1
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
Friday, September 1, 2006
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
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
ABSENT: JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
v
_9
J
z
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
	I N D E X	
	September 1, 2006	
		PAGE
1.1	Swearing in Diane Bolin as Tax Assessor/Collector	3
1.2	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve	
	appointment of deputies in Tax Assessor/Collector's	
	Office	5
1.3	Approve moving a 17-5 to 19-7 to fill Chief Deputy	
	Tax Assessor/Collector position effective 9/1/06	5
1.4	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action declaring	
	unopposed candidates elected to their office as	
	prescribed by the Texas Election Code 2.052-2.056	7
1.5	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to hire	
	Human Resources Director and/or Human Resources	
	Administrative Assistant	8
1.6	Workshop to consider and review FY 2006-07 budget,	
	budget priorities and policies; review of department	
	budgets; consideration of matters having budgetary	
	impact and other matters relating to FY 2006-2007	
	budget	10
---	Adjourned	45
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 Friday, September 1, 2006, 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 me call to order this
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court scheduled for
this date and time, Friday, September the 1st, 2006, at 9 a.m.
The first item that we have on the agenda is a pleasant one,
in that I get the honor and privilege of swearing in our new
Tax Assessor/Collector. So, if Diane Bolin would come
forward, I'll meet you right out here and we'll get this done.
This boys knows his duties.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you'd raise your right hand,
please? "I, Diane Bolin, do solemnly swear"
MS. BOLIN: I, Diane Bolin, do solemnly swear.
JUDGE TINLEY: "That I will faithfully execute the
duties."
MS. BOLIN: That I will faithfully execute the
I duties.
JUDGE TINLEY: "Of the office of Kerr County Tax
Assessor/Collector."
MS. BOLIN: Of the office of Kerr County Tax
a-1-oF
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
4
Assessor/Collector.
JUDGE TINLEY: "Of the state of Texas."
MS. BOLIN: Of the state of Texas.
JUDGE TINLEY: "And will, to the best of my
ability."
MS. BOLIN: And will, to the best of my ability.
JUDGE TINLEY: "Preserve, protect and defend."
MS. BOLIN: Preserve, protect, and defend.
JUDGE TINLEY: "The Constitution and laws of the
United States."
MS. BOLIN: The Constitution and laws of the United
States.
JUDGE TINLEY: "And of this state."
MS. BOLIN: And of this state.
JUDGE TINLEY: "So help me God."
MS. BOLIN: So help me God.
JUDGE TINLEY: Congratulations.
MS. BOLIN: Thank you.
(Applause.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Diane, the only problem is
these pictures are going to look like you're waving.
MS. BOLIN: I have that problem anyhow.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have a new Tax Assessor.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sign the next one, Diane. Sign right
here, if you would, please. This goes to the County Clerk, I
5-1-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
believe.
MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have the other one already?
MS. PIEPER: Right behind you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, here it is. Okay, thank you.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Now we can all swear at you.
Is that correct, Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What was the question?
JUDGE TINLEY: We can swear at you now?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, no, no. Mother said not
to swear.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move to Item 2, if we
might. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
approve the appointment of deputies of the Tax
Assessor/Collector's' office. These are deputies to serve
under our newly sworn-in Tax Assessor/Collector. They are
listed on the backup information given to us.
MS. BOLIN: Judge, the approval -- 1.3 -- of the
moving of the chief deputy position from a 17-5 to a 19-7,
that is also included in that approval.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, so let me call Item 3 also, so
that we've got it all rolled into one. Approve moving a 17,
-- Grade 17, Step 5 to Grade 19, Step 7 to fill the chief
deputy position effective today, September 1, 2006.
9-1 06
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The money numbers don't
change at all. It's just --
MS. BOLIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- just moving the slot
around.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, there's no budgetary impact,
because we're just moving people.
MS. BOLIN: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a position schedule
change.
MS. BOLIN: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a position schedule
change.
MS. BOLIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve the
appointment of deputies of the Tax Assessor/Collector's
office, and to move the Chief Deputy position from a 17-5 to a
19-7.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the transfer.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And effective 9/1/06.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the movement of personnel to that
slot also?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
9 - 1 - 0 6
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of essentially both agenda items. Any question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you,
ma'am.
MS. BOLIN: Thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item Number 4; consider
and discuss and take appropriate action to declare unopposed
candidates elected to their office as prescribed by the Texas
Election Code, Sections 2.052 through 2.056. Ms. Pieper?
MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, this is just a formality
that we can go through, and basically what this is going to do
is, because we are unopposed, our name will still go on the
ballot, but this will save money in the formatting and the
printing and the programming. So, I am requesting that this
be approved, and this will be from the District Judge down to
the Commissioners levels.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we're going by the new
list that's just now being passed out?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know about this
u-1-oE
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Commissioner Number 2.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's tough.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Want to scratch him out here?
I'm with you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON
another four years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS
day.
