1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Budget Workshop Wednesday, August 1, 2007 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 BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4 0 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I N D E X August 1, 2007 Review and discuss FY 2007-08 Budgets and fiscal, capital expenditure and personnel matters related thereto, for various County Departments, including, but not limited to the following departments: Sheriff's Office/Jail Courthouse Security DPS Road and Bridge County Clerk Juvenile Detention Facility Juvenile Probation Department Environmental Health Animal Control Extension Service County-Sponsored Collections Human Resources --- Adjourned PAGE 3 63 74 84 123 136 155 172 184 203 215 234 236 260 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On Wednesday, August 1, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., a budget workshop of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come to order at this workshop meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court, to continue to consider budgetary matters. The workshop is scheduled for this time and date, Wednesday, August 1, 2007, at 9 a.m. It is that time now. On previous workshops, we haven't used the podium, and I don't know whether -- how convenient it is for the reporter. Sometimes there's a lot of other comments from back into the room, whether the reporter's able to -- to see those people and to clearly hear them. Does the podium create a problem for you? THE REPORTER: If it does, I'll say so. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, fine. The first -- first department we have on the agenda is the Sheriff's Office. And that puts us -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 17. JUDGE TINLEY: 17, okay. As the Court can see, I haven't made any suggestions with regard to any of the personnel issues or -- or capital outlay. I have made some adjustments to some of the requests in between those two at 8-1-07 bwk 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the top and the bottom. I was advised that the Live Scan fingerprint system that was mentioned at 53,000 is not an issue, because apparently there were at least two different jurisdictions that were issued, I suppose, or provided with those -- with that equipment that don't even have jails. And -- and the state has now discovered that maybe they can redistribute those machines to those that -- that do have jails that need them, and it's my understanding that under that arrangement, we're supposed to get one of those Live Scan items; is that correct? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's my understanding. They haven't delivered it yet, but we're supposed to get it. Now, that's in the jail budget in capital outlay, is where that -- JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- 50-some thousand is figured in. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, I made a note of it in the bottom of your budget, which you can probably see. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, take it off? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I don't think it's included in any of the numbers. Is it in the capital outlay? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, it is included. The capital outlay in the jail, as I proposed it, was $69,007, okay? Actually, that -- JUDGE TINLEY: So, you're reducing that by 53, which 8-1-07 bwk 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would make it 16,000. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well $12,007 of that 69 is for some improvements in the cameras and where cameras are in the jail, and then there were going to be a couple radio issues ~ that I was going to try and replace another -- you know, so actually, $13,007 is what I need in that. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The rest of it would have been because of that Live Scan. JUDGE TINLEY: 13,5 should handle those items, then? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. Let's get back to the Sheriff's Department, then. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, Judge, we could just write "no" in all those lines and go on to the next issue. JUDGE TINLEY: You certainly could. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a couple of questions. JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Under Sheriff's Department, 560-208, Investigation Expense, I see that's come down -- or your recommendation, Judge, is it's come down considerably. What's the story there? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I would disagree with lowering I that from what I had. 8-1-07 bwk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask the Judge why he JUDGE TINLEY: Let me find it -- 208, okay. I came down on that because, looking at the historical use, the Auditor has indicated that based upon current expenditures, that it's going to be about a little over 7,500 this year. It was budgeted at 10 last year; didn't even use -- or he's not programmed to use that much based upon the information available to me. I put a little float factor in there and put it in at 8,500. That was my rationale. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Reasonable. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. My rationale for not doing that is, I put down some of the things that we were going to need, some computer costs. We had to add another computer in there to cover evidentiary photographs and things like that. We had an expense just last month of about $700 just to reproduce photographs for the D.A. in one of their trials that we ended up paying out of that. There was a list of -- a wish list type deal of different items that we need in investigations, and then when we added the narcotics unit on. That also adds other items that have to be -- packages sent off and everything else as far as lab analysis, and just the growing costs and never knowing what type of investigations we're going to end up in. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You said you made copies 8-1-07 bwk 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- D.A.? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, copies of photographs. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What else do you do for the D.A.'s office? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We make copies of C.D.'s, or on confessions, copies of video tapes for confessions, and all that's at our expense. And all that comes out of the -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why isn't it in his budget? Why doesn't he do it? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, that's a good question, but, you know, we've always had to do it. The other thing is, we pay for all the sexual assault exams, and I think all of y'all are aware that sexual assault cases have kind of skyrocketed over the last couple years. We have to pay for those out-of-pocket first. Now, what you don't see in that line item is, a lot of times we will get reimbursed for those from the Attorney General's office, but that takes a while, and when we do, it goes back in the jail fund. You don't see that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do most sheriff's departments around the state pay for D.A.'s work? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have no idea. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But you choose to do it? 8-1-07 bwk 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, it's not whether I choose to do it or not. Historically in this county, both D.A.'s before didn't have that type of expenditure account. They didn't have investigators, and most of the time -- or in history, you know, your Sheriff's Office or your police department -- we're not the only one; if it's a P.D. case, they've been having to do the same thing. They have to pay for helping prepare that case for -- for trial. MR. TROLINGER: Well, both D.A.'s now have the equipment and investigators to -- in-house to make those copies. What they're doing, I believe, is making copies for attorneys and whatnot once they receive your copy, right? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They may make duplicates for the attorneys. But a lot of it, like on this last trial that they had, the assistant D.A. requested actual -- not just the digital photographs that we could print out on the computer, but to have those photographs -- those digital ones made into regular photographs from, I guess, H.E.B. or whatever we did for courtroom displays. And a lot of times, your D.A.'s will go through it and say, "Well, only get me this, this and this," while this one says, "I want all of them." So, it ended up being a cost of over $700 to get photographs reproduced for court purposes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, if you choose to do it that way, that's one thing, but I don't think it reflects an 8-1-07 bwk 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 accurate -- accurate budget. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's all part of the investigation. And, you know, where it comes from, it -- law enforcement's job is to get the case presented to the D.A. and get it ready for trial, okay? So, my point is that if this is the evidence that we have locked up in our deal, that they need, okay, I could just give them one disk and say, "Y'all figure it out," but one way or another, it's got to be done. And we have done it forever since I've been in law enforcement in this county, 27 years. JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, you've given us some -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Those are just some of the other things. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm trying to figure out who they're coming from. There's a statement in here, "Note, I would be willing to pay for the cost of the mask if Sheriff's Office would replace cartridges." Who's "I"? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay, that was probably John Lavender. What I did in preparing my budget, and what I do every year is I send out to those departments that that affects. This is John Lavender in C.I.D.; mainly affects the investigation expense. And I say, "What are y'all going to need for the next year?" And -- 'cause you can see, I made notes on those lists where some -- I said okay, and programmed it in. One of the last ones on the last page was a fancier 8-1-07 bwk 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 computer system to be able to do fingerprints, and I said no. $4,000 expenditure on that. We're not going to do that, okay? So, those are work product, Judge. I just wanted you to be able to see how I come to the figures, and -- and the additions we need. JUDGE TINLEY: So, the "I would be willing," that's out of your same budget, isn't it? I mean, it's out of the Sheriff's Office budget, isn't it? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. What that is, where he says he's willing to -- that's being willing to pay for it out of his own pocket if I wouldn't put it in the budget. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think he should be obliged to I do that. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree, so that's why -- JUDGE TINLEY: It creates some confusion for me to know, you know, which pocket we were dealing with. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're dealing with all investigative expense, and that's just some of the additional things that we're going to need, like the -- the fingerprint tape, fingerprint powder, more and more of it, and the costs and the labeling and all that kind of stuff. And the C.D.'s, you know, DVD's. We were using a lot of just regular C.D.'s to put confession tapes and all that on, and those are not working out well. They're -- the quality is not good enough for the D.A.'s, so we've had to go to DVD's to download those 8-1-07 bwk 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 onto, which is a lot more expense also. And investigative expense is something -- I don't know what crimes are going to happen, so I have to kind of project it, program it in. And, as the Judge even pointed out, this year we didn't use it all; it comes back to the Court. We don't go and just spend it. JUDGE TINLEY: But it also allocates -- it also allocates funds that shouldn't be allocated to a particular budget if there's not a likelihood that they'll be used. And what it does, it prevents other departments from receiving adequate consideration for their requests that maybe are realistic requests. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But, Judge, the thing is, I don't know, okay? Some of this is foreseen, so I go from past experience, past expenses, and try and program this in, all right? It's not a blanket deal. I would rather have it programmed in than have to come back to this Court with budget amendments like we've had to do a lot this year, 'cause we cut too short last year. I think this puts a bigger burden on everything than -- than having it programmed to where you can do it correctly to begin with and have the funds to do what you need to. