this tax number does assume a 2-cent increase.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, this assumes a 2-cent
increase?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's 400 --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Estimated revenues
include a 2-cent increase?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. That -- when I -- the
last thing I heard was that when I left.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, if we got rid of the
2-cent increase, that's --
MR. TOMLINSON: That's $410,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $410,000. So, we're
actually worse off than we were this morning.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, we are.
4- 7- i i 5
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How could that be?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because we added in the
juvenile facility and we added in the COLA, which are two
big numbers.
MR. TOMLINSON: Two big numbers.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So -- but without
the tax increase, our spending exceeds revenues by somewhere
around $800,000.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And with it, our
spending exceeds revenue by somewhere around $400,000.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, a big chunk is
up there in Indigent Health, too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well --
MR. TOMLINSON: And that -- I made an
assumption on -- under the -- for the airport. I used the
same number as last -- as last year, because I didn't --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was last year's
number?
MR. TOMLINSON: 173.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, that's too high.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it's too low.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 173? I don't have it
9 - ~ - i i 5
56
1
~,
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's two --
MR. TOMLINSON: I -- when I did this, I
didn't know --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- what that was.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll find it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You plugged in the number
that we gave you, didn't you, in here at one point?
JUDGE TINLEY: I had it marked.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See the Tab 25? This
shows 173 here. That's not right. Bill, do you have that
with you? My airports file's in my --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm looking for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- at my house.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me go ahead and
get my airport file.
(Commissioner Williams left the courtroom.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That number, I believe --
I want to say it's 290 or something like that, quite a bit
higher than last year, because it's kicking off --
JUDGE TINLEY: The only number I've seen, and
I've got a question mark here on Page 61 of the latest run,
was the 173,5.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe that's it, but I
~a ~-o~
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
thought it was higher. That was -- the 173,5 was last
year's.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was last year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's higher this year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: I would make -- I
suggested -- I don't know if -- I don't -- we have a sizable
balance in the road districts account. If we could --
(Commissioner Williams returned.)
MR. TOMLINSON: If there's any -- anything
that Road and Bridge has planned that would fit that -- that
fund, I don't -- I think there's some stipulations somewhere
historically that prevent us from using some of that -- the
road district's money for certain things, but I don't -- I
know Leonard knows that. But I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Ingram Lake Road
District? That --
MR. TOMLINSON: No. No, it's the road
districts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 0
MR. TOMLINSON: Those
road districts. That's been --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
know if we can spend -- or use those
~, I see.
are -- those are old
15 years.
I don't -- I don't
funds outside of those
Q-7 -i1 5
h8
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
road districts or not. I don't know if we can or not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- do you have a
calculator, Dave?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What did you put in
for the airport?
MR. TOMLINSON: 173 and change. I don't
remember.
JUDGE TINLEY: 173,5.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The number -- this is
what I remember, the 289,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the match
grant and the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the match grant,
the management contract, and then the owner participation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It'll be slightly less
than that, I believe, after Airport Board meets again. I
think you plug in 270 -- 275.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Total?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, that's total --
that's each. That's not the total; that's each the City and
County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The biggest piece is
the match grant for the work that's going on out there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Add another 105,000, 110,000.
~-~-os
E9
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, add a hundred --
I'd say 100,000. 270, 110,000. Okay, thanks.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: First, before I go on, I
presume everyone -- I know I did -- received an e-mail from
the District Clerk durinq break, and I have a bit of a
problem with it. And, Linda, I don't know where you came up
with this stuff. You're basically alleging, because I asked
you last week about passports and whether you wanted to
transfer that somewhere else, that that's why you're on the
chopping block. That's the most absurd thing I've ever
heard of.
MS. DECKER: I was just asking why.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you know, you
say -- do you want me to read the thing into the record?
It's public record. You said, How in the heck am I on the
chopping block? And you allege that it was because the
Judge asked you -- which I had no idea that he was asking
you about passports, and that I independently -- the Judge
asked you after that about passports. The reason I asked
you about passports is that passports were done down here,
as you're quite aware, for a long time. The former
administrative assistant refused to do it, and this court
looked for someone to do it, and you agreed and have done it
since then, and have done a good job with it. I asked you
A-~ us
~o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
merely if we were adding a -- looking at this new position
down here, if it made sense to help your department by
moving it down here. You said no, and I said okay, that's
fine.
MS. UECKER: No, I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was not --
MS. UECKER: I didn't say no.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You actually said that
you would work with me. But for you to say here that I
wanted to do that to find this person something to do is not
correct.
MS. DECKER: That's what you said.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I said if there -- if we
could make it work, yes. If we can improve efficiencies
like I think we are doing and reducing county-wide -- as I
told you in the e-mail, I look at county-wide staffing
counts. If we were able to do that in creating this or
moving some employees around in this position, I'm in favor
of doing it, and you said you agreed. So, I just want -- I
mean, I don't -- I think that's wrong, what you said in
here, and that's not why you're on the chopping block.
Every department is, quote, on the chopping block, because
we have a serious problem this year. I am --
MS. UECKER: No, I have to defend my office,
the same as Paula did, the same as Jannett did, the same as
-'7-ns
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
~1
22
23
~4
z5
anybody.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand.
MS. DECKER: But when my name came up this
morning, I have a right to that, Jonathan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a problem at
all with you defending and saying no, there's absolutely no
way you can do it, but don't say it's because I asked you
one day if you wanted to move passports down here. That's
-- they`re two totally separate issues. You made that --
MS. DECKER: That's what it appeared to be to
me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I told you in the e-mail
that's not true, that was not the case, and you sent me an
e-mail about that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Your after-the-fact perception
that I inquired on two different occasions how your passport
volume was holding, albeit they may have been one day and
then two days later, which literally, true, I guess would be
every other day, that may have been your perception.
MS. DECKER: Judge, I've seen you. You've
asked me several times. And it's fine; you have a right to
do that. But, you know, I see now maybe why that you were
doing that. I don't know. I wondered at the time how come
you're so curious about passports.
JUDGE TINLEY; 'Cause you made a big deal
-~-os
7~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2I
22
~3
24
25
about it, so I'm curious about it.
MS. UECKER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I would say that
that was not why I -- I mean, I did not think we were going
to be in the position we are. I knew we were going to have
a tight budget. I had no idea until last week how bad it
was. You know, I don't think Jannett volunteered to give up
a position. I don't think Road and Bridge volunteered. I
don't think anyone pretty much has volunteered. There may
be some others. And I think every department -- I mean, I
don't think Barbara's real happy with my proposal either. I
mean, I'm pretty much gong to every department and making
people not real happy with me, but my intent is to -- is for
the taxpayers of this county and to get us on a fiscally
responsible budget, and that is going to include, in my
opinion, raising taxes. But I'm not about to raise taxes to
cover this full amount. I think every department needs to
tighten their belt, and it's unfortunate.
MS. UECKER: Have I not done that, Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You have. I think every
department's done it. I'm just saying we may have to do
more. Anyway, I don't want to get -- your e-mail touched a
nerve with me, 'cause that was not the reason that I asked
you about passports. I did not intend --
MS. UECKER: Well, it was not my intention to
0-7 OS
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
touch your nerve. I just felt like I had a right to defend
my position as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, and you do. And I
would expect you to, you know, support your staff, and also
at the same time give us a -- you know, if there's any way
you can, if you can cut staff, let us know.
MS. UECKER: And I will.
COMMISSIONER. LETZ: Mr. Trolinger, a while
back, somehow connected with the Sheriff's budget and laptop
computers and -- and things of that nature, there was a
proposal in there to put laptops in deputies' cars with
wireless things so that they can do their reports and
improve efficiency.
MR. TROLINGER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the cost of that
if we add 15 laptop computers?
MR. TROLINGER: First year, to start the
project, was $21,000 initial cost.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You want only 15
computers. We're not putting one in each car?
MR. TROLINGER: Correct. That was the
minimum starting off, with -- with this in mind. Each one
of those units has a recurring cost per month of $55 for
that wireless service.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's 21,000 --
-% u5
74
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
~0
?1
22
23
24
25
MR. TROLINGER.: That includes that for the
first year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For the first year. Then
after that, we're at 55 times i5 times 12.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 9,900 -- $10,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $10,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $31,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would recommend another
cut; that we reduce the Sheriff's deputies by four positions
and add in the technology to make that department more
efficient.
	MR. TROLINGER:	And you	understand, in my
report, that	that was simply	to reduce	the cost of fuel
driving from	-- for instance,	all the	way from out west all
the way across town to file a	report.	That was the
intention.			
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. I understand.
MR. TRULINGER: Not that it frees anybody up,
but it keeps an additional deputy in place in Hunt instead
of driving across town and being at the Sheriff's Office and
being available from that location.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand that, but I
also understand -- I think my opinion, in visiting with the
Sheriff, is that also improves their ability to get work
done in the field by getting reports done while they're in
5-7-OS
7s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L 2
23
24
25
the field, and I think that's improved efficiency, and I
think it has made -- can happen better, as I understand it,
with Odyssey, because of some of the benefits of Odyssey.
Sheriff, you don't have to yell at me; I know you're mad.
But, you know, I just think that, you know, there's a spot
there. The -- I think every department, you know, needs to
really look at some reductions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now, what did you say
about reducing the Sheriff's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He loses four positions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Four on top of what
we already talked about?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For a total of seven?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. And these are going
to be in the -- I presume in the patrol deputy area, but
that's up to him. And then the technology cost would get
added back in. Okay, Sheriff, now you can yell.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you.
MR. TROLINGER: Do you need my numbers?