No, I think we need him
It's going to be a tough
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move for approval of
the agenda item.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
j of the agenda item as presented. Any question or discussion?
j All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
I
', JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move
now to Item Number 5; consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action to hire Human Resources Director and/or Human Resources
administrative assistant.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I have some
j information in that regard which I'll be happy to share with
5-i-o6
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
9
the Court. Let me get my ducks lined up here, if I might just
a second. I have been in contact with the individual who the
Court identified as their prime candidate -- number one
candidate; that would be Ms. Eva Hyde, and have discussed the
position with her, and she has accepted the position, and at a
starting salary of $52,500. And so I have some budget
amendments I'll -- I'll talk about when we get -- are we doing
budget? We do have some budget -- yeah, when we get to 1.6.
But I would make a motion that we -- oh, before I get that
far, we've also discussed with Ms. Jacqueline Magenheimer, the
second position in that office, and so I'm going to offer the
Court a motion to appoint Ms. Eva Hyde as the new Director of
Human Resources at a starting salary of $52,500, effective
October 2, 2006, and to transfer Ms. Jacqueline Magenheimer
into the new department as the administrative assistant, with
the same pay grade that she currently enjoys in her part-time
capacity. That would be a motion.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
DODGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in
favor of the motion, please signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
9-1-06
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you
for your work, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's now move to Item 6, which is a
workshop item, to consider and review Fiscal Year 2006-'07
budget, budget priorities and policies, review of department
budgets, consideration of matters having budgetary impact and
other matters relating to FY '06-'07 budget. Pretty
wide-open.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did we need to go out of
Commissioners Court into budget -- I mean into workshop?
JUDGE TINLEY: I called it as a workshop item; I
think we're probably okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We keep the Commissioners
Court running?
JUDGE TINLEY: For the members of the audience, a
budget workshop, or any kind of a workshop, is one in which no
formal action can be taken. There can be discussion of any of
the issues of the workshop agenda item, but no formal action
can be taken, as it could be in a regular Commissioners Court
meeting. The other items that we previously considered here
this morning were official Commissioners Court agenda items,
upon which, obviously, there was official action taken.
Workshop items, we -- we've added this to the agenda rather
than post a separate agenda, but no official action can be
9-1-06
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
taken on any of those budgetary items today that might be
discussed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I have a couple
things to bring to our attention in terms of the budget, and
I'd like to start with the Human Resources Department. Let me
see if I can find that little bugger. It's in your work
epacket.
JUDGE TINLEY: 29?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, Page 29. And I'm going
to propose a couple amendments to the -- to the line items,
and give us a new total. I'm going to propose the official
salary be changed from the 60,000 to 52,5, and I'm proposing
that the assistant be left at the number that was presented to
us, at 26,1. That funds the second position for three days,
i and there's sufficient leeway in there for a fourth day if
I
necessary. And so, if we leave it that way, we'll see how it
plays out and if the department is up and running and
organized and sufficient enough for that purpose. It seems to
me also that in this budget, we failed to include any money
for any funding for a lease copier. Everything looks to be in
place, but I would think that department should have a lease
copier. Checked with the Auditor's office, and the one that
they have used costs about a little less than 150 a month, so
I I'm going to propose we add a line item, 140-93-461. It's not
shown, but -- yeah, 461, a line item for lease copier of
9-i-oh
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
$1,800. That would change the bottom line of the department
to 118,003.
JUDGE TINLEY: With the roll-ups, you're going to
change a little bit with these salary items.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They might well -- the top
one will change down, and I think the second one's in place,
so 118,003 may be a little bit high.
DODGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Depending on the roll-ups.
Yes, sir?
MR. TOMLINSON: I didn't hear what you said about
the amount for the lease copier.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1,800. That's $150 a mcnth,
and I understand the one that's in your annex over there is a
little bit less than that per month, so it gives us a little
leeway there. Okay?
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one other, Judge,
while we're in discussion on budget. This one was discussed
the other day.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I didn't weigh too much
in on it. It was a topic that the Court talked a little bit
about, but I didn't weigh-in too much on it. That has to do
with the County Treasurer's salary. Commissioner Letz had
a-1-o6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
proposed a -- a salary -- you have a proposal, but
Commissioner Letz had proposed an alternative amount by
reducing that salary to the level of commissioner, somewhere
near the bottom of the barrel. And I didn't weigh-in on it,
but I wanted to do some research, and I did, with the
look at the county budgets going back to the years '94-'95 and
the previous years, and what I find is that the Treasurer's
office, subsequent to taking on the responsibilities for human
resources, was brought to parity with other elected officials.
There was not parity prior to that.
And I can only piece together the fact that the
human resources transfer took place, and no money was given at
that time. And subsequent to that, probably the next budget
year, there was some parity given, and the Treasurer's salary
went to parity with everybody else at 27,5, which resulted
that year, in 1993-'94, in a $2,000 increase in salary for
obviously having taken on the human resources function. So,
it would be my thought that an adequate salary in this case,
since there's no longer any supervision involved in that
department, would be a salary commensurate with a
commissioner's salary, which I believe is 43,257, for the
ensuing budget year. And while we're not making motions, that
would be my proposal to the Court. And it is a similar
proposal to one that Commissioner Letz outlined the other day.