SHERIFF HTERHOLZER: No, I don't naed your
numbers. You know I'm against it, okay. What it will do
is, we currently have, if everybody's on duty and nobody's
off nobody's on vacation, six deputies per shift. That's
six deputies to cover 1,100 square miles. This will cut
o ~_~~
~6
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
,_._ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
;2
23
~_ 2 4
25
that down to five per shift. That's going to be one off
every shift, in essence. Riqht now I have a mandate and a
mandatory deal; we never go less than four per shift, and I
will have to lower that back to where we were six, eight
So -- because the time off,
I am totally in disagreement
that three patrol deputies working per shift for a county of
1,100 square miles is not adequate. I
think it jeopardizes the safety of our
done? Yes, if that's what y'a11 are -
would need to add an amount to overtim
substantial amount. In trying to look
least 10,000 in addition to what we're
think it's wrong. I
officers. Can it be
- are requestinq. I
__ for the deputies, a
at this, I'd say at
at right now, and at
least probably 20,000 into the jail overtime.
The jail overtime -- and the way this affects
it is jail overtime is 22 percent over budget as we speak.
A lot of that is because we've had several inmates in the
hospital, and after we did the organized crime, we've had
some that had to go through surgeries, and we had been using
deputies to fill that position along with jailers. I will
never be able to use deputies to fill those positions. A
lot of the court days, we're using deputies watching them
and patrol, as you know, to come over and help with jailers
and those. I will have to use overtime in the jail to be
able to make it work. And, in fact, I'm already 22 percent
~i - ~ ~ rj
~~
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
down. It's going to require a lot more, so I would
recommend that you at least add probably 20,000 to the jail
overtime and 10,000 to the deputies' overtime to make this
work.
Now, a personal point, gentlemen -- and I
don't intend on starting anything. I don't intend on -- on
really hurting Ms. Harris' deal or what y'all decided in
executive session or anything else, but I think it's a total
disservice to the citizens to cut the law enforcement
services that are available right now, as we speak, 'cause
I've already given up three positions without cutting law
enfor~~ement services to the public. But I think it's wrong,
and I can't justify it, in my mind, to cut the law
enforcement services to the public back to three officers on
duty for 1,100 square miles, and yet pay to bring in
juveniles from other counties to house them in our juvenile
facility. I don't think that's right. I don't think it
makes sense. I also don't think it makes sense that your
chief law enforcement officer of the county in y'all's
proposed budget is going to be making at least 5,000 less
than the administrator for the juvenile facility that runs a
48-bed facility and no law enforcement duties. I run a
192-bed facility and have 95 employees; I think the
responsibility's there. And, true, I don't have the college
certificate, but the next Sheriff may have, and I think it
s-~-us
78
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
°- 13
14
15
1b
17
18
19
20
21
L~
23
"" 2 4
25
is totally wrong.
I don't know what was discussed in executive
session, but the last time that it came up, we were also
paying to transport those kids here from other counties. I
think we have a duty to the taxpayers of this county to take
care of ourselves and take care of this county. And with
some of the figures that I did know before executive
session, before some of the cuts, that budget to run that
facility is going to be -- and I'm guessing, 'cause I
haven't seen what you cut, but I'm guessing it's going to be
over a million dollars a year to run that facility in a1 L.
You're trying to count some revenues in that, and my
understanding, it was going to be about 225,000 or so if
that facility were shut down and we transported our own kids
to other facilities. To me, that's $800,000 right there.
That would take care of a lot of these problems without
cutting law enforcement to the citizens of this county. And
I'm totally in disagreement, but I have to go by what this
Court says and what this Court does.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I'll make,
Sheriff, is that the -- the proposed deficit at the Juvenile
Detention Facility is 288,000. And that's based on
80 percent occupancy, which we're almost at that right now.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm talking about the
overall budget impact, not just the deficit. What is the
9-7-OS
7y
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
l~
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
budget for that facility, and what is the budget to house
kids it we did not have that facility at this point? What
would it be to house }:ids out of county?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: More than 288.
SHERIFF HIER.HOLZER.: What would it be? I
mean, what are we looking at?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can't look at it
that way. You have to look at what the total revenue is and
what the total expenses are, same way with your jail.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I won't rehash that, but
when you're saying 83 to 85 for most kids, 115 for others,
but I still have that it costs 120 a day, you know, in
different ones, I can't get my figures around that. But I
won't go there. What I'm saying, gentlemen, is I feel that
these der_isions are going to hurt law enforcement in this
county to supplement other counties of bringing kids here,
and I don't think that's right. Now, all the other parts --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Hold it, Sheriff.
The -- we're through with the Juvenile Detention Facility
discussions. It came down to two choices, only two. Wasn't
any other options. 48 beds and do the best you can, or shut
i the facility down and not have a place to taY,e our
preadjudicated children. And all the advice we got was the
best -- in the best interests of the community is to keep
the facility, so we've made that decision. I don't like the
9-~~-os
as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
salary inequities either, and we've had salary inequities
internally and compared to Kerrville and compared to other
jobs in the local labor market, so it's a reality. It's a
fact of life.
5HEAIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm not saying it's not.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can't solve it --
I don't like it, but we can't solve it overnight. But we've
made some progress, and it's not as bad as it used to be.
But it's -- but it's not going to be perfect.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, with all due
respect, you have a lot more than just the road warriors,
and if you believe that some of your staff needs to be
repositioned on the road, you have every right and
prerogative to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I
visited with the Sheriff during the break, and he knew what
I was going to propose, and --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And he knew what my
response was.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I knew what his
response was, which is fine. And I -- you know, I think
it's -- I hope we can get in a position next budget year or
future budget years to restore these and some of the other
spots we're cutting. I think that some of them we may never
need to restore. Some of them, I think we do. Law
~-7 US
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
enforcement is	one that I'm -	- you	know,	it	was at the very
end of my list,	and I will --	and I	told	the	Sheriff I
wanted to look at what the new report was, and if it was
improved enough, you know, I would modify what I was
proposing. But it didn't improve enough, and I think my
responsibility is to the taxpayers and to get a budget that
I think is -- is viable, and I've done that, and -- or I'm
making recommendations to do that. And I supported making
the technology improvements in that department, and I also
-- I will say just a comment. This isn't to the Sheriff;
this is to every department that has lost_ personnel today.
Now, I don't know if we're going to have to
reduce some more or not. I think this is probably -- this
will get us through. But if there are a few further
reductions, you know, I have noted that the -- and I know
which departments were not cut this year, and I know some of
the reasons why that is, and -- you know, probably just
because of some executive sessions and other issues that
we've had. But if there are other cuts in future years,
they're coming out of the departments that have not been cut
before they come out of any that has been cut this year, in
my opinion. And that's just -- you know, and those
departments know where they, you know, just got it through
this year without getting any cuts. Any further cuts,
rather. My view is -- and that's -- unless you have
9 7 u 5
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
anything else --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- on that topic, my
quick calculations show that that's about $150,000
additional to the black, so to speak, when you get four
deputies and then you add back in the overtime, the
computers, and so I just put $50,000 as a deputy, if you
include the cars and fuel and all that other stuff that goes
in with the benefits.
MR. TROLINGER: I wanted to advise on you
that number that I gave you. That $21,000 was for 10 units.
For 15 units, it is $32,250.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, can I ask a
question? Does that include the laptop itself and the
mounts in the car?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because the mounts are
over a thousand for -- and will it include being able to
transfer those units from car to car? Because that's what
will have to be done to cover it. Computer mounts that
swing out in the car for safety are over a thousand.
MR. TROLINGER: Right. And it did not -- it
did not cover transferring it between vehicles. It was for
patrol sergeants for the C.I.D., for the -- for basir_ally
the shift supervisors to have it in their vehicle, not to
a-~ 05
83
1
2
3
4
5
H
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
<<^3
24
25
move from one vehicle to another.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can they be set up
that way?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can it be set to move
from vehicle to vehicle?
MR. TROLINGER: They can, but the Sheriff's
numbers were right on. Each vehicle has to be mount --
provided with that mounting bracket and accessories.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that a more
efficient way to do it?
MR. TROLINGER: No.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That would be -- if
you're cutting deputies, to be honest, that would be the
only way that the deputies can -- I can try and cover some
of the makeup on the road, because that way they can
actually do their reports and look up their stuff while
they're on the road, all right? You know, because we
already work 12-our shifts; there is no overlapping shift.
I don't have the employees to work an 8-hour shift as it is.
So, without an overlapping shift, you don't have ones that
can come in off the road, sit down, do all their reports
from that day, and then other ones, you know, are still on
the road. And the only way, when you cut it down to this --
and with three, that means I may end up with one officer on
~ as
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
<1
22
23
24
25
the road if we can't do something to be able to change that
around to give them time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. I'm
not debating that. I just want to know, to equip them the
way it would maximize the benefit to the Sheriff, it amounts
to nothing more than a mountinq bracket and a wireless
connection; is that correct?
MR. TROLINGER: And the accessories --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In each car.
MR. TROLINGER: -- and components. And I
estimate -- I don't have the exact figure -- $86,000 to
implement that level of where each patrol car got the
equipment, the laptop can be moved from one vehicle to
another.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What we're talking
about, to be sure, is 15 laptops.
MR. TROLINGER: Correct.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 15 car mounts. Okay?
No, it would be 20 car mounts, 15 laptops, so that you can
be able to rotate those computers around. Because it would
not put any in C.I.D. It_ wouldn't put them in warrants.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 20 wireless
connections.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, the wireless
connections are $55 a month per unit, but that's 15 units.
y-~-vs
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why wouldn't it be --
MR. TROLINGER: I estimated 90 vehicles, so
it's more on the range of $50,000 to $55,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But why wouldn't it be on
the wireless connections, one per computer?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It is.
MR. TROLINGER: It is.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER.: 15 computers at $55 a
month.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you got to equip
the car.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, yeah, the brackets
are in every car, but the rest of it's on the laptop, isn't
it?
SHERIFF HlERHOLZER: That's as far as I know.
MR. TROLINGER: It is.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The brackets are over --
last I -- over somewhere around a thousand. I can't
remember.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Clearly, you have to have
the brackets in every car. Can you get by with 12
computers?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's do 12 computers and
the brackets in every car.
q 7-ii5
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the dial-up
connection is in the computer?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure -- you know,
what's that number, John?
JUDGE TINLEY: 2,100 a pop. But that
includes the -- not a good bracket, but a fixed bracket, I
think, isn't it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They're all -- and I'm
ballpark. I don't remember. Do you remember? They were --
they were somewhere around that. I'd have to go call to
make sure, but somewhere around a thousand per car.
MR. TROLINGER: I'm just givinq you an
estimate right now, but -- but for 15 units, to -- I'm
sorry, for 12 PCs and 20 mounts, it's still going to be over
-- over $35,000, but I'll have to give you exact numbers in
a sit-down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Put $40,000 in there?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't go away; I want
to ask you something after we're finished with this
particular discussion.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As it pertains to
sottware and the Juvenile Detention Center.
z o5
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
l2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What I don't
understand is, if you're just going to put them in
supervisors' cars --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, that was his
original figures. This 12 in ~0 cars, since we cut patrol
officers, would put them in all the officers' cars that are
on duty at one time, and the ones coming on duty. And then
it would put it --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just putting them in
the supervisors' cars didn't make any sense.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Supervisors' cars won't
help me in this situation.
MS. UECKER: Didn't I read somewhere in one
of the county magazines about some grants available for that
type of technology?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's very possible.
MS. UECKER: It's been some time ago, but I
did see it somewhere.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we can go through a
grant, that's great.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So much the better.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At this point, I'd rather
budget for it, but -- and then pursue grants.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZEP.: The grant I'm pursuing
~_~_ns
88
1
2
3
9
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
1 L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
right now and would like to continue to pursue, that's going
to be the courthouse security.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you might check and
see if there are just some other grants available there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Remember, we did talk
about the -- the radio repair budget having to go up by
3,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that is a -- so,
between the deputies and the Sheriff, we've paid for the
airport. I mean, the Sheriff's -- we've gained by $50,000
total.
COMMISSIONER BALDwIN: I got to tell you, I'm
extremely uncomfortable with reducing police protection to
our citizens so that we can have an airport or we can have a
juvenile detention facility. I mean, I'm sorry, that just
doesn't make sense to me. It just flat does not make sense.
Police protection is one of those things that we demand; I
demand, as a taxpayer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. And the only
thing I can say on the -- I mean, the juvenile facility,
again, I think it's -- the numbers have showed us that we
looked at earlier that we -- it costs the county taxpayers
less with a 48-bed facility. They lose -- it costs them
less than it does if we shut it down.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I know that's
~,-~ os
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what they say. I -- I don't believe that, but, you know,
history's going to tell us. When we gel down the road a
little bit, we're going to see that that's not true, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And related to the
airport, I mean, it's -- I agree that there are some
things -- a long-term project out there is kicking -- is
funded, and we can, you know, throw away that full project
or fund it. And, you know, it's not -- it's an all or
nothing type deal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're throwing away
$3 million in capital improvements if we don't fund our
10 percent match.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, and that's
just -- you know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, when it comes to
law enforcement and fire service and ambulance service,
those, you know, I -- I don't give a damn about your
airport.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, that's just
my opinion, when you compare those two things. I couldn't
care less about an airport.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think -- and what I
heard from the Sheriff is that he doesn't like giving up the
four deputies, certainly, but we will still have law
q-~-us
yo
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
enforcement that hopefully will be adequate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hope so.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Three per shift for
1,100 squares miles, y'all decide whether that's going to be
adequate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Three per shift, if
anybody's on vacation or in training, for 1,100 square
miles, you decide whether that's adequate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You know what my opinion
is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Going to four per
shift or three per shift?
SHERIFF HSERHOLZER: What we will have --
okay, right now -- right now I have scheduled six per shift.
You take the time off -- it's very seldom that somebody gets
that, because we don't build up comp time any more. We try
and give that time back off so that you don't run up our
overtime. Overtime budget in the Sheriff's Office for all
95 employees has been $15,000 a year. Compare that to
$75,000 the City has; it's a big difference. So, in keeping
with that, we -- we make officers take off. Number two,
we've qot some that have vacation time coming. They're
allowed to take that vacation time. That cuts down the
~ ~_
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
number, so a large percentage of the time -- and you have
other ones that are in training that you have to -- to
provide, and so a large percentage of the time we end up
with four. And I do have a policy that we are never allowed
to work less than four officers per shift. Now, if it looks
like it's going below that because of things, we always call
in others and do have to pay out that overtime at that time.
Doing this, you're cutting my starting point from six to
five, which will make it to where I have to set the policy
at three, because I cannot keep four on there all the time
because of the -- the circumstances, the time off, the sick,
whatever. All right. It ends up being three. And if you
feel that, at any time, three patrol deputies patrolling
1,100 square miles is adequate, then you have to do what you
have to do. All right? You know my opinion on whether or
not it's adequate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that -- is that --
at one point, when I used to go riding with y'all -- and
everybody embarrassed me so bad, I won't do it any more --
you have -- you have a lieutenant -- or, I'm sorry,
lieutenant, corporal, sergeant, officers of some sort --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Y'all remember part of
the positions we gave up?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that worked the
middle area of the county. Then you had the others working
q-~-o~
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
?~
23
24
25
the outside of the county.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. What we have,
number one, we have no more corporal positions. I gave
those up about three years ago.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever, Rusty.
Whatever that --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have a sergeant, and
what this will be is one sergeant, and possibly two patrol.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's what I --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We divide the county
into three sections; central, east, and west. All right.
Each of those patrolmen, you know, work those. With the
four mandated on duty at a time, it leaves me either the
sergeant, or sometimes he'll work a sector and assign one of
his patrolmen to it, but they're called a rover. If the
east deputy needs backup, has something else going, or he's
stopped a DWI, the roving officer is the one that gives him
that backup. He's the one that can head there and help.
All right. What you're doing if I go down to three, we have
no rover, so when that east guy needs help, either the
central one or the west one has to go help him, which leaves
the central uncovered. And that's what we're asking --
that's what we're going to do to the citizens.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, that would be not
all the time. It will be part of the time, correct?
y 7 u 5
93
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Majority of the time.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because of the training
and the time they're off. It stays --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many patrol
deputies do you have?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have 24.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you're talking
about going down to 21?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And you're talking about
-- yeah -- no, 20 is what you're talking about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 20.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Which would be five per
shift.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many inside
people do you have?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have one civil. I
have one transport who is on the road all the time; two
warrants and their sergeant, who spend a lot of their time
up here in court or serving -- we have currently outstanding
about 2,000 outstanding criminal arrest warrants for this
county alone. Okay. And then in C.I.D., I have five,
supervisor and the evidence tech.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ten total? Ten? Is
that what you're saying? Ten people?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. They're -- total
9 9 - U 5
94
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
number of -- of certified officers, including myself and the
two task force officers right now, is 44 total.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 34?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 44.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 44.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's task force, me,
chief, and the assistant C.I.D. and the warrants and civil.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So far, I counted up
to 30. Where's the other 14?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have one -- of course,
you have to -- there is one D.A.R.E. officer; that's all she
does for the entire -- all the school districts in Kerr
County. And I have one work release officer that works the
inmates.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just want you to
assure me that there'll be a deputy in my neighborhood,
permanently, to protect my family.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Ain't going to happen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh-oh.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have the one training
coordinator sergeant, training coordinator that took over,
which already merged with the jail training coordinator; he
does the entire department, and he fills in on patrol when
he can or in court when he can. Because we already
eliminated that training coordinator sergeant out of the
y-~-os
95
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
jail. So, sergeants, counting -- I have one, two, three,
four, five -- five sergeants. One is a training
coordinator, crime prevention, all that, as I just said.
So, it's four sergeants, 'cause we have four shifts.
Investigators, it's one, two, three, four, five, plus the
chief investigator, and one of those five is also the
evidence technician officer. Okay. And they are all
averaging right now, as of today -- Clay pulled it up and
looked -- 27 active cases each that they're each
investigating. Warrants, you have the sergeant, which takes
a trip -- they hauled five to T.D.C. today. I have one
civil officer, one transport officer, and one other warrant
and one other warrant, so I have three warrants, counting
the sergeant, that actually are trying to serve warrants and
hauling inmates. I have Chuck Brecher, the courthouse
security officer, is the other one over here that you can
add to your list. And then we have the 24 on patrol.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do those warrants
have to be served by deputies, or can they be served by
constables?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, the constables --
I'm not counting the warrants that the J.P.'s have, okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I'm just asking a
question. The warrants --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Warrants can be served
~, ~-us
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
by any certified peace officer in the state.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By anybody?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that's the way it
works. All right. We do serve a lot of warrants on court
days and things. Last month -- the month of September --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to spring
loose some men for you here, Sheriff. That's where I'm
heading.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can't tell a constable
what he has to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know statutorily
if you can.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We got cars and budgets,
though.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We -- I'd love to have
the help on serving warrants, I can tell you. Last month
alone, the month of August, we served 299 warrants.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many people did
it take to do that?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I couldn't tell you.
Some of those were found by patrol officers on the road.
Some of those were found by the warrant officers. Everybody
serves warrants.
a ~ n,
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it a reasonable
approach to think about moving warrants over to the
constables and freeing up a deputy from inside -- or from
that service? Or two? 'Cause I think you identified three
or more.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Three, counting the
sergeant. But they also do a lot of the courthouse, you
know, stuff with inmates and going and getting -- because a
lot of times -- Carroll Schultz is my transport officer. If
a person's arrested inside the state of Texas and cannot
make bond, we have five days to get him. If he's arrested
outside the state of Texas, once the extradition part is
over, we have ten days to get him and get him brought back
here. We have saved a whole lot of money by Carroll Schultz
driving those out-of-state ones and picking them up and
bringing them back here, because of airline costs and
security issues on airlines or contracting with private
companies costs us. If it's a female, I got to send two
officers. If it's a female inside the state, I have to send
two officers; one needs to be a female.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: All right. That -- he
is -- he is on the road every day of the week right now.