9-i-o5
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have -- I have a
couple of comments. I -- I see three different options to
settle the Treasurer's salary. One is what Number 2 just
provided us, and Commissioner 3 had mentioned a couple weeks
ago, was to lower the salary to even with the Commissioners
Court. That's a -- to me, that's a good compromise. Number
two option would be to lower it to what your recommendation
was; I think it was 28,000 or something like -- I can't
remember, somewhere in that ballpark. Lower it to that, and
let her file a grievance to the Grievance Committee, and let
that jury of her peers make the decision whether that's a good
route to go or not. There's some things I like about that as
well.
Number three is, it seems to me that the central
problem in this whole thing is that it appears that the County
Treasurer doesn't come to the courthouse and spend her time
during the days and does her job. That's what I hear more
than anything. Now, I've -- I go down there occasionally to
talk business, and I -- there are times when she's not in.
Most of the time, she is. Her clerk contacts her if she's
not, and I have a visit with her, so I don't -- I don't have a
huge problem with that. But I understand that a lot of folks
9 1-~h
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
out in the public and the courthouse family really have a
problem with that, and that is the -- is the central issue.
that is -- because of that, that has caused the problems that
we see and hear, the filing -- missing the filing deadlines,
the I.R.S. issues, the insurance issues and all those things
that we've gone through in the last years that has cost the
taxpayers some money. I just believe that if she came to work
on a regular basis and applied herself to the duties before
her, that at least 50 percent of those kind of problems would
go away. And I -- personally, I don't think that we would be
having these conversations today if that happened.
So, I said all that to say this. A way -- a way to
fix that is not focus on her annual salary, but focus on the
hours -- hourly salary. If she comes -- decides to come to
the courthouse and work three hours a day, she gets paid three
hours a day. If she chooses not to come to the courthouse,
she doesn't get paid. So, that's another option. Not real
fond of that, but it is an option, so I just wanted to lay
those out. I think there's -- there's other ways of looking
at it than dropping it down as far as your recommendation.
And I understand where you're coming from, and your reasons
9-1-Oo
16
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
are very valid and solid. But we're -- most of the time,
we're in a compromise job. I don't like that word,
"compromise," dealing with taxpayers' moneys, but there are
times that it happens and you have to do that, and I think --
I think there's a good, happy medium there with lowering it to
the Commissioners Court salary. But I really like the idea of
a jury of peers making the decision on this thing. That's all
I have to say. I'm not going to -- when it comes time for me
to vote, I will vote up or down on whatever's on the table.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner. Appreciate
that. Anybody else have anything to offer on that issue?
Commissioner, I -- when I explained my rationale the other day
briefly, my explanation related to duties and responsibilities
of office. As we all know, in the employment environment,
when we're going to take on a new employee, we look at
qualifications of the prospective employee and -- and what the
duties and responsibilities of the job or office are. If
we're dealing with an existing employee, as it were, we've got
another measure that we need to consider, I think, and that is
not only the duties and responsibilities, but rather the
performance of that particular employee. I -- I didn't voice
any concern about that the other day. I was giving my
rationale on the duties and responsibilities.
Certainly, there are some performance issues that
we've had. I think they're serious issues. Unfortunately, I
y-i-oF
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
see more coming, and I think that's unfortunate, because I
think the taxpayers look to you and I as the ultimate persons
being responsible for their tax dollars that are spent in this
county government, and I think we need to continuously keep
that in mind, as I know we try to do. But suffice it to say,
are -- are solely related to absenteeism. I -- I tend to
think that's not totally correct, because what I have seen is
the same problem repeatedly, and generally if it's merely an
absentee issue, the second -- it won't happen a second time,
but that's what I'm seeing.
So, suffice it to say, at this juncture, there are a
lot of performance issues that I think we need to be cognizant
of, and we need to take into account in determining what's
appropriate for this situation. It very well may be that --
that a, quote, jury of peers is the best way to go; lay out
all the information and -- and have that jury make a call.
That may be the best solution. That gives us a representative
feedback, which hopefully would be representative of the
taxpayers and voters that we serve. But right now, that's an
open issue, and we'll consider -- we'll continue to discuss it
and -- and decide which way we're going to go.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the grievance issue,
Judge, would be -- would be only if the Treasurer filed a
grievance.
q-1-ob
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct. That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No other purpose for -- or
reason for a grievance committee to convene.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. That's the elected official's
choice to trigger the grievance committee issue, and that can
be done if it's -- even if we were to give a salary increase,
an elected official can still invoke the grievance process,
saying I don't believe that's enough.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true.
JUDGE TINLEY: So it doesn't make any difference.