And then you'll have trips to SAFP, you'll have trips to
T.D.C., which draw one of those other officers into that
a ~-us
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~2
23
29
25
position. And we may have two. Sometimes we've had all
three of them on the road at one time, because it is a large
state and you end up with people arrested all over, 'cause
all our warrants go in the state system. And if you don't
get them picked up by the deadline, they turn them loose.
And if it's an out-of-state one that doesn't get picked up
by the deadline, they turn them loose and you are not
allowed to arrest them again in that state, period.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- Commissioner
Williams, I think I would support if we can shift the
warrants -- most of the warrants to the constables, then you
can, you know, add back on the patrol side one or two.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, yes, you -- you
can add it on the patrol side. All right. Number one, one
of the warrant officers is also the Crimestoppers
Coordinator, handles all the Crimestoppers calls, 'cause all
that comes into the county, regardless of what city or
whatever, so he has all that. Number two, you have to
recall, I have one civil deputy. Okay. We are averaging
right now -- because a lot of your big corporations have now
done their -- their -- they call it "registered agent" is in
this county. When Enron went under, we served over 400
civil papers in dealing with Enron because of the registered
agents in this county. All the State Hospital papers that
have to be served, he serves. We've got overloaded in
G - ~ ~ 15
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
civil, because they have not asked for another civil deputy,
so the warrant deputies are also filling in helping with the
civil process service, which is extremely important, as
anybody will tell you, to make sure those get served, 'cause
they're on times. And it's not unusual for a criminal case
coming up, you'll have 20, 30 subpoenas for that criminal
case, and that gets canceled, and you're still doing it.
Civil papers are one of the most important parts of your
office, and so it's -- you know, I understand it's not a
good situation anywhere in the county. I understand that.
COMMISSIONER W7LLIAMS: I would ask you to
take a look at that, see if it's a possibility.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Cutting four patrol
officers will -- I'll have to take a look at a lot of things
and what it will do. Anyhow, my objections to it, my
reasoning for it, I don't agree with it, but that's -- I can
understand the position y'all are in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before you go off on
another topic, Commissioner -- Mr. Trolinger? With respect
to the Juvenile Detention Facility, what was the plan for
software, and was that something you budgeted or have you
already talked to Ms. Harris about that? Have you talked to
Mr. Trolinger today?
MS. HARRIS: Not today, no, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. What is your
e-~ os
100
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2s
plan for software that assists them in doing accounts
receivable, billing, et cetera? You told us, but it's been
so long ago, I've forgotten.
MR. TROLINGER: I've had two formal sit-downs
with Ms. Harris. The bottom line was that we had originally
agreed that she was to budget for -- for software for
broadband connectivity to -- to integrate the facility with
the county. We were taking at that point about not
necessarily the accounting side, but more from the -- the
detention facility operation, the commissary, similar to how
the jail is operating.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This would not be a
part of the Odyssey package?
MR. TROLINGER: It is a part of the
Odyssey -- and that was previous to discussing Odyssey and
integrating the Juvenile Detention Facility operation. The
only piece that we need to provide is the broadband
connectivity. Software Group has agreed to develop and
customize the -- the jail package for the detention
facility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, if there
was a number put in Juvenile Detention Facility for
software, that number does not necessarily have to be
utilized?
MR. TROLINGER: Does not need to be restored.
s ~-as
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
101
It's the broadband service. We've got two choices. We've
got an existing DSL line. Some promises were made that it
would be good enough, and I -- I expect that it's not good
enough, and I expect that we need to reinsert in the budget
$4,400 per year, which is the cost for broadband
connectivity.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And this would
improve the efficiency of billings for the Juvenile
Detention Facility, and would integrate with the accounting
software or whatever that we already have in place?
MR. TROLINGER: The idea would be that we
would want to integrate the accounting, the financial
functions. I did not look at that specifically with the
Incode package. I would expect that it can be done, but
because the facility had such a disparate way of doing
business from our Auditor's office, I wanted to -- that was
the next step. After we get the Auditor into the new
financial package, then we would look at the other
departments that are --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want you to look at
it, because Ms. Harris advised me that there is a software
package for this purpose that's put out by T.J.P.C. Is that
correct?
MS. HARRIS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At no charge.
9 7-05
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TROLINGER: Well, it's free with a
capital F.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TROLINGER: We would have to purchase
hardware.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want you to look at
that and tell us what the capital F is.
MR. TROLINGER: Okay. I did.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TROLINGER: The -- the Caseworker --
MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm.
MR. TROLINGER: Caseworker, which is free,
which is partially Internet connectivity and partially
dedicated software on a server and with computers, I
estimated the -- the cost for that at $11,000 for the --
just for the hardware to support that free software.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whereas, if we went
with Odyssey, it would be?
MR. TROLINGER: Currently, they're offering
it at no charge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TROLINGER: But there are -- there are
some pieces to work --
COMMISSIONER. WILLIAMS: Is that a lowercase
F?
9-7-OS
103
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TROLINGER: That's lowercase, because the
broadband is the additional piece that we have to have at
$4,400 per year. We currently -- I believe it's about
$1,000 per year for DSL.
MS. HARRIS: Don't we have more hardware,
computers and stuff?
MR. TROLINGER: No. That's why we need
broadband, in order to have that connection to the hardware
we're putting in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TROLINGER-: Sut there are several issues
there, and I wanted to make sure that you all were aware
that the broadband is the key piece, that pipe that connects
that facility to county courthouse, that lets us integrate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. TROLINGER: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on my ciphering --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're not fixing to
cut a Commissioner position, are you?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Road and Bridge earlier
volunteered to -- I wanted to get rid of a dump truck; they
wanted to get rid of a person. I want to get rid of a
person and a dump truck. That's $52,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Anybody making
notes for the Auditor? The Auditor's here.
G 7 - IJ 5
104
1
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2q
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm making notes. The
Judge is writing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't see Tommy.
I see him now.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How much?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think Miguel is
coming to the plate. He's going to give us something.
MR. ARREOLA: Well, gentlemen, if we can
discuss my budget in executive session? I don't know if we
can do that still.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it related to
personnel?
MR. ARREOLA: Yes. We might be able to help
out a little bit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. We need to
hear from you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ready to go into executive?
MS. NEMEC: Could we do mine now? Would
y'all mind doing mine before we go into to executive
session?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a number I
want to talk about, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, yeah. We'll do it
in a second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
y-,-oc
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. UECKER: Jonathan, if -- if -- from what
I understand, Odyssey is going to supply all of the
computers, right?
MR. TROLINGER: All the servers, yes.
MS. UECKER: But not the computers?
MR. TROLINGER: Not the desktop computers.
MS. UECKER: Okay. I thought you had told me
they were going to do the desktops.
MR. TROLINGER: As a part of the -- that
project, I have factored in printers, peripherals, hardware,
and some desktops that have to be replaced as part of it.
It does pay for some desktops.
MS. UECKER: The reason I was bringing that
up was because, you know, there's going to be a lot of good
computers that are going to be available to use somewhere
else if that's the case.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, my
understanding is that Mr. Trolinger's kind of factored in
the whole -- that we were given one item, and -- or one
number as to what Odyssey was going to cost.
MS. UECKER: Right. But, for instance, in my
office, I have budgeted for two. I bought two last year.
Those are good computers, and if Odyssey provides for those,
I mean, there's two just out of my office that are still
a-~ os
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
good, and I've got some others that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I -- I think he's
taken care of that or accounted for those. I don't know.
MS. UECKER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Were we straight on
the Road and Bridge issue? The truck and the man?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I'm hearing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There may be something
else. That's just --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I just -- I didn't
hear anybody but you say that, and I didn't see anybody --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're all ignoring me?
i Is that what you're saying?
I COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to look at
216th and 198th
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Uh-oh.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We started out on
Special Trials for 216th requesting 100,000. We may have
changed that to 50; I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, we did.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. Again, I see
that the last two years, they've used no money. I
understand why it's budgeted. Experience shows that we
~-~-cs
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
don't need it. And then, on 198th, for the last two years
we've spent $800 one year and $714. What Y.ind of risk will
we be taking if we cut those two 50's back to 5,000 or
10,000?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we have a trial,
we have to take it off -- declare an emergency and pay for
it. Your point is either declare it now or declare it
later, right?
COMMISSIONER NICHGLSON: It's time to be
looking at some big numbers, and $100,000 is a big number.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think part of that, we
put that in, I believe, because of the new unfunded mandate
that we -- is an unknown. Didn't we roll that into that,
Tommy, or do we have a new line item for that?
JUDGE TINLEY: You're talking about the
court-appointed civil, and you got those two figures there,
the 30 and the --
MR. TOMLINSON: That's a new line. That's a
new line item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: New line item?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's take a chance.
Let's cut that -- that $50,000 per court back to $10,000 per
court.
9-~-es
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay,
MS. UECKER: I think there's two -- Rusty,
correct me if I'm -- aren't there two capital cases that are
looking to go?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's two, --
MS. UECKER: Feaselman?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER; -- Feaselman and Seard,
that could go. Now, we've been saying that with both of
them. Feaselman's more likely to go.
MS. UECKER: Yeah. It's been set for trial a
couple of times.
SHERIFF H7ERHOLZER: Because of mental
condition.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one is that,
Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Feaselman, the 198th
capital murder case.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It could happen.
But --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that one will
probably go, because it was set -- just a few months ago,
subpoenas were issued, and right at the last minute, some
attorneys filed some other motions that had to do with
mental. That didn't go, but I would say that there is
probably a 98 percent chance at some time during this next
-~-vs
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
year that one will go, unless they work out some kind of
plea.
DODGE TINLEY: Which court is that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 198th.
MS. UECKER: 198th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think Seard's
going to happen this year.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Seard, I don't -- I have
no idea what would happen.
MS. UECKER: There's one other one, too, but
I'm not sure it's a capital case any more.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, there is -- we have
one, and this is just the same type situation. I had one
capital case that there is capital murder warrants issued.