There's no threshold amount or percentage or anything like
that. It can even go up, and there would be a grievance
procedure. But we'll see when we get there, I guess.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think so. I have
reason to believe that there will not be a grievance based on
the proposal I made.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I am going to comment on
the grievance procedure. I've had a lot of experience with
them, and there are some benefits. If -- if it goes to
arbitration, the decision's upheld, it tends to violate the
decision. If the decision is not upheld, there's some -- some
consequences that are not always desirable. It tends to, in
my opinion, disrupt relationships and cause some -- some --
can cause some difficulties in the organization. So, my
thinking on it is that it is better to avoid arbitration than
9 - 1 - U 6
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to have it. It'll be what it'll be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with Commissioner 4.
He and I have been down that road many times in our career.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on that issue?
Any other budget issues from any other members of the Court%
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have anything else,
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: J.P. 4?
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: You had some questions, concerns,
comments about budget issues?
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's hear what they are.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Thank you. I think -- I looked at
my budget yesterday. I believe that the Judge recommended to
cut the telephone budget, and also cut the conference budget
line item. Also, I believe in years past, we've discussed
taking utilities for that building out of my budget and
putting it into the Maintenance budget. It's still there.
Been there for six-something years now. We've talked about
it. It would be nice to get it out, but also, I would
recommend that we -- I think we cut -- I don't have mine with
me; I returned over here from the jail. Did you recommend a
cut in the postage budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir, I did.
9-i-oh
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE RAGSDALE: How much was that?
JUDGE TINLEY: It appears -- let me make sure I'm on
the right line here. You had requested 1,320. I recommended
750, based upon a projected year-end expenditure of this year
of 468. That's how I got to where I got.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: I've just spent several hundreds
more on postage this month.
JUDGE TINLEY: That -- that's not something that's
level over the year, then, that -- that you can project out?
JUDGE RAGSDALE: I believe so, plus postage is
supposed to go up 3 cents next year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- let me address the issue of
the conferences. I've gone back after our discussion and
reviewed that. i
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And my statement to you was -- when I
didn't have it in front of me, was that I had tried to put
three of the J.P.'s that -- that were holdovers with the same
budget, and I thought that's what I had done, and in truth acid
in fact, I had not. When I cut yours, I dropped you below
what they were, so I was in error there, and yours needs to be
restored.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: I don't know that the -- my only
concern in the telephone budget is, I -- what I try to do is
-- is make it to where I can come out as close to zero as I
9-1-06
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
can at the end of the year without making any amendments. I'm
willing to -- to try on the telephone, although I'm not sure
that I would make it. But I know you guys don't mind making
budget amendments, so if you want to leave it that way, that's
fine. I just --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who said that?
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Huh?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who said that?
JUDGE RAGSDALE: What?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That we don't mind making
budget amendments.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Well, you always do it with a
smile. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I've repeatedly told department heads
and elected officials that if there's a valid reason for them
to need more money, we'll give it to them, if that's what they
need to do their job. And we should; that's our function.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Well, and truthfully, I -- the
reason I sub -- submitted that figure was because I thought
that I would come in within 100 or so dollars of zero, so I
wouldn't have to make any budget amendments. But if -- if you
believe somehow that -- that that's not the case, we'll see
what happens. You may be right. You've been right before.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When was that?
JUDGE RAGSDALE: I remember it was three or four
9-1-06
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
years ago.
JUDGE TINLEY: I want to check with Ms. Banik and
make sure we've got that on the record very clearly.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: I didn't say you were right often;
I said that you were right in the past.
JUDGE TINLEY: Before, I understand that. That's a
good first step, Judge. I appreciate that.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: But, anyway, that's the only
concerns that I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: What do you envision -- you indicated
that just very recently, you -- you bought several hundred
dollars -- obviously, that's going to carry you into this year
some?
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Yes. Some, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: And --
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Normally, Judge, my intention is to
buy postage twice a year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: I mean, I don't want to have to --
to send in a request for two rolls of stamps at a time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: I just usually -- I get -- about
twice a year is what I try to do. And, you know, if you want
to go ahead and cut that off this time and see how it works,
it's okay. I don't mind.
9-1-06
23
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: If you need it, we'll see that you
get it.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Okay. Later on -- well, just go
ahead and just leave postage the way it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: I do want to increase your
conferences back up to 1,000, because that's appropriate to
do.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: And I understand what you used for
a basis, but just to let you know, I mean, my clerk was not
able to go; she had this car wreck, you know, a month ago.
She's been out. She'll still be out. She didn't get to go or
could not go to the conference she was supposed to. I
couldn't go to the conference I was supposed to. I was
supposed to go in Austin to one; she was supposed to go to
Corpus to one, and neither of us got to go to the conferences
because of her being out. So, it just looks like we -- we're
not doing what we normally do, but it just was the
circumstances this year. Also, just to put a -- a bee in your
bonnet about something I really would like to work for next
year, just so you'll know now, is we spend, I would say, at
least 16 hours a week on just entering data into our
computers. Ticket, you know, information. And I think that I
would like for the Court to -- to allow John Trolinger to look
into the automatic ticket writers as much as -- as much as we
could possibly afford, like, over a three- or four-year period
5-i-o6
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of time. Because if every department is spending 8 to 16
hours a time entering this data that can be automatically
entered in perfectly, with no error, then we would, in
essence, gain an employee. And we would also have a -- a more
rapid recovery time of the -- if you want to say accounts
receivable, because it's in the computer. It's in the system
more quickly. It's without error. We can start sending out
notices more rapidly, and the more rapidly you send out
notices, the more quickly you recover what's coming to you.