The man's been floating back and forth across the Mexico
border. You don't know whether he's going to get arrested
during this year, whether we can get him prosecuted in
Mexico or whether it be here. And there --
MS. UECKER: Is that Horales?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My whole point is,
we don't have any idea whether we need zero dollars or
100,000. And experience tells us that we err on the safe
side and budget a lot, but we don't need it, or maybe we
transfer it to another budget item, so let's cut them back.
y-~-ns
110
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L S
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll be in favor -- based
on what the Sheriff -- what I'm hearing, I'd cut the 216th
back to 10,000 without any problem. On the 198th, I'm
also -- I'm hearing that there's a fairly high likelihood
that that's going to come -- to happen this year.
JUDGE TINLEY: And it's down to 30.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's already at 30,
so I wouldn't want to cut that one out.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, there is one thing
you can -- just trying to factor in, is the new law that now
there is a -- like, life without parole in the state of
Texas, so I don't know if that's going to affect the death
penalty stuff on juries or not. So, it may not cost as much
to try one of those.
MS. DECKER: It will. And there's also some
grants allowing counties to recoup costs on capital cases
here, but I don't know if we qualify for that. I know they
talked about it a couple years ago. Bandera would because
of their income and their revenues, but I don't know if Kerr
County would. There's just a lot of unknowns.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're going to cut
216th special trials to 10,000?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a $40,000 savings.
V - % - I I ri
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's next?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Auditor, did we get the --
the civil for the new C.P.S. rases? Are they in here, the
$30,000 and the $90,000 respectively?
MR. TOMLINSON: They're -- yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: In 216th and 198th?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, there is one
position, as I mentioned just briefly a while ago, at the
Sheriff's Office. The one officer that's called up for
military duty, and has been called up for over three years
now. I don't know -- and I've talked to him a few times.
He's not in Iraq; he's in San Antonio, and fixing to get
stationed to other places and that. Now, there comes a
point we could cut that off. I don't think we should for a
military person, because they're doing a good job. But he's
also, I think, a lieutenant colonel right now in the
military, so his salary military-wise is a whole lot more
than his salary deputy-wise. But that salary for the deputy
is figured in the budget. I really don't foresee him coming
back as a deputy, but that salary's already in there. We
would have to fill it if he does come back, because he is
entitled to a job of equal pay and equal position, and then
not fill one if you had an opening after that.
-~-ns
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How long do you have
to leave that open? Forever?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. I think, because of
the way it is, I could actually --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Close it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- close it, okay? But
he still has the right to come back at a position of equal
pay. He's -- you know, he still carries his certification;
he couldn't lose any of that. I mean, he just does have
that right. I don't think it would be right for us to say,
"Well, you volunteered to re-up after this point," you know,
we just cut him off. "You're no longer considered an
employee," just because it's military, and I don't think
it's right to do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You just keep running
it forever or what?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It could do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's sitting right
behind you.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. I wished he'd go to
the military sometimes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, Rusty, I don't
have a problem, with the understanding that if he comes
back, we'll have to create a position, and we should. But I
don't mind using that as one as the four.
v ~ os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
113
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. And it's the
same -- similar issue in special trials. We don't -- he
might not come back, so let's -- let's use the money now,
and when he comes back, do the right thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll declare an
emergency at that time and say we're hiring this person
back.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, it's -- going back
to having constables serve the warrants, I had my chief go
up and see what he could find in the Local Government Code
under Sheriff's duties. And under Sheriff's duty, warrants
are directed to the Sheriff to serve, and sometimes other
peace officers. It says that the Sheriff commits an offense
if the Sheriff fails to return a process or precept as
required by the subsection. It's the duty of the Sheriff to
serve all process issued to them. So, if the constables
say, "We're not serving those warrants," for whatever
reason -- 'cause I can not tell them what their job is.
They're trying to serve their J.P. warrants. When they
can't serve them, we put them in our system and they go
right along. We don't go out and try and hunt them for them
at that time. If an officer runs across them, they get
arrested 'cause they're in the system. But, actually, I
cannot relieve myself or the department of that duty. I
think I'm required to do it by statute.
~, ~ „ s
114
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
24
L S
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand that. But I
think that I would do whatever I can, and the Court will do
everything we can to --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Encourage.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- encourage the
constables to -- and I don't think you should reduce that
staff a whole lot, but if you can get maybe one there, and
one on this position that we're holding open, that
translates to two patrol.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's up to you, how
you --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. The warrant
section, just due to everything else that's in there, it
would not give me another person to move around on patrol.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, this
position here, in my opinion, can count as one of the four,
the one that we're holding open. That can be counted as one
of the four, and if that person comes back, we'll have to --
we'll take the person back and create another position if we
have to.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, you're saying three.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. With the Treasurer,
I think that Ms. Mitchell and the Treasurer met, went over
y-~-CIS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
115
it, and from my brief conversations with Ms. Mitchell, she
thought that she could handle that additional workload. And
I think it was outlined -- there was a -- I believe the
Treasurer prepared a --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we get her some
relief in some of the other areas we talked about --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Bringing in -- I
mean, we can't just add it without adding personnel up here
as well.
MS. NEMEC: I would just like to know how
it's going to be cost-effective to do that. I mean, if I'm
going to tell my part-timer that she no longer has a job,
I'd like to be able to explain to her how the County is
saving money by doing away with her position. And the way
the budget is proposed now and the figures that you all have
now, I don't see where it's cost-effective to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's -- the way I
look at it is, it's freeing up or bringing some other
functions into this position. And if that doesn't work,
it'll be maybe just a part-time, and maybe will stay where
it is. But the booking comes out of Maintenance.
MS. NEMEC: That position in Maintenance is
not being done away with, though.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A position is being
done away with.
9-~ 05
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. NEMEC: At the Ag Barn. Not the booking
position.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that -- to me, that's
a different discussion with Maintenance. I don't know what
his plan is. We tend -- this Court tends not to get -- try
not to get into the business of saying what positions in
each department are eliminated, as far as, you know,
which -- in other words, this person or this person.
MS. NEMEC: So, by moving those functions of
my office into this office, are you creating another
position?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we creating another
position? No.
MS. NEMEC: So you're not going to hire
anyone? Ms. Mitchell's going to do it all?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, a person's going to
do it; a half person here and a half person here.
MS. NEMEC: I don't understand that. Please
explain it to me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we're taking -- I
look at it as a total employee count. I think there's a --
a function in maintenance -- being done in Maintenance right
now that is in a totally wrong place. Booking. I think
that doesn't make sense, to me, to be in Maintenance. You
know, but, obviously, that's not worth -- I'm not going to
~-~-os
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hire a position -- new position up here to do that, so I was
looking for other areas, and that is why I asked Linda
earlier if it would be a way to get -- you know, if it helps
her to get rid of some staff in her office, to move
passports here as well. That was a consideration, I think,
in trying to consolidate some other positions into one
position here. And I think manpower-wise, you're -- we're
gaining half a person.
MS. NEMEC: So, are you hiring a full-time
position, an additional full-time position in the County
Commissioners' budget?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MS. NEMEC: So I can explain to my --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we're reducing a
person in Maintenance and a person in your -- a half person
in your office. I mean, that's -- to me, I think it'll
work. Maybe I'm wrong.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I'll just add
one other comment to it. We have a need for a part of an
additional person to handle routine day-to-day coordinator
activities, so the consolidation of other functions --
booking, personnel management -- in there makes it a whole
and full job, and so the net result is it reduces our budget
total county-wide some.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it time for your
9 - ~ - 0 5
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
speech?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hmm-mm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How come?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No, y'all are
doing fine.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who's next?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do have a comment.
JUDGE TINLEY: On --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Go ahead.
JUDGE TINLEY: On the Treasurer's situation,
there was a reason that those functions that we're talking
about moving went down there in the first place, and I think
one of the reasons was that, probably in large measure -- I
don't know; I wasn't here, wasn't involved in it, but it
occurs to me there is a lot of coordination between those
functions and some fundings that have to occur with regard
to various types of insurance. You've also got some issues
with confidentiality of records, with the worker's comp and
with the HIPAA and those sorts of things, and I think the
Treasurer has all of that -- all those arrangements made for
the secure storage and access to those records. I'm not
sure if -- if we ought to be pulling some of these things
under the direct control of the Commissioners Court, as
opposed to leaving them under the Treasurer, or maybe under
the Auditor combined with a purchasing agent, maybe. I
9 '7 0 5
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
don't know; the Auditor said maybe we need a purchasing
agent. But all of these have a -- a financial-related nexus
to them, and if we pull those up here, there is going to
necessarily be continued involvement with the Treasurer's
office or the Auditor's office or both because of that
nexus, and I'm not sure we're gaining efficiencies. I'm
just not sure. And the other thing is, should we be getting
ourselves directly into the personnel business and these
other functions?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the
question?
JUDGE TINLEY: Should we be getting ourselves
directly involved in the personnel and these other functions
that we're talking about?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, if this was
Harris County, we'd have a personnel management department,
and that's not -- it would be an elected official, and
they'd report to Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think part of -- I
mean, you may be right. Part of my reasoning, Barbara has
on numerous times in the last year -- you know, "complain"
is probably not the best word to use, but had difficulty or
problems, and complaining basically about handling the
insurance, handlinq this. She's told us her chief deputy is
working, you know, way too much overtime. And we have --
~ us
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
you know, and I'm looking at a way to fix a problem that she
has brought to us. She said that she didn't like doing the
stuff; that she wanted -- you know, if it's a -- you know,
if the Court doesn't want to do it, we don't have to do it.
MS. NEMEC: Commissioner, that's not going to
help any if you're doing away with my part-timer, which
means that my chief deputy is going to have to take on all
the revenues, all the accounts payable, all the state fees
reports. That's not going to help us as far -- if that's
what you're -- and the efficiency that you're going to lose
there, we're going to have to be in constant contact with
the person that is doing this. You can't separate those
duties without r_oming -- payroll, they're going to have to
provide all the information to us to input into our payroll
system. I don't see the -- the efficiency in the work, or
the cost savings in this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, from talking
with Mr. Trolinger and talking with you, what you have told
us during the year, you know, it makes sense to me. If it
doesn't, you know, it doesn't. I mean --
MS. NEMEC: I'd like to know what the other
Commissioners think, and the Judge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I just want to
make one comment on this list of things, personnel issues
handled by the Treasurer's office. Number two is insurance.