Also --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bill, before you get off
that, is that a scanning device?
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that what it is?
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Basically, an officer would scan a
ticket -- I mean scan a driver's license in. All that data is
perfect; it's legible. And then they use down -- what do they
call it? -- drop-downs and do the rest of it, and then it
prints a copy of the ticket for the violator, and they go on.
And when they get back to the office -- John's already setting
up a system at the D.P.S. office. They'd hook that machine
into the computer, and it -- boom, it would be in everybody's
court absolutely perfectly, instantly.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's the state of the technology on
that? Have all the bugs been worked out of that? Does it
a-1-o6
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
seem to be working well where it is being utilized, or has
been for any length of time?
MR. TROLINGER: No, Judge. I think it's a
next-year -- let's let another county get it installed and
developed first, the technology. But it is a really -- you
know, it's one of the leading-edge things that we'd like to
do.
JUDGE TINLEY: What is the --
MR. TROLINGER: Like he said, we're getting
everything in place with D.P.S.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does it require additional hardware
or software readers or whatever at the J.P. office?
MR. TROLINGER: Negative. It does not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, the only hardware
equipment is what the officer on the street is using?
MR. TROLINGER: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's the current cost of one of
those?
MR. TROLINGER: I do not have a number.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: That's why I was hoping that y'all
would allow him to explore that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: And just -- just so that we can
work into this, 'cause it's going to be -- it's going to be a
thing that we'll have to work into over a two- or three-year
5 1 0 6
z6
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
out there, and, you know, the equipment is fairly expensive.
Not -- probably no more than $2,000 apiece, but I would think
probably more in the neighborhood of $1,000 apiece. But the
other thing is, is that we spend a tremendous amount of time
in our office answering the phone, answering the same
questions over and over and over again. "What's your mailing
address? How do I take a driver's safety course?" I would
like for you to allow us to present, sometime next year, a --
the possibility of a phone-answering device, perhaps for all
four -- one number for all four J.P.'s. That would answer the
-- the mundane -- you know, cause, seriously, you try to get
work done, a single-person office or one-clerk office, and --
and every few minutes you're stopped by someone, "How do I
take a driver's safety course?" Read the piece of paper you
got with the ticket. "What's your mailing address?" It's on
the white piece of paper you got with the ticket. You know,
these things -- same thing, but they stop you from doing your
work. The problem is, the systems cost a fair amount of
money. So, anyway, since it's budget, I wanted to tell you
about it, 'cause we're not -- we can't go forward this year,
but please keep it in the back of your mind for next year.
JODGE TINLEY: Would -- would the telephone
responding device not be something which could be included in
-- under the J.P. Technology dedicated fund?
9 1-06
z7
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
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Could.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: But, then, so would the
ticket-writing devices.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge Ragsdale?
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The improvements that were
made to your office space a year or so ago, has that proven to
be satisfactory? Are you okay now?
JUDGE RAGSDALE: You mean the roof they put on?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're not walking around
in water any more?
JUDGE RAGSDALE: No, sir. We haven't had any rain,
either. I think we're having a dust problem right now.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're so far west, I
thought maybe you'd have some rain.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: No, we did. It's so dry now, what
it is, we say we're having to prime to spit. But, no, sir,
it's -- I think it has rained a couple times, and we're not
having any of those problems.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's good.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Thank you, sir. Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
9-i oh
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought of a couple things
I need to talk about. When's our last crack at the budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: Our last crack at the budget's going
to be, in my way of thinking, when we adopt it, which will be
after the 15th of next month.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have a court session
before the 15th?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, we do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if there are any other
minor tweaks, we could take care of it at the next session?
Would that be --
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- a possibility?
JUDGE TINLEY: A week from Monday, we have a regular
court session. We can tag a workshop on the tail end of that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to suggest we do
that. I have one other item I want to bring to the Court's
attention, but I think it's something we need to consider. It
needs to be considered; hasn't been considered, but I don't
have a plan. I just want to put the topic on the table.
Ready?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wallet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Take a deep seat and hang on.
9 1-06
1
"° 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-~^- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
'" 2 4
25
29
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all hide your purses.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to talk about a plan
I -- a policy whereby we provide longevity increases for elected
j officials, people who have served the county for an extended
~ period of time. And I don't have the -- I don't have the
and put it right out there. I think we need to think about
it. We have people who have worked for this county for long
talk to the Court about it another time. Secondly, we have
advertised -- or we`ve done the advertising for the
Maintenance Department Manager. That has -- that, too, has
potential for some budgetary impact, and I'm hopeful that -- I
don`t know -- I know there's a number in there, but we don't
know that that's the right number, 'cause we haven't found the
right person yet. So, that needs to be dealt with, hopefully
before we close out the budget.