9-~-G_`
121
1
w 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
._ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
I want that out of the courthouse, regardless of whether
it's down there or up here, upstairs, down in the pretty
garden or wherever. I don't think that this county or
county employees need to be talking to employees about
insurance. We're not insurance salesmen; we're not experts.
And we visited with our friend Don down at Seguin, and he
has -- he hired a third-party here in town to handle these
things for us, and now we're finding out that they really
don't want to do a lot of that, so I'm in the process of
visiting with them to see what we can do. But I just --
whether it's Barbara or our office or wherever, I don't
think insurance needs to be in this building at all, period.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with you on that.
But the way I -- and outside of county government work,
there has been -- the insurance impact with the employees
and the government is that when you get hired, you're given
a packet of information, and the employee is responsible for
dealing with it and talking to the insurance company. And
when you're terminated or fired, you get a packet of
information; you deal with it. It's not that -- and it's
literally that simple, I think. I've been through it. I
think Dave has ran departments that do it, so I don't
understand why this has been a big issue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think part of
it is -- is the long distance issue down at -- our man being
q - 7 - ~~ i
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in Seguin. You know, that's a difficult thing. I mean, you
have to -- I know it's a phone call or an e-mail, but still,
you have to go through that. And there are folks right here
in this town that will take this entire package and deal
with it all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't disagree
with any of that. I'm just saying that most people -- in
the private sector, anyway, and I would suspect in the
government sector -- have to deal with it by phone or
e-mail. They don't have a choice. They don't have -- I
mean, insurance companies are -- you know, you don't talk to
your agent about a claim; you talk to -- you have to call an
800 number. They just don't know anything. I don't think
insurance should be a big issue one way or the other.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It shouldn't. We
shouldn't even be dealing with it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. It shouldn't
even be on here. It shouldn't be an issue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all I'm saying.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if you're
relieved of that responsibility, that's not good?
MS. NEMEC: Oh, it would make things so much
easier in my office, because my chief deputy -- and it's not
just enrollments; it's questions. I mean, she has -- she
documents everything. And -- and all the e-mails that are
9 ~~ ns
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
24
~5
sent to our agent regarding problems and questions on claims
and not receiving insurance cards, she has all that
documented, and that takes a lot of her time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other thing --
MS. NEMEC: So if we could find an agent that
would just handle the insurance -- and, again, I wouldn't
want them to charge more than what our current agent is
charging. If they could do it within the same -- and, you
know, I wouldn't care if it was our agent that is with us
now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me see if I
understand what you're saying correctly. I have a list here
with nine items on it identified. You're talking about --
we're talking about insurance and that which is related.
That would be the insurance; Mutual of Omaha, AFLAC, et
cetera, et cetera, correct? That would be COBRA, HIPAA,
FMLA.; is that correct?
MS. NEMEC: Right -- well, FMLA is something
different. FMLA is when an employee leaves -- is on sick
leave and has to apply for family medical leave.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So it would be COBRA,
HIPAA, and employee enrollment and employee insurance,
retirement, and so forth; is that correct? I'm looking at
this list.
MS. NEMEC: Not retirement. Retirement has
-~-os
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
nothing --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Retirement's a
separate issue, and I didn't touch on that.
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You would retain
workers comp, retirement, job descriptions, policy --
personnel policy. Why wouldn't you want to get rid of job
descriptions and personnel policies?
MS. NEMEC: It's not that I don't want to get
rid of them. I -- I would get rid of them if you can show
me where it's going to be cost-effective to do that to this
county where we're going to save money, and where I can
explain to my part-time employee that she's losing her job
because we're saving "X" amount of dollars for my office to
get rid of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If these -- if these
functions were removed from your office, would that not make
your office more efficient?
MS. NEMEC: More efficient? I don't know.
My -- my chief deputy is not trained in revenues and
accounts payable. It would just -- all you would be doing
is --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is she trained
in?
MS. NEMEC: Excuse me?
~~-~ 05
125
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is she trained
in?
MS. NEMEC: Strictly personnel and payroll.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The chief deputy?
MS. NEMEC: Yeah. She doesn't have time to
be trained on anything else.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, the payroll
function, based on what Mr. Trolinger has told us, can be
totally automated, basically. I mean, it needs to be, and
that is something that can be done this year. The personnel
issue, the personnel policies, wherever it ends up, based on
an opinion we have from the County Attorney, we have some
serious problems looking at how these things are done, so
we're having to go over all that this year, whoever's doing
it. I don't know if you've -- I don't know if you got the
memo from the County Attorney or not on that issue, but
that's something that the Court's aware of and has to be
addressed. Based on what you have told me about your
workload, I was trying to fix it. If you want to take on --
keep it all, that's fine.
MS. NEMEC: I just don't see where I can
explain to my employee that she's losing her job, and then
she's going to see that there -- that those -- some of the
duties are being sent over here and another person is being
hired.
G-~-os
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think the net
increase -- or the benefit is that you have to look beyond
your department. There is other work --
MS. NEMEC: I have looked at it beyond my
department, and I can't see the savings. I mean, if -- if
you need a part-time person in here, there's enough
justification to hire a part-time person in here to do the
bookings and to help Ms. Mitchell with the duties that she
already has that she cannot keep up with. You don't have to
touch my department to do that.
MR. TOMLINSON: The question was asked a
while ago why personnel was in the Treasurer's office.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well -- and I can't tell you
what year it was, but there is -- the Court directed the
Treasurer to be the personnel officer of the county. I
think that's a court order somewhere. And, so, that --
that's why those duties are in that office.
MS. UECKER: It hasn't been that long ago,
either, I don't think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before I was a
Commissioner, which means it's over nine years ago.
MS. UECKER: Before you were?
MS. NEMEC: I've been here 15 years, and it's
been in that office ever since and before that.
y ~ os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~4
25
127
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That can be undone. I
mean, I think that -- I mean, I'm sure it made sense to put
it there at some point.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's move on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, let's resolve it.
Are we leaving it where it is, or are we moving it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Eliminate the job --
half a job in the Treasurer's department and half a job in
Facilities -- or full job in Facilities and Maintenance, and
we're adding it to -- quarter of a job or half a job would
be needed up here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that's one -- one
full-time job and some or part -- at least one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, adding a half
and taking away a half doesn't make a lot of sense. I think
we have to figure out what the right combination is. I'm
not -- I'm not all that comfortable yet till we figure that
out. Plus half and a minus half doesn't get us anywhere.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I counted two
fractions and a whole job.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the whole I
understand, and I see the value there. I think the function
that we anticipate moving, for a lot of reasons, can be
done. But we have another idea, and the other idea is not
~ u5
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
going to come to fruition?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not going to happen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not at this time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to tell
y'all about that idea right quick, and then I want to make
some other comments. But my idea before lunch was to take
the employee with D.P.S., the county employee, and bring
that person back here. We talked about that just briefly,
and Bill was -- kind of liked it. And we broke for lunch.
I ran across the street by myself and got a hamburger and
came straight back over here and sat down in my office and
there was a knock on my door, and it was D.P.S. (Laughter.)
I'm talking about within the hour. Guy's in dirty clothes,
and he had been out building a pigpen for his daughter's
stock show pig, and his superior called him from Austin,
Texas, and said, "Get over to the courthouse and find out
what's going on." Within the hour. While this happened.
So -- but bottom line -- and I was real honest and open with
him about what I thought. But the bottom line is, the state
budget's already in place. They kick off September 1.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So there's really not
time to say, "Hey, State, we're pulling the employee out;
9 ~ us
129
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
y'all need to fill the thing in," cause they're already --
it's already done. But I told him that it could be very
likely that we do it next year. So, anyway, I just thought
it was very humorous, within the hour, that the phone call
goes all the way to Austin and all the way back over here
and the D.P.S. trooper's knocking on my door. That's
absolutely incredible. I don't think we need computers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not when it comes to
budgets.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Guess not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The pipeline, baby.
So, in my opinion, that -- that deal's out.
DODGE TINLEY: What about the interplay with
Maintenance here on -- at the time that that occurred, that
was before the realization that the two additional juvenile
detention buildings are going to go back under the
maintenance responsibility. Does that change anythinq here?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think at one point we
had talked about two maintenance positions. Then we talked
about one maintenance position, and I thought we were at
one. You know, my only concern on maintenance is,
maintenance needs to be doing maintenance, and I -- and I
just think the booking function doesn't fit in maintenance.
It may -- it works better to bring -- to be able to create a
position up here and combine it in with that -- with some
9 7 U 5
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1~
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
other responsibilities. If that doesn't work, I think we
bring it up here and increase the pay to Ms. -- to our
current administrative assistant; just add another job for
her, 'cause I don't see how you can add a part-time spot.
It doesn't -- it doesn't fit very well to give her the
relief that we were trying to do, adding a -- you know.
So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, what confused me
about that issue was, early on, Glenn said I'll be -- and in
a very kind way, "I'll be happy to do what you guys want,
and I'll relieve an employee." And then a little bit --
right at the -- before the lunch break, he said, "Now that
you're moving forward with the Juvenile Detention Facility,
I don't think I can do that," or something like that; I
can't remember. So, I'm confused whether he's going to cut
one or not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you're taking on the
juvenile facility and -- and reducing a person.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Obviously. And, as I said, I
serve at the pleasure of the Court, so if the wishes are --
~-~-os
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
is for me to cut a position, I'll do it. Now, I -- there's
no guarantees that we can get everything done, because
there's a lot of problems with the 48-bed facility out
there, so y'all are going to have to be patient with
maintenance; that's all I can say. Be patient with us.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But running a 24-hour
facility, just like that one and mine, you can't wait.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think this process
is getting offtrack.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We -- we went
through -- we saw the need to reduce staff to have a smaller
payroll, and we went through it this morning and made a lot
of decisions, tough decisions, and I don't think we should
be going back and revisiting each one of those.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, maybe not. But
I just want one more comment -- one more, please?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. On this
personnel issue here -- and, god, I hate to admit this, but
I agree with the Judge. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Unfortunately, she took it
down.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, goddangit.
Please don't print that in the press. But, you know,
9-7-OS
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
what -- one thing that bothers me about this thing coming up
here, and in talking about doing things in a more kinder,
gentler way, is that the things that we're doing up here
with this and the things that she's doing down there that we
-- I mean, it's not -- we have to keep -- continue
communicating back and forth. I need this kind of
information from you to get this done. That kind -- you
know, just -- that bothers me a little bit, that we're -- to
me, we're creating more work, as opposed to doing what we're
trying to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I tend to agree with
you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You do?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm inclined to agree
with you.
COMMISSIONER
agree with the Judge?
COMMISSIONER
said I'm inclined to agree
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
BALDWIN:
WILLIAMS
aith you.
BALDWIN:
LETZ: I
BALDWIN:
Would you say that you
I didn't say that. I
Almost had him.
guess, I think the --
I don't know how to
handle --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we're
creating a situation, Commissioner, that becomes
s-~-o5
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
counterproductive.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I think the Judge
did touch on some issues that -- that is certainly something
we don't want to overlook, and that is the confidentiality
of employee records and records that relate to health and
retirement and other personal -- personal personnel issues.
So, you know, I think -- I think we're getting disjointed
here in our effort to make some combinations. I'm not all
that comfortable. So, I'm kind of on the same page with
you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I -- you know,
that's fine. We can look at it for another year. I guess
my question is, I really don't know how -- I don't see what
difference it makes that much. I mean, I think that it's
clearly -- with computers and information, it's not -- you
know, our turnover is not that high. I don't know how many
-- how many employees do we have change a month, Barbara?
An estimate, average.
MS. NEMEC: Just depends. Five to 13, 14,
15, you know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Per month?
MS. NEMEC: Per month.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think -- I don't
really want to create a situation that becomes
~-~-ue
134
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
counterproductive or breaches personnel confidentiality. I
agree with Commissioner Baldwin that we need to get the
insurance decision things, routine, that should be handled
by an agent out of your house. And the sooner we do that,
the better I'm going to like it, because I think that's what
we're paying these people to do. And it's -- and it's kind
of disconcerting to know that you're still doing the things
we're paying them to do, but I think we need to get those
things. I think we're also on the threshold -- not this
year, but we're on the threshold of creating a personnel
officer, a person who is devoted full-time to that. Not
necessarily this year, but we're getting darned close.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, I have a hard time
talking about new staff when we're cutting staff.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not talking about
new staff today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, on that note, if
we're taking the insurance out of it, let's get rid of half
of the spot in the Treasurer's office and not replace it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Reduce half a staff in
the Treasurer's office and not replace it, and insurance
goes elsewhere.
MS. NEMEC: Insurance is not taking up half a
staff of mine. That's just an added duty that we got in
G-~-os
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2q
25
January that we've been having to deal with.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not -- I'm not
saying that I want to go back and revisit the thing; I just
want us to be careful in what we're doing, that we're not
doing something that's stupid.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm hearing -- I hear
three votes that say they don't want to make a change, so
that means we're not making a change. Let's move forward.
I mean --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Can I get the Court to
consider two patrol positions instead of four? I'm just
going to have a hard time -- right now, I have one opening,
and that position would be, you know, the second one, if the
Court did, that I wouldn't have to fill, and I won't have to
tell deputies they don't have a job.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my comment is --
and --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If the figures will
work.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the two commissioners
on this side of the Court have been doing most of the
proposed cutting. I see we need two -- one to two employees
to go, and we're still getting a 2-cent taY increase right
now, so I'll pass it to the other side of the table and find
9 7 - U 5
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 2
23
24
25
out where else we're going to cut.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask Mr. Stanton a
question. This $20,000 figure, Mr. Stanton, to utilize IV-E
funds in lieu of $20,000 of otherwise county-budgeted funds,
you can utilize those funds in a manner that will be under
the IV-E authorized permitted purposes?
MR. STANTON: The only reason -- the only
thing we can't use IV-E funds for is secure residential
detention -- secure residential service and detention
services.
JUDGE TINLEY: But there are other permitted
purposes that you can use them for?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Stanton says he can throw
20,000 into the pot, and he's able to do this by using some
IV-E state funds, which are restricted purposes, rather than
utilize county-budgeted funds. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where would we use
those funds?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, they would have to be
utilized within the Juvenile Probation Department, but
that's 20,000 of county funds that would not have to go to
fund it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
y-~-os
137
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. Thank
you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did you get that one?
(Mr. Tomlinson nodded.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, now that I've put
a roadblock in your -- in your program, where are we? Did
we -- have we done anything this afternoon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on what my record
is, we have -- from the numbers that Tommy gave us, we have
reduced $132,000 net. And that has a 2-cent tax increase,
including that, so we're at about a 21 percent reserve and a
2-cent tax increase. That's where we are right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: How much did you say?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 132.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got 152. Did you get the
last 20?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I have 20 for
Juvenile Probation, 52 for a dump truck, 40,000 from 216th
Special Trials. I netted the Sheriff out to $130,000
savings.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, that's the 20
difference. Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I broke out 130 -- I had
90,000 for computers, 10,000 for deputies' --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
v ~ us
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- overtime, and 20,000
for jail overtime. And then you add the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So it nets down to
132.
JUDGE TINLEY: 130.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 132. Net 130 for the
Sheriff, and 132 net when you take out the airport stuff
that was not included. So, that puts reserves at probably
about 21 percent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's close.
MS. NEMEC: Is that putting my part-timer
back in there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At the moment. I -- they
said they wanted to leave it, not make any changes in your
department, so I guess it is.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that correct? Is
that what the three of you are saying?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see the
proposal is workable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that means that the
Commissioners Court will not be hiring an additional staff
at all.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that your sense
of it, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: That the Commissioners Court
9 ~ ~ i 5
139
1
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 hire additional staff? That's kind of what I
understood.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm not there
yet. I'm not -- we're not -- we're not through, are we?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. We're waiting for
you, or someone.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's keep her going.
I -- I can't remember. I overheard the words EMS this
morning somewhere. Is that -- is that 200,000 in this sheet
of paper?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We still haven't
heard from Miguel, who wants to talk to us.
JUDGE TINLEY: Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Clarification on overtime for
the jail and Sheriff. Did we -- did you agree to that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The amounts that I
penciled in, I think -- I don't know if they're the same as
the Judge had -- was 0,000 additional for the jail and
10,000 for deputies.
MR. TOMLINSON: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: O.T.? Overtime?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Hmm?
9 7-OS
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2q
25
	MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: If there's nothing else,
I think Miguel	wanted to say something in executive session.
	JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have anything else to do
in the open or	public session at this point, gentlemen?
	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not at this time.
	JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I hope we can come
back to it if	we want to.
	JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah -- oh, yeah, we'll come
back to open s	ession. At this time, we will go out of open
or public sess	ion at 5:43.
	(The open session was closed at 5:43 p.m.,
	and an Executive Session was held, the
	transcript of which is contained in a
	separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order
at 6:04. We are in open or public session. Commissioner,
the number I get is, according to your figures, we made a
net $132,000 reduction. According to the reductions that
we've gotten this afternoon, I show a net reduction of
$132,000 since the run the Auditor made today. In
calculating the reserve, the Auditor may have done something
different, but my calculation is under 21 percent. I
actually have 20.86, rounded.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those look about right.
~_~_n=,
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I have a question for the Sheriff. Would you -- the
computer cost to put the wireless computers in the cars is
about $40,000. Would you rather spend that $40,000, or
would you rather get a deputy back?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'd rather get a deputy
back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd make -- I'd go with
that change. That way, basically, you're losing two
deputies. One's a position that's not -- that you're
holding open. That's one. I mean, it's a position that's
coming off the s~~hedule, but it's not a -- a deputy you
currently have. And then eliminate the computers, and then
trade that for a --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, you had started out
with four positions. One of those is open; I just won't
fill it, so we're talking about three officers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On the military person's
position, I need to keep the position. Y'all are just not
going to fund it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. So that would be
two, so we're still down right now to two.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I think we're down to
the -- what was the first one? The one you --
~-~-n5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
Gc
23
24
25
142
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The one I won't fill
have an opening right now that I was fixing to move an
officer out from the jail.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's a deputy's
spot?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A deputy spot. I will
not fill that spot.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: For that, or the
military is the second spot.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's two out of the
four. And right now we're still looking at having to -- to
cut two active officers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If I get one back in
exchange for the computers, okay, that would take care of
one of those.
I
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dollar-wise, that's a
wash, I think. That's up to the Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I would still like to
keep the second one, though.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me ask you a
question, Sheriff, if I might. What I just heard you saying
is you got one deputy that have you to lay off.
~~-~-os
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If it stays with the
two, I have two deputies.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. What -- and
you know your turnover experience better than I do. What
risk would there be in not laying somebody off, say, and
waiting for some attrition to take care of the need to cut
back? Is that too great a risk?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, it's not something
that I would say y'all can count on the dollars. This Court
has worked with me over the years. We do not have the
turnover in deputies any more.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: As you can tell. The
City's got nine openings right now, and I don't have any
deputies trying to go.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is there any other
way to keep one or two people on the payroll? Could you
transfer them to the jail?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What I'm going to --
what I would have to do is, I do have some openings in the
jail that I'm going to interview tomorrow. One of those
openings is a sergeant position. The -- if I transfer a
deputy into the jail and put him into that sergeant's
position in the jail with some training, 'cause it is two
totally different job duties, he would probably take a cut
-~-n5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-,
23
24
25
144
of about one to two thousand a year, okay? The second
deputy I could put in an opening jail position, but he would
take a cut of at least 5,000 a year right now. You know,
I -- I just -- if we -- if we only do one, give up the
computers, okay, then I've got one deputy going to the jail.