And, lastly, while it has no dollar impact, we have
talked around the edges of where to locate the 'iI.R.
department. You have some thoughts on it. Others of us have
some thoughts on it. I think we need to nail that down. I've
had the discussions with the gentleman who occupies the prime
real estate facing Sidney Baker street, and while he is loathe
to give it up, he will give it up if the Court tells him to
9 - 1 - 0 6
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
30
give it up. And I think that's a good location for an H.R.
department. The potential for where he could be relocated,
there are two potentials. The County Clerk has offered some
space, and that could be a temporary situation until we Hake
ready some space which the District Clerk has offered
upstairs. And, so, I think the Court needs to weigh-in on
that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's two -- two
unresolved big-ticket issues in the budget that need to be
disposed of. One is the cost of the of EMS, and the other one
is the cost of adult -- or Juvenile Probation Chief. So, in
our next meeting, we need to, I think, put those two things to
bed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: EMS and what?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Juvenile Probation Chief.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: EMS, I have had a couple
conversations with the City Manager, and we have -- where we
are right now in it is that he is going to await the letter
from the County Judge -- I know. And once he receives that
letter, then we're going to get back on it so he can look at
I the details inside the letter of what we're actually asking
them to do, and go from there. That's where we are. Can't --
can't move much faster than that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think, for the coming year on EMS,
9-1-G6
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
31
we're just about in sync with them. The only problem I'm
EMS contract itself is $231,000 and change. The total -- the
total city package on health services, according to what they
furnished to us, is 260,000. I've added onto the 231 and
change some of the -- some of the things that they've
indicated to me are the add-ons, and I'm coming up about -- I
believe it's $16,000 short; coming up with about 244. I think
it is our share of the rental on the EMS facility, and very
frankly, I'm not sure where that's located in our budget. If
you ask me to go find it right now, I don't think I can find
it. But I'm -- I'm looking at the Auditor as I speak, to
alert him to this so that -- but -- but with that exception,
as far as I know, for this coming year, we are in sync.
Insofar as a new strategy, as Commissioner Nicholson
has recommended, to -- to try and move that thing to the
extent possible to a user-pay, and this continual response,
"Well, there's a lot of Medicare, high percentage of Medicare,
Medicare's only going to pay what Medicare's going to pay"; I
understand that, but does that mean we shouldn't make the
effort to try and have that service billed out at least at the
cost of service? Not knowingly bill it out at something less
than actual cost. That -- you know, that -- that appears to
4 - 1 ~ 6
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
^°" 2 4
25
appropriate response, to say, "NO, we're not going to raise
the rates because people won't pay them. We'll have more bad
debts." Well, maybe you will, but you're not going to know.
And to ask me, as a taxpayer who may not use that service, or
you as a taxpayer that may not use that service, to pay tax
dollars for a service that those that use the service are not
even paying the actual cost of what's provided to them, I
think is very disingenuous.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: See, this -- we're not in
sync with Kerrville on paying 233,000, or whatever it is, next
year. The direction we're going is user-pay, and we have --
have recommended that the Kendall County rates be replicated
by Kerrville EMS. And the Kendall County rates, for example,
would increase the basic rate by more than double what it is
now; it would increase it by $456. ALS-1 by $40'7 increase,
ALS-2 by $267 increase. I don't have complete enough
information to do an accurate analysis of what it would take
to get to break-even on it. I'll tell you, my best guess is
that we'd have to increase our loaded run revenue by $150 per
run. Loaded run revenue. Not prices, revenue. That would
exclude bad debt and collectibles. My best guess is what it
would take to do that would be to adopt the Kendall County
rates, and we -- our pricing would go up by approximately $425
5-1 06
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
l9
20
21
22
23
29
25
on the average per loaded run. Pricing would go up
approximately 425. Additional revenue would be approximately
150. So, if we want to try it to get to user-pay, it's --
it's not hard to do. Let's adopt the Kendall County rates.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that, and I --
there's been some discussion -- I don't know if I read it or
heard it; I'm not sure which, or maybe both -- that a new rate
schedule should just be imposed on the folks who live outside
the city limits. I think that's grossly unfair, and does not
serve the purpose. It lays onto those people a rate that
probably should be charged, but we're still subsidizing a
system for those who live within the city of Kerrville, and I
think that's grossly unfair. I think any new rate structure
needs to be in place for everyone who -- who uses that
service, and I agree that nine taxpayers out of ten should not
bear the brunt of the shortfall. And that's exactly where we
are today. One taxpayer out of ten using the service, and the
other nine picking up the shortfall. So, I really believe
that -- or am hopeful that the City will respond to
Commissioner Baldwin's entreaties here and sit down and let's
talk about that. Do you see an opportunity or --
Commissioner, for us to get together and jointly try to
reconcile this issue?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think -- I think our
primary -- our primary request is exactly what's been said at
9 z-oh
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this table, to increase the rates county-wide to at least
reduce the deficit. We need to get that request -- a formal
request in their hands. At that point, I see a possibility of
two things happening. One is that they say, "Sure, let's do
it." Or they say, "No, we won't do it system-wide, but we'll
do it from the city limits out and let you folks handle that."
So, you know, I'm just -- and when it comes to -- when it
comes to -- you know, if they say anything less than, "Yes,
we'll do it system-wide -- county-wide, we'll increase the
rates county-wide," then I think we need to sit down and have
another visit, like big boys do, and give us the opportunity
to convince them that it's the right thing to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But he has to have -- his
request is, please get -- get your request to me in a formal
letter type thing. So, if that's what he wants, that's what
he needs to get.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can do that, can't we,
Judge?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what we agreed to do,
anyway.
JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I worked on a draft of it
yesterday evening, as a matter of fact, and I hope to finalize
that today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He laid up in San Antonio all
9-1-06
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
day taking care of county business.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Commissioners, anything else
~ we qot --
MS. PIEPER: Judge, I have --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about the --
MS. PIEPER: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I got that on my list,
too. County Clerk has to talk to us about --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. PIEPER: I have two issues I'd like to ask
about, and one of them is the memo -- that e-mail that I had
sent out to y'al1 on my records management.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a major increase in
your budget.
MS. PIEPER: It is, sir, but I -- but I do have the
money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know. I think it's a good
solution.
MS. PIEPER: So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Remind me. Is that -- is
that a one-time cost, or is this an annual? I can't remember.
MS. PIEPER: This is going to be a one-time cost.
I'm building up into a -- another vendor for my records
9-i-oh
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
management.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why is this so late coming?
Is it new technology just hitting the streets, or --
MS. PIEPER: No. Because I've just -- I've been
working on too much elections, and I just haven't had time to
do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You also went another
direction. You were looking at buying cabinets; now you're
looking at --
MS. PIEPER: Correct. And then, as I got more into
it, then, yes, I do want to zero out my plat cabinet line
item, because I want to get into the -- being able to scan
those and printing them out as well.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you've run all this by
I.T.?
MS. PIEPER: I have, and -- and he is in favor of
it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're in favor of it?
MS. PIEPER: And I've ran it by his backup, and he's
in favor of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's scary; they all agree.
We need to really check this thing out.
MR. ALFORD: What are you leaning forward for?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 'Cause I ain't getting near
that.
5-i-ob
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
37
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll make -- I'll vote --
make the decision when it's laid before me. That's all I can
tell you.
MS. PIE PER: So, at this point, can I consider that
your census would be yes on this, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll not answer that.
MS. PIE PER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: These guys might like to, but
I need to take a look at it, and when it's laid before me to
vote up and down, I will do so.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I see our good friend
Mr. Benham just arrived, and Mr. Lipscomb sitting in the back,
and I know they both can find better entertainment someplace
else. I know they're here because they're waiting to hear
whether we're going the fund the library in full.
JUDGE TINLEY: Unfortunately, we can't tell them
that today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to predict we're
going to fund the library. That's just a prediction.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably a pretty good
prediction, I would think. But when the issue's laid before
us to vote up and down, that's when we'll make the decision.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, I may have some -- some
disagreement with the statement that they could find better
9-1 Ob
38
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
entertainment elsewhere.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, me too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Might cost them, however.
This is free.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're thinking about putting
a popcorn machine in the budget at times like this, so we can
-- we can serve popcorn and Body-pops.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That and parking meters.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Parking meters.
MS. PIEPER: Well, gentlemen, my other issue is my
two deputies. I don't know that it was in my budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, it's not.
MS. PIEPER: Am I going to get deputies?
JUDGE TINLEY: I have not proposed that you get two
deputies, no. Now, the law says that these -- the Court can
make any changes that they deem are warranted under the law or
in the interest of the taxpayers before adopting final budget.
MS. PIEPER: Okay. It just worries me, because
nobody else has said anything about it, and I need them. I
mean, you've heard -- you've heard the County Attorney speak
on it, as well as Judge Brown. And, I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, what we've heard is an
impact -- you have a Tuesday impact. That's what we've heard.
MS. PIEPER: Well, but there's everything that goes
on before -- before the Tuesday court and after the Tuesday
y-i o6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
court, and that's just in one court. I still have the civil
and juvenile as well that those girls have to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I have a thought of
how you can get a part of a person.
MS. PIEPER: I'm not turning down any help.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a thought on how you
can get a part of a person.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A good person.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A good person.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two people in the
Collections Department, and one of those persons can work for
you part-time, and can work part-time for the other --
Collections. That would give you part of a person.
MS. PIEPER: That would help. But on Tuesdays, when
I need a part of a person, that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tuesday -- that person could
work for you on Tuesday.
MS. PIEPER: But that person will be doing
collections on Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, whatever. Monday, to
get you ready for Tuesday, whatever.
MS. PIEPER: Well, that will help.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That'll get you a part of a
person. Can't get you a whole person.
5-1-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
MS. PIEPER: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What are you reading,
Mr. Benham?