That deputy would take a one to two thousand dollar cut,
'cause I put -- could possibly put him in that sergeant's
position in the jail. But -- and then if we do have an
opening, I could move him back out onto the street. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd go along with that.
That's -- to me, you know, my philosophy all along is the
dollars are in your department; you need to use them as you
want, so I have no problem with making it basically as a
three reduction. One -- one's a sliding slot you're not
filling. One we're keeping but not budgeting for, so it's
just one true slot, correct?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZEP.: One is not filling the
one we have, one is the military one, and then I -- and
then --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're taking three off of
the position schedule, wherever it is here; three positions
are coming off of that.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. That's the way I
heard it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm even confused now.
9 7 n 5
19~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~,
G L
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Isn't that right?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's what I have.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Except for, actually,
the military one, the position does not come off the
schedule.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the dollars for the
position come off.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can't do away with the
position.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That doesn't change the
132 at all. Really, that's basically a wash.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, what I'm going to
have to do is actually move one deputy off the street.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. I think the
Auditor has a question or a comment?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I wanted to explain,
there -- there is -- I didn't have time to -- when I
calculated the cost-of-living, I didn't have the time to
calculate cost-of-living on the current salaries, so -- so I
calculated it on the -- on the current salaries plus the
longevity. So, it's over -- it's overstated by 3.2 percent
of -- of the longevity that went into the budget. So -- so
there will be a difference when we actually calculate what
it should be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. But it'll also be
v ~ us
146
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 G
23
24
25
some due to the overall staff reductions. We're lookinq at
some savings on insurance, some savings on lots of different
-- I mean, it will increase some of those a little bit.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
to take a little money out.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
Item 10-595-450. That's Ai
What's funny?
WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
LETZ: We ready to vote?
BALDWIN: I've got a neat place
LETZ: Okay.
BALDWIN: I want to delete Line
sport Operation, $283,591.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just -- well, I
really don't think we can do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do. Let me show you
how you do that. You take your pencil and draw through it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We could do that on
any number of departments.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why couldn't do you
that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if we throw
away our half of the operation -- in effect, that's what
you're proposing, that we throw away our half of the
operation, which says then you're going to give our half of
the -- of the airport back to the City.
3-7 15
147
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under our contract, we
give the airport to the City.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I don't see that
as something that's productive for Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't see it
as productive to reduce law enforcement either, and
protection for the citizens of Kerr County. This is -- I
mean, I -- this just -- I mean, I don't care about that
airport. It does -- I don't think it does anything for this
community. We're out there -- it's a luxury item, in my
opinion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It brings in a lot of tax
revenue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's an economic
development issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And Mooney and other
issues. There's definitely dollars at the airport coming
in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand where
you're coming from, but you -- you would just be giving
away -- you're talking millions of dollars in property and
value.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	You're talking about
dollars and	cents, and in my	opinion,	protection of our
public is --	I mean, that's	not even	-- you can't even
9 ~ - 0 S
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
148
compare money to the protection of our community. I just --
I don't get y'all's thinking.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that already -- we're
reducing one deputy on the street. And the argument of you
can't pay enough of that, well, then it's just never-ending;
let's raise the tax rate as high as we can every year to put
it all on law enforcement. Which I know you're not saying
that, but that's the other side of that. Anyway, I don't
agree with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I knew you wouldn't.
But if you wanted to get serious about cutting the budget
and helping the taxpayers, there's a good way right there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it hurts the
taxpayers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we disagree.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- at all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
DODGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we have any more
items to consider under Agenda Item Number 2?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Surely not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're going to let
you identify them if we do.
DODGE TINLEY: Let me -- well, let me throw
one out here.
a ~ as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
149
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any -- is there any
desire on the Court to get into the issue of employee
contributions to the health and -- health benefits program?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that affect the
taY rate that we're -- I'm assuming we're going to vote on
here in a few minutes, huh?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In order to answer
that question, I have to ask what has the Auditor got built
in in terms of increases for health care obligations?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the number that I --
that we put -- that we used for -- for funding the health
plan is 100 percent county funding.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, I can't
hear you.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's 100 percent county
funding, the number that I used.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many employees do we
have?
MS. NEMEC: 300.
JUDGE TINLEY: 277.
MS. NEMEC: How many?
JUDGE TINLEY: 277.
MS. NEMEC: On the insurance probably, yeah.
Plus part-timers.
~~_~-os
150
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It raises $166,000 if we
charge employees $50 a month for their health insurance.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Process question.
Is this something -- since the insurance plan is on a
different budget year than this, is this something we can
deal with at the time we re-up on our insurance?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we deal with it
then, but we have to budget for it now.
MS. NEMEC: I think another thing you need to
think about is when you get employee contributions into an
insurance plan, then the employees have the option to opt
out, and that's going to affect our rates, because employees
will start opting out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's --
Mr. Looney said the same thing, and the -- we don't know how
it really sorts out, but you'd lose the low risk people and
keep the high risk people.
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think there's
something to be said for that. Also, I'm kind of -- I don't
particularly like the idea of -- of helping the employees
with a cost-of-living allowance on one hand and taking away
from them on the left hand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't particularly
9-7-US
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
like to do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion on
that? Anything else on Item 2? Let's move to Item 3,
consider and discuss approval by record vote of the proposed
Fiscal Year 2005-2006 tax rate and set date, time, and place
of first and second public hearings. The Tar> Assessor was
kind enough to give me a marching order here as to the dates
of those required public hearings that'll still fit within
the window by September 30th of this year. The first public
hearing to be held on September 19th, the second public
hearing to be held on September 23rd. Am I correct on that,
Ms. Rector?
MS. RECTOR: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion we set
the tar, rate at .3896, which is a one and three-quarter cent
increase over the current rate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is it? .3 --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: .3896.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: .3896. And that
would be what, a cent and a half over --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A cent and
three-quarters.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cent and
three-quarters.
y ~-u=
152
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If my calculations are
correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, what does a cent
and three-quarters --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yield.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What does it give
you -- yeah, what does it yield?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: About 304,000. About
$304,000, whir_h means our reserve would probably be less
than 20 percent; in the neighborhood of 20 percent. It will
be close to 20 percent, but probably slightly under.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 304. And Tommy had
built -- you had built -- built in 2 cents?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And 2 cents is 400 --
MR. TOMLINSON: 410.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 910.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 419.
JUDGE TINLEY: My calculation of one and
three-fourths will give you 357,875.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're at .3721, correct?
MS. RECTOR: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: .3721, and 1.75 is -- did
~-,-us
153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I misadd?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, that's --
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: .3896.
MS. RECTOR: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: I get a $357,875 increase.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, the amount? How much
did you get?
JUDGE TINLEY: $357,875.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, it'll be
about 20 percent, with reserves somewhere in that
neighborhood which is 5 percent lower than our policy, which
means we'll be going through the same exercise next year, it
looks like.
JUDGE TINLEY: The --
MS. NEMEC: I'd like to remind the Court that
this year was the year that we got hit the hardest with
longevity, 128, because this is the year that we first
started. So we won't -- we're going to have this problem,
you know, every so many years with 128 employees, and that's
hurting us too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the only thing --
other thing is that if there are vacancies during the year,
it helps if we can defer filling them as long as possible.
That's up to the elected official's discretion, not ours.
y ~-u~
154
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Does your motion include
setting the first and second public hearings for --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 19 and 23.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- September 19th, 2005, and
September 23, 2005, both those hearings to be held in this
courtroom at --
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
JUDGE TINLEY
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
LETZ: 10 a.m.
WILLIAMS: 10 o'clock.
-- 10 a.m.?
LETZ: Yes, it does.
BALDWIN: I second the motion.
LETZ: What are those two date=
again? Sorry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 19 and 23.
JUDGE TINLEY: 23, yeah. Does that include
everything you need, Ms. Rector?
MS. RECTOR: I need a record vote on the
proposed rate.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. RECTOR: Including the Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further discussion
or -- or question concerning the motion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just to be clear,
this means that we're under the rollback rate, and the only
opportunity for citizens' input is these two hearings?
y-~-~S
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: I believe that's correct.
MS. PIEPER: Judge, would you like me to take
a record vote?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
MS. PIEPER: Commissioner Baldwin, how do you
vote?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Aye.
MS. PIEPER: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aye.
MS. PIEPER: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aye.
MS. PIEPER: Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Nay.
MS. PIEPER: County Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Guess we told you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See y'all Monday -- oh,
see you tomorrow.
JUDGE TINLEY: We will stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 6:20 p.m.)
e v ~, s
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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 14th day of September,
2005.
JANNETT PIE PER, Kerr County Clerk
Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
-~-os
ORDER NO. 29353
APPROVE 48 BED JUVENILE FACILITY, STAFFING AND SALARY
STRUCTURE
Came to be heard this the 7th day of September, 2005, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the operation of a 48 bed juvenile facility, staffing of same (with
reduction in employees by 7), and salary structure as follows:
Administrator -Grade 34, Step 6
Asst. Administrator -Grade 28, Step 7
__ ORDER NO. 29354
APPROVE TAX INCREASE TO $0.3896 PER $100 VALUE, AND SET
PUBLIC HEARINGS ON 9-19-OS AND 9-23-OS AT 10:00 A.M.
Came to be heard this the 7th day of September, 2005, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
approved by record vote of 4-1-0 to:
Approve the tax rate increase to $0.3896 per $100 value, and increase of
1.75 cents, and to hold public hearings regarding same on September 19,
2005 and September 23, 2005, at 10:00 a.m.
Voting went as follows:
._ Commissioner Baldwin Aye
Commissioner Williams Aye
Commissioner Letz Aye
Commissioner Nicholson Nay
Judge Tinley Aye