MR. BENHAM: One of Roger Kahn's books on baseball.
Great writer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where'd you get that?
MR. BENHAM: At the Friends of the Library book
sale. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You had to ask, didn't you?
MR. BENHAM: One of over 30,000 volumes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For sale today?
MR. BENHAM: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: You missed it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've already missed it,
I haven't I?
I JUDGE TINLEY: The Auditor had first raised his hand
to interject something here. I'm not sure what he wants.
MR. TOMLINSON: I just wanted the Court to know that
the last budget summary that I did that was in your box this
morning --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- includes all the changes that
were discussed at the last workshop.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
q-i-o6
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, it what?
MR. TOMLINSON: Includes all the changes that the
Court discussed at the last workshop.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Prior to this morning?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. TOMLINSON: It includes the new retirement rate
and the parks increase, and the $25,000 for --
JUDGE TINLEY: For an arena.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- for an arena. Any changes in the
personnel schedule. So, I -- I believe we're up to date
through last -- the last meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that it for your input?
Ms. Nemec, did you have something?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. I guess I need to make a
decision whether to go through the grievance process or not,
and I really didn't get what the consensus was on the
recommended amount, which will tell me whether I need to move
forward or not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Looks like the majority of
the Court is saying lower your salary to equal to
Commissioners Court. That's what I'm -- that's what I heard
here.
MS. NEMEC: If that's the case, I would not be going
to grievance. I -- I agree with that, so that's what I need
9-1-06
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Again, I can't tell you until
I'm going to vote.
JUDGE TINLEY: Until the vote is taken, I'm not sure
we'll know.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Letz proposed
it. You've heard my opinion; you've heard other opinions, so
I think you can probably draw some conclusions with that --
from that.
MS. NEMEC: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As the Judge said, we won't
know till --
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- till the final vote.
MS. NEMEC: I appreciate that. Also, I have been
asked for a copy of my duties, and I was told that I had not
provided them to this Court. Back in May, the County Attorney
asked me for those, and he forwarded them to the Judge. Did
you not get those?
JUDGE TINLEY: I got a copy of about 40 pages out of
a TAC handbook, that --
MS. NEMEC: Right, and my constitutional duties are
in that packet. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At what point -- Clerk?
There you are.
9-1-06
43
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
MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're the one dressed in
red. At what point do we decide how much we're going to
charge for the budget -- a copy of the budget?
MS. PIEPER: As soon as I know when y'all are going
to approve the budget, at that point I will try to make sure
that there is an agenda item on the agenda for that reason.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, what I had already dictated
a note to Ms. Mitchell about was to put that on Monday-week's
budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: And have it nailed down in advance,
'cause I've already had a member of the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I've had a couple.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- media ask me. Of course, right
now we're only dealing with proposed budget that's been filed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At some point, we'll have a
real budget, though, that people want to purchase.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And what do we charge, $25
for the whole packet? Or are we -- a dollar a page?
MS. PIEPER: No, you normally set a standard price
of somewhere around $25.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
9-i-o6
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. THOMPSON: It was 20 this last year.
JUDGE TINLEY: It has been for the last few years, I
think, set at 20.
MS. PIEPER: Because right now the proposed budget
is, like, 52 pages long. So, by law, I'm required to charge a
dollar a page.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: What if someone were to file an Open
Records request to you, Ms. Pieper?
MS. PIEPER: If an Open Records request is filed on
me, it is still a dollar a page. The only thing that would
mean is I would have 10 days in which to produce it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Attorney, you need to
look into that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're not allowed to charge
a dollar a page. I think it's --
MS. PIEPER: It's set out in the Local Government
I Code.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think it's either 12 or
13 cents.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to go with 13, then.
Either 12 or 13.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's go home.
q-i-aF
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll stand adjourned. Thank you.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 10:02 a.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity
as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr
County, Texas, at the time and place heretofore set
forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 5th day of
September, 2006.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: ___ _ ~ ___ _____ __
Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
9-i-oa
ORDER NO. 29899
APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTIES OF TAX ASSESSOR/COLLECTORS
OFFICE
Came to be heard this the 1st day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve the appointment of deputies of the Tax Assessor/Collector's Office
and to move the Chief Deputy position from a 17/5 to a 19/7 effective
September 1, 2006, and movement of personnel into that position.
ORDER NO. 29900
DECLARE UNOPPOSED CANDIDATES ELECTED TO THEIR OFFICE
AS PRESCRIBED BY TEXAS ELECTION CODE 2.052-2.056
Came to be heard this the 1st day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve the declaration of unopposed candidates elected to their office as
prescribed by the Texas Election Code 2.052 - 2.056.
ORDER NO. 29901
HIRE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR AND/OR HUMAN
RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
Came to be heard this the 1st day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Appoint Ms. Eva Hyde as the new Director of Human Resources at a
starting salary of $52,500 effective October 2, 2006, and to transfer Ms.
Jacqueline Magenheimer into the new department as the Administrative
Assistant, with the same pay grade that she currently enjoys in her part-time
capacity.