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I disagree with that, the philosophy. I mean, I am and always have been very much against budgeting worst case scenario, because history has shown in this county that that doesn't happen to us generally, 8-1-07 bwk 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and if it does, I mean, we always have excess in -- in employee line items county-wide, because we never stay 100 percent staffed, so there's always -- we build in a little bit of excess just by the nature of the way we do our -- our employees. So, you know, granted, we don't know if you're going to spend more on, you know, investigation expense or if the Court's going to spend it on indigent defense. We don't know where it's going to go. We just know what it's going to cost. So, I would rather do some budget amendments during the year, as opposed to try to fund every line item to avoid budget amendments. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's fine. JUDGE TINLEY: Your current -- your current -- the current budget year, the projection by the Auditor, based upon the expenditures made through the date of the information furnished, indicates that your actual expenditures are going to be about $100,000 less than -- than what was originally budgeted in your budget for this year. It occurs to me that there are a number of other departments that would have liked to have had the availability for some things in their budgets that they felt like they had a real, real need for. You know, with -- if we budget worst case scenario, Sheriff, and stack this thing as high as the ceiling, I suspect that we're going to be put in a position of going to the taxpayers and say, because of the anticipated increased expenditures, we may have 8-1-07 bwk 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to have a tax increase. You know, what I want to know is, are you going to be at the head of the column to tell these taxpayers that they need to support this tax increase? That -- that there's all that -- all these compelling needs in your office that may be, at least in part, responsible for -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Judge, I don't think I asked out of line on this. If you'll look back to the '04-'05 budget, what was actually spent in investigations was $14,801, okay? Now, in '05-'06 and '06-'07, we're a little bit better; we budgeted 10,000 on those. But what -- what I`ve asked for was not the $14,801 that we had spent even as far back as '04-'05. I asked for $13,640 in my budget. JUDGE TINLEY: I think the more historical -- historically accurate figures are 6,300 in the immediate preceding year, and this year's estimate of expenditure of $7,600, Sheriff. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's this year's estimate, okay? And two years ago, it was 14,000 actually spent. So, what I've done is go in between and try and project out to the best of my ability about what we might spend without underbudgeting and causing a problem in a budgeting deal and having to come back to the Court for budget amendments. So, what I asked for was 13,640, and what you recommend was 8,500. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there some middle ground? The Judge is giving you an increase over where your 8-1-07 bwk 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 anticipated year end is going to be, and you're at 13,6. Is there some middle ground in here so we -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. Change -- leave it what it was budgeted for this current year, which was 10,000, if that's what you feel. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I don't -- the mind-set that you go down through a budget, and if you are not going to spend more than you did last year, even though you may -- it may have been twice what you needed, say, "Well, we'll just leave that the same," that's not budgeting. That's laziness, in my opinion. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm not trying -- JUDGE TINLEY: Let's look at -- I'm not suggesting that that's the case here, but we traditionally get a mind-set of just leaving -- leave it the same. And we'll see -- we'll see a lot of instances where there will be an amount budgeted ', and absolutely zero spent, and we'll get a budget summary analysis from a department that'll say no change, and they want the same amount for the coming year. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In my case -- JUDGE TINLEY: That's not budgeting. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In my case, Judge, I don't think you can ever say you've got a summary from me that says no change. I have looked at it. I look at what our projected expenses are; I go back to two. years before that, even look at 8-1-07 bwk 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what, you know, we had done over the last few years. True, this current year, okay, we have not had that bad of expense out of investigations. We had no murders in this county, thank goodness, okay, in this current year, and so investigation expenses were down. We have budgeted $10,000. Last year investigation expenses were down. But I will not budget $6,000, and then we end up with one murder case over the next 12 months, and I'm out of the budget right out of the -- right out of the box. I have to look at things like the list I gave y'all on what supplies we're going to need. We've added, like I said, another computer back there in the -- in the evidence tech's room. There's the cost of operating that computer, the cost of doing photographs, more things going to trial. And in '04-'05 we were at 14,000; this year we're way below that, okay. And I do the best I can to look at it. Now, I put it at 13,640. You've adjusted it to 8,500. I can't tell you where exactly we're going to end up. None of us can, 'cause we don't know. JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, have you ever had the problem, if you had a -- had a legitimate need and you didn't have money your budget, have you ever had a problem coming to this Court, explaining what that need is, and being turned away, not given that money? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8-1-07 bwk 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay, I won't say I have, unless you want to add more personnel. (Laughter.) But -- no. But I also do not like to come to this Court asking for budget amendments when I should have done a better job at budget time to keep them from happening. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think anybody in county government likes to come to ask for budget amendments, but when all of the -- when all of the room is taken up by one or two departments, I think that's detrimental to the other departments that may also have as legitimate, or in some cases, more legitimate needs for excess funds over that which they had expended or possibly budgeted. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm not saying I'm even asking for excess funds, okay? Look at the past history over the number of years. I do not believe asking for $13,600 for investigation expense is asking for extra funds or asking for pie in the sky or anything, or just, you know, floating. I'm looking at what we have, what we have expenditures on and what we can anticipate, and what the history has shown. Not just in the last year, 'cause we didn't have any murders. Very fortunate. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, maybe our philosophy is different. I think that -- I think the current year and the immediate preceding year is probably a little bit more accurate forecaster than going back two or more years. But I 8-1-07 bwk 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 don't recall getting an answer to my question, whether or not you were going to be at the head of the column explaining to the taxpayers. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If I have to have more funds, then I'll be perfectly honest; if it took more funds to have to do law enforcement effectively and efficiently, and effectively investigate cases and get DNA stuff done, I don't believe that my constituents in this county would object too much for us having the funds to be able to do that. Okay? We have to be able to provide effective law enforcement. JUDGE TINLEY: That wasn't my question, Sheriff. My question was, will you be at the head of the column, out front, selling it to the taxpayers that there's a need for this, and part of the need arises by virtue of the needs of your office? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Judge, I have always presented to you a very realistic budget, and then we sit down and we go over them and we, you know, adjust and normally come to it. I'm not going to sit here and play politics with my budget, not with you, okay? I'm presenting you a realistic budget. This is what I've asked for. I have -- I know my reasons for asking for it, and I'm not going to play politics. This is the funds that -- that I feel I need to operate this department. I have not gone back as I could have in many years, okay? The Court did a long-range planning committee 8-1-07 bwk 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 deal for the Sheriff's Office. That was supposed to be done. Every Commissioner at that time appointed members to that committee, okay? In 2002, the jail personnel budget -- and personnel alone was -- should have been, by recommendations, and the Court accepted this, at 73 people. I have 38 employees in the jail. I don't think I've ever asked for much. JUDGE TINLEY: What's the date of that report? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's a long-range planning committee in May of 2001. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And it was supposed to be over the next five years, and at that time, the jail alone should have been -- should have been 73 people. And then in 2003, they recommended an additional four more jailers, transport, booking clerk, and control room. 2004, four more jailers, transport, booking, prisoner services, control room. And in 2005, four more jailers, transport, booking, control room. And you've got this report, and you have what the recommendations were at that time, okay? And we've able to make do and come up with stuff. So, this -- you know, as far as growth and employees, I haven't asked for them either, okay? This was recommendations done by a committee. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How do you add more jailers whenever your jail hasn't grown? Hasn't expanded? 8-1-07 bwk 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My jail population -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You have a certain number of people you can have in the jail, a certain population, and that population and the staff is determined by -- by the state Jail Commission. So, how would you add more jailers to a jail that's already staffed? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The staffing, if you'd like to come out there and look, the thing is, yes, we meet minimum jail standards, staffing one jail guard to every 48 inmates. Okay? That does not take in your control room people, your booking people. It takes longer. Your medical cases where you have jailers sitting over at the hospital two and three weeks at a time, 24 hours a day. There's a lot of things that grow. Medical conditions of inmates, as y'all know, has grown. You know, attitudes, violence in the jail has grown. That takes additional staff to control all that stuff as the jail grows. Back at that time, we were running a lot of them; there was 130, 135 inmates in that jail, okay? Yesterday it was 175. It goes up. I've seen it up to over 200. One of the things even when we had the jail analysis done, they were -- they projected that in 2007, we'd be running 175, and we should have the larger jail at that time. When we have a jail that gets that type of crowded, get more and more gang, more and more of your violence, we're not ending up with as many of our misdemeanor small cases any more; you're ending up with 8-1-07 bwk 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 more of your serious ones, the ones that throw fecal matter on jailers every time they go around; you know, the ones that bite jailers. In fact, look at our statistics this year on the number of felony charges that we have filed on inmates for assaulting jail staff compared to any other year in the past, and you will find it has probably tripled this year alone. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I guess the point to this, I'm really trying to make -- my next point, anyway, is that you never have a full staff of jailers anyway, so approving more positions isn't going to solve anything, in my opinion. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I'd asked for one position for training, okay? But I would disagree with you on that, all right, for one reason. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, you think if we approve more positions, -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That I haven't asked -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- that you'll be able to hire more people, when you can't hire them with the staff that you have approved? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Can't keep them. We can hire people. The problem is, you can't keep them. When you're working these people 12 hours a day, okay, they get three days off. It works out, they normally get more time off, but you're constantly calling them back into work, because we're hauling 60, 70 inmates to court all those days. We're 8-1-07 bwk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 overworking, we're burning these people out, because they're all running that full 12 hours. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That still doesn't answer the question of why you have a position approved and unfilled, and then you -- the report says you need more and more and more. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay, I've hired -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Doesn't make sense to me. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I've hired three jailers in the last month, and I've lost two. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: All right? That's where it makes sense. When you lose the two -- and I can show you the resignation letters where they're just burnt out, all right? If you can keep those from burning -- being burnt out -- we're not talking salaries. This Court's done fabulous on helping them with salary, but when you burn them out because you're just working them too much, because you are short -- whether you're fully staffed or not, you're short, okay? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, but what I see is you're not fully staffed. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If we get those added to it, okay, you get those people and you get that base up, then you're not burning those people out. It's not a quick fix. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, but the thing is, you're still not -- you still don't have the staff hired that you 8-1-07 bwk 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i have approved by this Court. ', SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And, so, my point is, putting more positions is not going to cure the problem. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, it does. JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, since 2001, you have managed to operate the jail, have you not? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: And have done so quite admirably, based upon the reports from the Commission on Jail Standards. I've been participating in a number of those since I've been here, and your -- your reports from the Commission on Jail Standards have always been absolutely right at the top. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: In some instances, they have found, in spite of looking very, very hard, absolutely no deficiencies -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: -- in the operation. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Now, had this Court followed that long-term recommendation out there at the jail, what would have been accomplished, other than a humongous cost to the taxpayers of hiring all these additional people that this report recommended, from the 38 that you're talking about up 8-1-07 bwk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 to the 75 plus the four, plus the four, plus the four, however long that went on? You'd have had twice the number of people, which translates to probably twice the number of headaches, but -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: True. JUDGE TINLEY: -- the cost would have been exponentially increased, but still, the operation or your jail was totally in compliance and -- and given glowing reports from the Commission on Jail Standards. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The biggest -- if even half of the recommendations of that committee had been followed, the biggest difference you would have probably seen, Judge, is a lot less turnover in your jail, because you would not be burning those employees out by constantly working them that much, okay? That is your biggest deal, the efficiency. And when you don't have the turnover and you're not retraining people, you know -- like, when I hire one, there's a 16-week training program that person goes through. It's not -- you can't just step in and do it. The costs associated with that are where you start saving your money. JUDGE TINLEY: So, what I'm hearing you say is, had -- had we authorized the number of slots called for in that report, you would have had enough of those slots filled that -- all of them that you now have authorized, but which you've been unable to fill, you would have had all those 8-1-07 bwk 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 filled so that the call-back for doing double shifts, partial SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The call-back -- I won't say I move up to be officers somewhere. With some departments, you know, it's a starting -- stepping stone. In a county like this, we're a training ground in a lot of ways. But what you do save a lot on, number one, is the turnover, because you don't have that many people in training constantly, all right? It's the calling them in to sit at the hospital 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, when you have one in ICU for two weeks or something. It's the call-in two to three times a week, every court day, because you need people in the courtroom to help with the number of inmates you have there, and transporting them back and forth. And it's. the -- what you don't see is what other members of the department have to do in the Sheriff's Office part to go back and fill in and help the jail and things like that to get some of their stuff. It's just an efficiency and an adequate staffing. And, Judge, I'm not here to complain. I have not, as you -- as you know, okay? We have done a lot of the technical stuff and everything that we could possibly do, and this Court has; you know, radio system, computer system upgrades, all -- all the other things have 8-1-07 bwk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 been met in this long-range plan, okay? And if I would have wanted to come in here and ask for 10 new jailers every year for the last, you know, three years, I could have done that. I did not do that, and I'm not saying I want to do that, because we do a good job, as you state. But we are burning out. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I make a comment? JUDGE TINLEY: Let me hit the technical issue, if I might just a moment. We have, in -- in the I.T. budget for this year, we're going to hopefully set up a trial video teleconferencing between the courthouse and the jail, to utilize that in connection with some of the court procedures dealing with the inmates in your jail. That's going to help on your staffing issue of having to call in people, transporting groups of these prisoners back and forth to the courthouse, will it not? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Possibly. I don't -- I couldn't say at this point whether it will or not, okay? It's a possibility. The difference is, there will have to be a lot of other things, because those court days, all right, where they're going to have to set it up in that one multipurpose room that we have out there for doing things. Which, when you do that, you're running court out of that multipurpose room, you know, every - - all day long. Then you're having to reset other deals such as visitations, such as attorney visits, such 8-1-07 bwk 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as our church service, such as our G.E.D., you know, program and all to later on in the day, later on in the hours where you don't have that room. We only have one room to use for all that stuff. JUDGE TINLEY: We've got a courtroom out there as part of the facility. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm not going to run visitation in the courtroom, attorney visits. You know, if you, you know, have to set up that deal, then you've got to have a guard with that inmate, and it's no different than having him over here. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay? It's a security -- courtroom's not secure. JUDGE TINLEY: You don't have to transport him, number one, and you're probably going to have little or no contact with family members with contraband issues and such as that. Wouldn't that be the case, probably? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We even have problems with that here now, where the restrooms have to be searched first, 'cause they want to go in a restroom. You have that problem out there. That's -- JUDGE TINLEY: I understand about that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I was going to bring up that point. I think that the -- I mean, and you've worked 8-1-07 bwk 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with the Court, and the Court's worked with you on trying to work with the -- the upstairs courts to help the jail issue, and I think we're making some headway there. Back to where we were before we started on your budget. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've gone through -- haven't done the exact math, but I would tend to agree with the Judge's reductions on all your categories where he reduced. But I also acknowledge that you don't know -- I mean, we're going off of historical use. If you look at the average for the last -- back in 2003, which date as far back as I have up to the projected year-end, I think what the Judge has is pretty close with most of his. But the other side of that, I would -- my recommendation would be to go to Miscellaneous line item, which is unused, and has been unused for some time, and put a $10,000 amount into that line item to cover and acknowledge that we're doing a little bit closer budgeting, and then you have flexibility there. I mean, granted, it takes budget amendments, but there's money there that could go into some of these categories. I think that would save overall, but yet give you some flexibility. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have no problem. I've just always stayed away from a miscellaneous deal, because -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- it's like having -- 8-1-07 bwk 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's like -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- a petty cash fund. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Slush. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I think that in your budget, because you obviously have one of the largest budgets, the impact of estimating slightly on the high side or realistic side, whatever you want to call it, the impact becomes $100,000 real quick. Whereas if we put it in Miscellaneous line item, I think that it, you know, gives you some assurance that the money's available in your budget, pretty much at your discretion. That's what I'd recommend we do. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Another option, sure. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: May I continue my questions? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all right. So, I guess on the investigation expense, the difference between the Judge and the Sheriff, I guess we have to address this thing Letz just brought up. But I want to go on down. Uniforms, you decreased that by half, and you base that on the historical use as well? JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And the same -- vehicle gas and oil. That could be a little bit different 25 ~ story, I think. 8-1-07 bwk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's a -- there's a pretty good float in there. If you'll recall, during this particular budget year, we've had some high fuel prices, even higher than they are right now, for a good portion of this budget year. And so the -- the 94,000, you know, that's over a $20,000 increase there, which is better than 20 percent over and above that projected use. You know, I think I've made adequate -- adequate allowance for a cushion there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I just -- I think we need to have a conversation. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I, you know, have it clear in my mind. Do you want to rebut that? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That one is -- is, again, one of those that none of us can really know what's happening. If you look at '05-'06, okay, we spent $113,069 in gas, and the Judge was wanting to cut it to $115,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Based on this year. But, by the same token, though, everything I've read in various journals says that we're looking at the potential of $100-a-barrel oil, which tells you the pump price is going to go up considerably over the course of the next 12 months. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I put in for $130,000, just from what I've read and looked at, that I wanted to try to 8-1-07 bwk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 make sure we had enough gas and oil. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this is one of the true unknowns. It depends on what happens in the Middle East. I I mean -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, not just the Middle East; a lot of places. Look at Venezuela. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the Middle East is still -- at the current time, still drives the price of oil. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This current year, we had budgeted $125,000. We're not going to use all that; we've done real well, but the next year I upped it $5,000 to $130,000, because I just was unsure. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I still think the 115 is fine. If you get in a jam and you run out of gasoline, I think you can come back to this Court for a budget amendment out of some other line items that are going to have excesses in them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many -- Sheriff -- Buster, do you want to keep on going down the list? Or can you -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. I want to make a comment on your -- on your slush fund idea, though. I -- I'm not -- and I'm really not sure if that's the proper way to go, or do we try to build a real budget up front, line item by line item? Something says to me that we should, today, put in the I II, proposed number in each line item, as opposed to setting aside 8-1-07 bwk 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a chunk of money, and then spend it as we go along. I just don't know what's right or wrong there. But it seems to me building a budget up front, you attempt to put the proper numbers in, to just -- that's the way it appears to me. That's the way I've always looked at a budget. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it also -- it -- I think it's a I restraint tool. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: That when these departments are looking at their budget, they tend to be more restrained, more cautious in -- in their activities. Certainly, we don't want them to not do what they're required by law to do, but I think it also operates as a -- as a restraint tool so that if they've got a wild cushion, you know, on the end of it, you know, they're going to -- the tendency is not going to be to be very cautious and conservative. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would suggest that most of our other budgets have a slight miscellaneous line item. If we look at -- the budget's $3.6 million; if we factor in the percentage at 10 percent -- I mean, a percentage, 10,000 is probably as small or lower than any other department gets. JUDGE TINLEY: In the whole scheme of things, that's a -- a pretty small contingency. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause his budget, I mean, it's like -- or the next one; if you go to Road and Bridge back in 8-1-07 bwk 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the back, I mean, those two, you know, that's where -- they take up more than all the other departments combined. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you know, if we're ', debating whether or not to put $10,000 in a contingency fund, why not give the Sheriff what he's asking for in his line item? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because that's 100,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's less than the 10,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it's 100,000. It's probably closer to -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's 137,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a bunch, if you start adding up all the little ones. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm only talking about investigative expense. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're including in the 100,000 the cost of vehicles. It's not just 100 -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm just going with last year's budget, as opposed to what you've asked for this year. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But you didn't have the vehicles last year you have this year, so there's -- you're talking, in reality, between 10,000 and 20,000 increase in all the line items except for, like, the capital outlay. And that is all your -- 25 8-1-07 bwk COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all are going off down the 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 bunny trails again. The -- I think -- I guess probably my main point is that, yes, at the end of the year, when we start on next year's budget, we'll be able to see what was spent. You know, if we go into the slush fund and move it over line by line by line, we'll be able to see that. But I -- again, I don't know if that's the proper way to do that. I would -- I would hope that we can show the taxpaying public that comes in here October 1st to take a look at the budget, that they can see what we have put in the lines. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're doing that. I mean, to call $10,000 out of a $3.6 million budget a huge slush fund is totally inaccurate. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm not calling $10,000 a huge slush fund. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. But, I mean -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm calling it a slush fund. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I prefer putting it where it belongs, and I don't like the designation "slush fund." So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, then go with -- then let's put 20,000 back in the other line items and spend 10,000 more. I mean -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm for leaving the 20,000 out and leaving the other 10 out, and let's see what happens. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. Where is the 20? 8-1-07 bwk 34 1 Where 2 3 4 here. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's another option. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, there's a third option COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but that's where they are. Investigative expense is down almost 5,000. 500 down in employee medical exams, 500 down in postage, 1,000 down in office supplies, 5,000 down in uniforms, 1,000 down in operating expense, 15,000 down. in -- JUDGE TINLEY: About 42,5 total. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So that's -- '~ JUDGE TINLEY: Excluding the capital. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, it's -- you know, we can go back to each one and divide it up a little bit. I mean, I think -- I don't want a budget so tight that we're not accurate, but I don't want to overbudget either. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, in the past experience, in the last few months there has been money taken -- taken in budget amendments, transferred out of his budget to other budgets that were short, and I think he's still going to be okay at the end of the year. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that's over employees, jail COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Because you didn't have ~ employees, which is accurate. 8-1-07 bwk 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have them filled today. I can't -- you know, those are the unknowns. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You have to budget for those conditions. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I have never, in my time -- from eight years of my prior service, and already six months into this time, I have never seen the jailer's line item completely expended in a year's time of what was appropriated. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I don't think you ever will. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Probably not. That's my point. And there's money there to -- if you get in a jam on other things. That's just my little pea-brain thought. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we talk about 105 and 107 under the Sheriff's? Secretary salary and dispatchers? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are you talking about there, Sheriff? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The difference in there is what occurred during the budget year. Part of it, the dispatchers, we got hired -- remember, last year we went to a total of ten dispatchers instead of seven. And then we added the one more clerk by doing away with the one other position, and that combined that into secretary, actually. And then any other 8-1-07 bwk 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 increase in there is just the longevity. JUDGE TINLEY: So, your personnel portion -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I haven't given any raises or asked for anything -- JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- in there. JUDGE TINLEY: The number -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's no cost-of-living, there's no nothing. It's either the increase on longevity or educational, or just where the positions are. JUDGE TINLEY: And the number of personnel remains the same? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The number remains the same. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Which is where we are. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where are we on vehicles? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On vehicles, I put it down in Capital Outlay. I've -- we have -- when the County first went to the vehicle lease program, we went to six vehicles per year, and we dropped that down -- because we got looking through that, we dropped it down to four, and we've been getting four vehicles a year. Now, your four last year, the County getting by before, we had some seizure money and bought them out of that, so the County was totally out, so we're down on those payments. The problem I have with that, you know, 8-1-07 bwk 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 okay, in looking at four vehicles a year, the -- as of this date, all right, which it'll be January before the vehicles come in to replace, I have my highest mileage patrol vehicles -- 'cause all vehicles y'all buy for lease package always go on patrol first; they never get used for anything but patrol immediately. One of the patrol vehicles currently, as of today, has 155,514 miles on it. And the lowest one in those five, okay, that I will be rotating out has 129,016 miles on it. And I think you're asking for way too many miles on patrol vehicles at that risk. Most departments -- I don't know what D.P.S. is doing now; maybe the sergeants can tell us. P.D. advised they rotate theirs out about 95,000. Used to, it was, like, 60 and 75, but vehicles have improved a lot where you don't. We have a good maintenance schedule on them, but I think when you're asking for vehicles up through 155,000, 130,000 miles on them, and they'll get another, you know, 15,000 to 20,000 on them before we ever get -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, let me ask you one question so I can -- obviously, I got lost in the brush back there somewhere. But on Capital Outlay, talking about the vehicles, that's where vehicles is, correct? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, Tommy changes it around. The first time it was on Capital Outlay. Second time was -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask my question. 8-1-07 bwk 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Comes out of lease payments and I that . COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Projected year-end for this year is 112,000. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you've requested 57,000. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. All the vehicles we have are paid off after this year. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. How many vehicles will 57,000 buy? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Five. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's the first year's payment on five vehicles. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Where's the question in all that? Why are we having -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The question is -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: What his plan was. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We've been going -- we've been purchasing four a year, okay? This year, all the vehicles will be paid off. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You want to go to five? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I want to go to five a year. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: To try and limit the number of 8-1-07 bwk 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 miles from getting so high on these vehicles. Now, I'll be -- be honest. This is -- what I put in here is for Crown Vics, same thing we've been driving, lease package Crown Vics. Five of them, that's 57,000, okay? There is a vehicle out there which I think would be better suited for this county, but this is something that the Court -- I will let you decide. We have lost two Crown Vics in the last six years due to high water. And "due to high water" is not driving them off pavement; it's on pavement at intersections where the water is higher. The Crown Vics actually have the air intake right above the fender, and it sucks that cold water into the motor, and you have totaled a vehicle. D.P.S. had one this year, we had one, City had one. I had one a few years ago. They are a problem in water, the weather conditions. There is a vehicle that is a lot better police package vehicle now that was designed -- D.P.S. is going to a lot of them, and that's the Tahoe. Not four-wheel drive. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Five Tahoes, okay, on a -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hang on, here it comes. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. On a five-year lease, now, this 57 -- JUDGE TINLEY: Three-year, isn't it? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's a four. JUDGE TINLEY: Four-year lease. 8-1-07 bwk 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. Five Tahoes on a five-year lease -- if it's a five-year lease, it's right at that same amount. But you're adding a whole 'nother year at that same cost. Let me see here. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're going to have the same mileage problem, or a bigger mileage problem after five years than you would four years, though, I would assume. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're also going to have bigger expense in gasoline. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Why I programmed in the -- yes, it's 57,000, 58,000 for a five-year lease for five Tahoes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 57,000, right at it. JUDGE TINLEY: 57, 58. Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the same, but what is it for a four-year? Do you know? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: For the Tahoe? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's somewhat pointless to go with a five-year lease on your vehicles. JUDGE TINLEY: Do they make fording kits for Crown Vics? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not that I've ever heard, not 8-1-07 bwk 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on police package. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. On the Tahoe -- you were right, Judge. On the Crown Vics, the 57,000 I have budgeted is a three-year lease. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The Tahoes, a four-year lease is 57,000. Okay? So, we're not talking four and five; we're talking three and four. And on the -- the difference would be -- I don't have a three-year lease figure on the Tahoes. I do have a -- if you had a four-year lease on a Crown Vic, it's 44,000. If you had a four-year lease on the Tahoe, it's 57,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many of your fleet were leased originally at four-year? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Hmm? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many of your fleet were originally leased at four-year? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: All of them. JUDGE TINLEY: Four years or three? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Three. We've never done four; we've always done three. It's always been the three-year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How would you -- I mean, would your long-range plan be to take it to all Tahoes? 8-1-07 bwk 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: What's the operational cost? Do you have that estimate for us? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What they told us in that one that they brought down here was actually same, if not less, because of the maintenance costs and that. The police package Tahoe was designed by D.P.S. personnel, other law enforcement personnel, to fit more exactly the needs of police. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are your Crown Vics V-8's? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're V-8. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are the Tahoes V-8? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're V-8's also. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. They're all police ~ package. JUDGE TINLEY: Sergeant Cummins, are you going to get your fleet of Tahoes? SGT. CUMMINS: I don't know, Judge. We don't have any here. It's a good vehicle. I think by now they've got a lot of the initial bugs worked out of it. From what I hear, it's working real well. A lot of the counties around the state actually are going to something like that. JUDGE TINLEY: What about D.P.S. fleet? 8-1-07 bwk 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: For C.V.E.? SGT. CUMMINS: Commercial Vehicle Enforcement. JUDGE TINLEY: The ones that have to carry the scales and that sort of stuff, as opposed to pickups? SGT. CUMMINS: As far as for us, actually Highway Patrol out on the road, we're not being issued those right now. Ours are Crown Vics or the Dodge Chargers, what we have. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do you have any knowledge of a fording kit for the -- for the Crown Vics? SGT. CUMMINS: No sir, not to my knowledge. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, if you went to the Tahoe, what -- we'll go back and talk about vehicle gas again. What would that do? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't think it would affect ~ our gas. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you think that would remain the same too? That was part of the report from the salesman? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. I understand -- I don't believe it would affect our gas. You know, the -- the advantage in this county, mainly, for the Tahoe is the heighth in water and the heighth on a lot -- trying to get through a 8-1-07 bwk 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lot of these ranches and a lot of these roads that we have now in the county. That's the biggest advantage. And, from what we understand, and have talked with the -- they even had one out here and talked with the people about it; it's just a better built Tahoe, a better built vehicle. Now, the chief deputy and my patrol lieutenant did drive one to see, and this price on these Tahoes is totally equipped, like we're doing. There's no extra. So, in fact, it's equipped with more than what the -- the Crown Vics come with. We don't -- the deer guards are already on these, and the cage and the radio's already installed, and the markings are already done. Now, on the Crown Vics, what you pay for in the lease, what we've done is, the radio's in it, but it's not -- the mounting of that stuff, okay? But the deer guards, the -- the detailing and that stuff is all extra. That came out of a different line item in the Crown Vics. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I would rather see us go at least partially with the Tahoe-type vehicles. I think that the Crown Vics don't make a lot of sense to me on a lot of our roads. I mean -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not county roads -- not County-maintained roads. They're all in good condition. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: County-maintained. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're in great condition. We have -- 8-1-07 bwk 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ODOM: Thank you, Buster. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We just have a lot of low-water crossings. There's times on getting around -- I mean, I don't have -- I think it makes a lot more sense to have some of these vehicles. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I could come back -- if we can settle on going to the five vehicles, okay, from four to five, what I could do is come back to this Court, if you want me to, with four Tahoes, which would put one on every shift; it would be with the sergeants. And one Crown Vic, if you wanted us to partially do it this year. But I would recommend gradually going to all Tahoes, which would be the five. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that I'd deal with all Tahoes. I think it makes sense to have one, you know, with the sergeant or something like that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, that's the reason we bought that thing that -- what is that thing you drive? What is that? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's an Expedition. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Expedition. JUDGE TINLEY: That's four-wheel drive, too. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So they can get out in the I woods. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 8-1-07 bwk 46 1 2 roads. 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: Off of the County-maintained COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are these going to be four-wheel drives? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, they're not four-wheel I drives. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because they are police package, and they can't handle pursuits and that. No. And I don't think they need to. We still have two four-wheel drive vehicles in the department; I have the Expedition that this County bought, which everybody knows how to get to it, and that's why I drive it, so they can get to it and use it any time they need it. And we have a seized Jeep Cherokee that the chief investigator drives. Those are the two four-wheel drive vehicles I have. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't be opposed to going with four and one. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm kind of there. Whatever. It's no big deal. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then will you go along with the Judge on all his other numbers? JUDGE TINLEY: 45,000. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, those numbers, you know, are my best calculation on where I believe we're at. If you 8-1-07 bwk 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 want to lower those down, and then, like Bruce said -- and we do have this every year; you're going to end up with extra in Jailer Salaries, okay? If you want to go with the Judge's numbers and then get ready for some budget amendments -- you know, I think the Court knows I don't go out and just blow money. I think everybody in my department wished I'd spend more than what we spend, but that's where we'll be. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't you go find some more of those -- what do you call those things, the machines that you sold all of them? The one-liners -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Eight-liners. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Eight-liners. Why don't you go find some more eight-liners and seize them? Then we can go -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Put that in the slush fund. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: How many vehicles did we buy with those? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four or five. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Four patrol vehicles, and I think three C.I.D. vehicles. So -- and this Court, you know, all these vehicles, one thing the Court has not had to buy in the last six years were any C.I.D. vehicles. You notice, okay, all the Ford Tauruses we have, the funds have either been seized or they have been purchased out of seized funds. The Court hasn't replaced any of those vehicles; we've replaced those. 8-1-07 bwk 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Move on. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's. talk about your jail for a minute, here, Sheriff. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Your -- the personnel out there, I notice -- is the situation there the same on personnel as you'd indicated, that all these personnel that you got plugged in are ones that are currently authorized and on a position schedule? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, except as I stated, there is one additional jail sergeant added to the jailer salaries, okay, that I would like to have, that helps control our training issues, 'cause of the training programs and that in the jail. I've asked for one. JUDGE TINLEY: That's in Jailer Salaries? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Your current -- your budget for this year was what, 867 and change, and your request for this year is 830 and change. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: For budgetary purposes, that would actually be less. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right. JUDGE TINLEY: The only other -- and other than that, the only difference in figures deals with longevity and 8-1-07 bwk 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 educational increases mandated by existing policy? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: The clerk, that increase of about 23,000, is that a position we authorized midyear? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, it was. What we did midyear is we took two part-time positions and turned them into a full-time position. JUDGE TINLEY: I've got you. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's where that is, and the part-times went bye-bye. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay, I see where you are now. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have no part-time. That's where that came from. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go down to the capital, and that's the one that -- that we modified from 69 -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right. JUDGE TINLEY: -- down to 13,5 because of the -- the Live Scan machine going away. I've got a note on here, "Look at I.T. suggestions, 14,5." MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir, 14,531. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. Where -- MR. TROLINGER: And 95 cents. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I did not go with I.T.'s total amount of 14,500 in Line Item 569. MR. TROLINGER: If we continue to put off the 8-1-07 bwk 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 computer replacement, we're going to just have slower and slower computers and people sitting around frustrated. And -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 560 -- MR. TROLINGER: -- we need a computer replacement I program. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If you'll let me finish, I did not replace it. In Line Item 569, Operating Equipment -- JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- I plugged in 13,000 on the I.T. guy's recommendation for computers and that, and then I had another thousand plugged in there for possibly a radio or something like that that we have to replace. JUDGE TINLEY: Now, does that include the I.T. recommendations? Or that's separate and apart? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He's recommending 14,000 something. I plugged in 13,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: So, if we're going to implement the I.T. recommendation, we need to increase that 14,000 -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fifteen. JUDGE TINLEY: -- to about 15 to give you the additional -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thousand. JUDGE TINLEY: -- $1,000 for radio or whatever? 25 ~ SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 8-1-07 bwk 51 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have any problem w th that. 2 ~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But the capital outlay goes 3 I down to 13? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, 13,5. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 13,500. 6 SHERIFF HIERH OLZER: Somewhere right around there. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going back up to utilities, my 8 recollection is that we 're putting in the budg et four new air 9 conditioning units for your jail on the roof. 10 SHERIFF HIERH OLZER: I've never hear d that. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: These should be higher 12 efficiency units, and I believe we're looking at possibly 13 replacing one of those 20-ton units this year. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what we talked about 15 with Maintenance. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think that that number, I 17 mean, could likely come down some. We should have -- I mean, 18 just on efficiency, newer technology. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Hopefully. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think you c an probably cut 21 I that number down. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Utilities, I had put in -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 175. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- 175, 'cause we were 25 running -- projected end of year this year was 160. Last 8-1-07 bwk 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 year's budget was 175. Judge has recommended 165, which is 10 less than the current budget. If y'all feel that would work, I -- I don't have a problem. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you can probably come down even more, personally. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 160. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go back to 160, just because I think that you do get a lot of efficiencies with new units. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we're -- you weren't here for the maintenance part. We're putting your air-conditioners on a five-year plan to replace them all. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Good. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then to get them on -- we don't want to do them all at one time so we're stuck with the same mess we are in right now. We're trying to get them so they phase off; take the worst out, you know, next year, hopefully. Then some of the other ones. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sounds like a good idea. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the software maintenance number a solid number, 23,824? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, we may have an issue. I don't know. That's what it had been, 23,000 for software maintenance for the contract. Now, I was told back here a few months ago that Mr. Trolinger didn't sign our maintenance 8-1-07 bwk 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TROLINGER: Sure. I don't sign any of your contracts. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, but it was not presented -- we don't have a maintenance contract with software for anything with Sheriff's Office and jail, because it was never presented to us. Because somebody felt the -- the computer person I had out there had a good enough relationship that we didn't need it. I still programmed it in. I think we need a maintenance contract. The jail and Sheriff's Office is where most of that computer stuff comes from. And then I -- especially now, losing my computer person, I think we definitely need this maintenance. MR. TROLINGER: What's been done with that money in the past? Because it's been in the budget, right? Is it just being rolled -- at the end of the year, it's just being given back? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If they don't bill us for it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We had 23,000. It's just -- yeah, it's just -- MR. TROLINGER: Never been expended. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not this year. MR. TROLINGER: Well, I don't cover any of the Sheriff's contracts, but the Sheriff's exactly right. With the loss of the -- his training officer, we're going to need 8-1-07 bwk 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to call software support every time, and they're going to want to start billing us if we don't have a contract. So, we have two options. They can bill us per call, or we can sign a software maintenance contract. JUDGE TINLEY: Is this not under the -- the acquisition where we've got maintenance built in for a specified period of time? Or is that going to be expired? MR. TROLINGER: The maintenance built in is -- is actually the maintenance for five years; no additional increases, no annual increases. We're locked in. But this particular line item has never been contracted with the I vendor. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, do they not have equipment that's under this million-dollar acquisition that we made? Or are they not under that? MR. TROLINGER: Well, yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Then they're covered under this five-year program, are they not? MR. TROLINGER: For the purchase of the software, but the software maintenance remains -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Unpurchased. MR. TROLINGER: -- as it was. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. TROLINGER: It's a separate line item, Software 8-1-07 bwk 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: So, in addition to the million dollars that we've agreed to pay them over a period of five years, they're coming back at us and -- and popping us for software maintenance, huh? MR. TROLINGER: It's support. You call and say, "I've got a problem; please walk me through it," and they'll I -- I can hire two or three people to do the same thing, and i I not provide anywhere near that level of expertise that they have by providing the whole state of Texas versus just one county. So, I do feel it's economical. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What's our total cost for -- for software maintenance in connection with this -- this major acquisition we did of the Odyssey system? MR. TROLINGER: County-wide for software maintenance? Not just including Odyssey, but the financial, tax, all the other smaller software packages, -- JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MR. TROLINGER: -- approximately $112,000. I've got to look at my big spreadsheet to confirm that. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did we -- my recollection was we had -- the maintenance was covered the first year, but that was it. Wasn't that right? MR. TROLINGER: No, sir, it was strictly maintenance -- software maintenance was locked in for five 8-1-07 bwk 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 maintenance, right? If you got a problem, you call, you get a response? MR. TROLINGER: Day to day, pick up the phone, call support. It's the help desk for the software. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: John, what is your recommendation? I want a recommendation from you, software maintenance in the jail. MR. TROLINGER: I would have -- I would have had the contract implemented immediately, 2005 when I started, was my recommendation. But like the Sheriff says -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're dealing with next year's budget, though. What do you want to put in here right I now? MR. TROLINGER: I believe the Sheriff's got the correct number in there. The Sheriff does have the correct number. That is the correct number. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 23,824? MR. TROLINGER: That is the correct number. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm comfortable with it, then. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. TROLINGER: We've just been fortunate to have a really good training officer out at the Sheriff's Office 8-1-07 bwk 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that's -- that's handled and supported the users, and gotten away with a little bit with the -- with the vendors. You know, with all the contracts that they have, with all the systems that they have, he's really -- you know, I don't want to use the word "squeezed," but that's kind of what I mean, you know. He gets everything -- he gets everything -- or he has gotten everything possible out of that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why did you let him go? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I had no choice. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, what's this note on -- your note here on the bottom of the second jail page, "Look at I.T. suggestions, 14,550"? JUDGE TINLEY: Which -- that was -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what we're talking I about. JUDGE TINLEY: -- in part, at least one of the issues that we talked -- well, there were some hardware issues, or may have included some software too, that the -- Mr. Trolinger made an analysis of every department, and in trying to see that our equipment remains updated and current. And he made recommendations as to each department, and -- and as I looked at each department's budget, I referred back to his recommendations. And -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: And, actually, those -- I.T. 8-1-07 bwk 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 recommendations are included -- actually, the 14,000 under Operating Equipment, 579, should be 14,5. With an addition of another 1,000, that should be 15,5 instead of 15, if you have an additional 1,000 for radios, correct? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 15,5. JUDGE TINLEY: 15,5 as opposed to 15 even. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else that -- major sticking SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The -- MR. TROLINGER: Judge, did you also cover the Sheriff's Office line item, which is separate for I.T.? I believe it's -- JUDGE TINLEY: Let's take a look. MR. TROLINGER: -- 10-560. The Sheriff asked that I didn't lump together all the computers in just the Sheriff's Office budget; he asked me to break it out between Sheriff and jail. So, jail is the 10-512 which we've discussed, and I' 10-560 is the Sheriff's Office, which includes dispatch, C.I.D., patrol. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm showing a note there, Mr. Trolinger, of "Add or adjust I.T. suggestion, 28,000 per I.T." MR. TROLINGER: That's correct. 8-1-07 bwk 59 1 2 Sheriff? 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: Is that included in your budget, SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What -- in 560-569? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In that, what I have added was not what he wanted. I added 14,000 in there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Instead of 28? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. I feel -- MR. TROLINGER: I'm not going to repeat myself, but we are -- we are two years behind on computer replacement on my recommendations as it stands right now. JUDGE TINLEY: Does the 14,000 -- you've got 24 here, Sheriff. Is there any overlap between that and the 28,000 that I.T. recommended? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 14,000. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 14,000 is -- the I.T. was recommending how much? JUDGE TINLEY: 28. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 28. MR. TROLINGER: The Sheriff's Office, 28. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I put in 14, okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's the other 10? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The other 10 is covered -- some of the Sheriff's Office, the patrol deputies' portable radios, 8-1-07 bwk 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 most of them are five and six years old, and things like that, to get replaced. JUDGE TINLEY: So, if we go with I.T.'s amount of 28, we're going to need to add 10 on top. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, you need to add 14 on top. I added half of his 28. JUDGE TINLEY: Over and above the I.T. suggestions? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That number -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Minus 10,000. And then out of I.T. suggestions I added 14 of his 28. So that put it to the 24,000. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, new I.T. -- JUDGE TINLEY: So, we take his 28 and add your 10 excess over and above what was duplicated. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 38. Same way -- different way of getting there, but same -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about software maintenance? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Most of ours falls under the ~ jail. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We just covered that, didn't I we? '~, JUDGE TINLEY: That was on jail. MR. TROLINGER: Sheriff's Office and jail are two separate entities as far as the software maintenance goes; 8-1-07 bwk 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do you need here? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, two years ago -- current budget, rather, this last year, it was supposed to be $6,676 would have been the maintenance cost to run the Sheriff's Office part. It was not budgeted this last year; we never spent any. I didn't put it in there this year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we probably need to put that back in like we did in the jail. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, if you're -- probably, if we're going to do the contracts like I think we should do, then you probably should put at least the 6,676, if not up a little bit for whatever the difference we need between last year and this year. JUDGE TINLEY: Do we need -- do we need to roll that back in, Mr. Trolinger? MR. TROLINGER: I believe we should -- we should do -- we should definitely stay with the jail software maintenance. But the -- the Sheriff's office, I'm in question on. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Like the CAD and all of that. MR. TROLINGER: True. 8-1-07 bwk 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 recommend putting at least the 6,676 in there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why would you want one and not the other, Mr. Trolinger? MR. TROLINGER: It's about -- it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. If we pay for software maintenance for the jail, it kind of works hand-in-hand; they're going to support the Sheriff's law enforcement side. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You think you can get the whole thing for 28,000? Is that what you're saying? MR. TROLINGER: Well, it's like they're -- if we call them up and say we've got a problem with our computer-aided dispatch, and we're not paying for support, they may bill us on a call-by-call basis. JUDGE TINLEY: So, it's your recommendation to plug the 66 and change back in? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or leave it out and -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just let them bill us. MR. TROLINGER: Computer-aided dispatch is important enough, I agree with the Sheriff, put it in. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Thanks for bringing that back, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 25 ~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 8-1-07 bwk 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: There was an open spot there, and it needed to be -- okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we -- JUDGE TINLEY: Courthouse Security -- I' m sorry. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought it was time to eat lunch. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it will be shortly. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We got through with Page 1 ~ with Rusty. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Courthouse Security. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see. JUDGE TINLEY: The members of the Court will note that there's not -- not a lot of figures plugged in there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wonder why. JUDGE TINLEY: Question. On personnel, is the number of personnel the same? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Only increases are those dictated by longevity and/or educational increases under existing policy. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. And, actually, that number could -- since I have an opening now, depending on who I replace back over here, it could actually drop, you know, like 2 percent or something, because Mr. Thomas that had been here had a master peace officer's certificate, so he was at about the highest as far as educational. 8-1-07 bwk 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19' 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the 37,5 down under Bailiff? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I don't know which one you have. JUDGE TINLEY: 493. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: And the other individual that you have available to us over here is up under 104, correct? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well -- right. One's a deputy, which is the 38,742, and one is the -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just out of curiosity, why aren't they both in the same line? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just the way the budget had always been. I never set that up. JUDGE TINLEY: It got developed last year. We added the second bailiff, is the reason that we had -- we had always had the one deputy assigned here, and then this past year we I added the -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second one. JUDGE TINLEY: -- the extra bailiff. That's probably how that evolved. My question, Sheriff, is what security improvements are proposed under the $10,000 that you've requested? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. What -- there was three options that I had looked at on security improvements. The first one we had looked at a few years ago, and I felt it was 8-1-07 bwk 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 too much; that was more of the cameras and everything, and the recording, and that would have been 96,000, still current ~~, today. The second option is the one for the keypad entries, bar-coded, that they can be hooked in to assist them; they can be canceled out, and some of the magnetic sensors and their II phone video intercom system to where they can talk directly to I the -- to the bailiffs and that. That system is $9,603. And that is through -- JUDGE TINLEY: It's a keypad and intercom? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Same -- yes. And the other system, which is really in a lot of ways a better system, but I didn't know if the Court would want to go to it, the cost of it would be 31,000. And what that is, is it goes into the panic buttons in two different stages, okay? This is operated off of a radio system. The bailiffs or the courthouse i ', security have a radio that -- and there is 15 -- 18 panic I I, alarm positions throughout, so every office has it. It's actually kind of, like, a two-button deal. One button is where, say, Commissioner Oehler just needs a bailiff down here; it's not an extreme emergency, he's just got somebody a little bit out of line or needs help doing something. He can push that. It tells that -- that bailiff that he is needed in Commissioner Oehler's office, okay? That's the normal system where they may need them in the clerk's office. The second system -- or the second part of that system is an emergency 8-1-07 bwk 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 system, and what that emergency system does is, it -- if that one is pushed, okay, it says over the radio and over our police radio in all our patrol cars, too, that there is an emergency in the courthouse, whether it be a shooting, a hostage deal or something, and that is when every law enforcement officer in this county is going to be flying to the courthouse along with your bailiffs and all to take care ', of that extreme emergency. So, it automatically puts it out over the radio system. JUDGE TINLEY: That's the panic system that's 31,000? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's -- I JUDGE TINLEY: What about a limited camera system? We've now got ourselves down to three -- three entrances, the two side entrances and the front entrance, public entrances. A camera system which would cover just those points of entry? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I guess it's something -- what -- I'd have to go back, 'cause I have a full camera system, which is the 96,000. If you want to look at just that part, to bid that -- and what we put in capital outlay for the jail, okay, which is the additions that I needed in the kitchen and that. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you've got a Jail Standards requirement there that you've got to have coverage in all 8-1-07 bwk 67 1 I areas. 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: Right. But what that -- the -- the number of cameras that we would be adding, okay, under that 12,000 that y'all are looking at for the jail is about four cameras and a monitor and all that four, all right, to get it hooked into that. So, if you wanted to do a partial camera system of four to six cameras in this area that are recorded -- these are all recorded where they can be saved on hard drive and take them back, I would say to look at that 12, 000. MR. TROLINGER: Sheriff, I think you'll be a little bit -- I think you'll be low on that, because the base system is already in place at the jail. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, we're replacing some of I those -- MR. TROLINGER: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- with the larger hard drive, because we can't keep it long enough. JUDGE TINLEY: Would. 12,000 to 15,000 be a good I estimate? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: For a partial camera system? MR. TROLINGER: Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Explain to me the need for the entrances. I mean, I understand the panic 8-1-07 bwk 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 system. I understand the keypads. Why would it enhance our security to have cameras at our entrances? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, there's several reasons, okay, depending on where you place the cameras. As this Court's aware of, we have had criminal mischief at night around the courthouse at different times, okay. If your cameras are going to be outside to where they had zoom-type cameras where you can zoom in on that, you know, we had -- unfortunately, with the old cameras we had at the jail, we had -- the Sheriff's Office, we had a camera system out there, and New Year's night a couple years ago, we had five cars damaged. We got it on camera, but going back and playing it back, we couldn't zoom in close enough to make an identification; never were able to solve that. But it just depends on what you want. If you -- if you want to control and be able to go back and use it for court testimony and things like that, or if -- if you're going to have a bailiff that stays stationary, monitoring something or reviewing anything, then yes, it could be. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where would you monitor this? Here, or at the Sheriff's Office? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It would be here. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Be here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Upstairs. 8-1-07 bwk 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we talking about nighttime? You're talking about a deputy 24 hours a day down here? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. No. I'm just saying that that stuff would be recorded. It records whether the deputy's here or not, whether you're monitoring, kind of like the jail. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where would you set up this monitoring system? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Where? Up in the bailiff's office upstairs. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just don't know whether I see i a great need to monitor our cameras. I mean, I think keypads would keep control of who's going in and out of this building; that's a good thing. I mean, you know, the panic button system, you know, it's just -- it doesn't seem that we need it. But if it's something that will be helpful, I mean, I don't have a big problem with that one either. I mean, I'm kind of on the fence. I don't -- I rely on the experts as to whether we need that system or not. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The cost that you cited for a panic button type system, Sheriff, is that an installed price, or is that something we have to install, and where would all the panic buttons be? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The panic button system is a -- you can look at this -- 8-1-07 bwk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~o COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That was for how much, 96? JUDGE TINLEY: 31. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It was 31,630. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I was just hoping. Hoping. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good hope. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it could be we do it in phases, keypad this year and panic next year, or vice-versa; panic this year if it's more important, and then the keypad next year. I mean, doesn't have to all be done at once. I think we are responsible to make sure this courthouse building is as secure as possible, and there are more and more problems nationwide, even though this is still pretty limited. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The nice thing about this type of panic button is that it doesn't matter where the bailiff is; it's going to tell him on his portable radio what's going on. And it doesn't matter if it is a severe emergency -- now, we got -- you know, there's training issues in this; that I don't want an employee accidentally pressing one that is the emergency part of it, okay, that it is a severe emergency, 'cause you're going to have red lights and sirens coming to the courthouse. I mean, it is a -- that one is if something that's very serious happens. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is the cost of a panic system that gets the bailiff to the office, but not with the -- 8-1-07 bwk 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Emergency. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- emergency part of it? Which, to me, is more beneficial. I'd almost really rather let a few limited people be able to have that ability, being your bailiff and the deputy be the ones that can -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You could -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- send all the law enforcement. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: At this point, you could probably end up just buying some of those little two-way radios that you can get at Walmart, and have them sit around, be able to get -- have people to get a bailiff to them. I That -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That seems to me more efficient, because if you -- if do you call them and then they see that there is a real emergency, they can -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They can call. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They can call for backup. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: :Hopefully. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, anyway, that's a big improvement over what we have. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, or if they can't -- I mean, there's enough other people that can, say, call 911. I mean, Jannett's office can call 911 and get all that stuff coming, you know, within seconds of pushing a panic button. 8-1-07 bwk 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have that -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then you got to have the panic button in the right spot. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think Jody already has one, 'cause every time I walk in, something -- somebody knows I'm here. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She pushes a button. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just looking at this for both of those types of buttons, you could probably -- and I'm having to guess at this; probably cut that 31,000 close to in half, 'cause you're only using half the type of equipment. But then you still have the entry pads and that for the 9,600. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'd be more in favor of doing something like that if we can afford it this year. I mean, I like the button system, so then there's a -- rather than little portable radios, which I haven't had a whole lot of success with. JUDGE TINLEY: With a panic button system, you can do that discreetly, too. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Rather than panic whoever's giving you a problem. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you remember where the button is. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In looking at both of those 8-1-07 bwk 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 options, if you wanted just to guess on what probably should be if you looked at it, probably say about 15,000 for that type of system, and the 9,600, 10,000 for the keypad entry. About 25,000, I would say, would get this very close to getting those. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think we first have to see what our revenues are going to be, and then base it on need. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. I mean, I think this I is -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: For both of those type, about ~ 25,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 25. JUDGE TINLEY: Easily went from 10 to 25. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Keyless entry stuff, about 10. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you going to get more firm numbers for us? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can sure do that, if y'all want me to. JUDGE TINLEY: The limited panic system? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Well, Sheriff, you look very tired, so we're going to take a break now for about 15 minutes. (Recess taken from 10:28 a.m. to 10:46 a.m.) 8-1-07 bwk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 74 JUDGE TINLEY: Department of Public Safety. Sergeant Cummins. SGT. CUMMINS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's find out where you are here -- 20. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 20? JUDGE TINLEY: That's where I've got it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There it is. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Sergeant, your -- your personnel issue there, you have -- you've requested an increase of, I believe it's, what, 250 a month? SGT. CUMMINS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: For the secretary that we provide for your operation? SGT. CUMMINS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: And that's the basis for the change in that first number there? SGT. CUMMINS: Yes, sir. And that would -- if that was approved, that would -- JUDGE TINLEY: Affect all the roll-ups, of course. SGT. CUMMINS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. Sure. The -- looks like the other items there that you've made any request, you've got a generalized request, at least according to my understanding, 8-1-07 bwk 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of 3,500 under Miscellaneous, which I have -- I have recommended that be reduced to 1,000. I really wasn't able to see what you had in mind for that, other than, you know, whatever your, quote, needs might be. SGT. CUMMINS: Sure. JUDGE TINLEY: And I'm a little fuzzy on that. SGT. CUMMINS: Okay. This budget -- the projected budget for this year, the year-end is less than what was approved, but it's also about $7,000 less than the '05-'06 budget. That's our projected budget for this year. With the request that I've made, that is an increase from the '05 and '06 budget, which I'm assuming this was previous to me getting here; that was probably the highest budget for Highway Patrol that y'all have had. If -- if the requests that I've asked for were approved, it would be about a $100 increase from that budget. It's obviously more -- I think around 10, 11 percent increase from last year's budget, but our projected year-end totals were actually going to save the County about $3,000. Some of the items in there I'm not real familiar with. The telephone, I believe that that's the pagers that the County currently provides for the troopers, which there should be six of those. Now, I can tell you that one thing I would -- you know, just ask be considered is -- and I don't know that the County -- Kerr County has a group cell phone plan. I don't ~~ know if y'all have that or not. I know in other counties, 8-1-07 bwk 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they do. The reason I'm -- I'm getting around to that is because a lot of times the pagers -- most people don't use them any more, just to be honest with you. Cell phones -- what everybody's using is cell phones. If it -- if we could be incorporated into some type of plan that y'all already have existing, I'd ask that those pagers be turned back, and we'd get, like, five cell phones. I have a cell phone; I don't need one. The corporal has one. It's provided by the State; he doesn't need one. The other troopers, they're using their personal cell phones. Now, they are receiving messages on the pagers, but it would be a little more practical, in my opinion, to have a cell phone. If the cost of that was going to be something that was going to be a lot more, that's not something we're asking for. I just didn't know how to approach that, because I'm not sure how the County is currently doing that. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Jonathan? I think the pagers run about $17 a month, and the cell phones could even be added to our contract at 19.95 a month. JUDGE TINLEY: I think what we're looking at -- we got two different things under consideration. One is outside of your contract, putting together another master contract with the remainder of -- of the county offices, and with the $10 add-on, and just negotiating for a large block of minutes. SGT. CUMMINS: And that's what a lot of counties do. 8-1-07 bwk 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I think that's one of the options that we're looking at, and that certainly would seem to fit what you're talking about, Sergeant. SGT. CUMMINS: Yes, sir. Now, the 3,500 in the Miscellaneous, I know y'all had talked about that fund earlier, and I can be honest with you, I don't like putting anything in that fund either. But the -- the basis for that is, it's been my experience in the past, working in different counties, that you can approach this in two different ways. You can budget for some of these expenses and have a fund established, whether it's in Miscellaneous, Operating Equipment, or capital outlay, one of those three. Things that we would be purchasing with that would be equipment. You know, we're not going to have a luncheon or anything like that. And I don't have the ability, as far as I know, to go and order anything on the County's behalf, so anything that I would be requesting, anyway, I would come to you -- to the Judge about this before it's ever even done. Now, that's one approach to do it. The other approach is, anytime you want something or need something, you come to the Judge and Commissioners Court and make a request for it. My personal opinion is, I would rather have it budgeted in, instead of having to come to Commissioners Court every time something ', comes up. And I know, just from listening to y'all discuss this with the Sheriff, some of your opinions on it, and I 8-1-07 bwk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 78 understand that. I do understand that. I would just ask you to consider that even with that, it's $100 more than the '05-'06 budget. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My -- on that issue, my preference would be to put it in Operating Equipment, as opposed to Miscellaneous. SGT. CUMMINS: And I wasn't real familiar with how the County did that, so I thought I'd put it in there, and if -- if it was approved and you wanted to change it into another category, that would be perfectly fine. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd rather see it drop down to Operating Equipment also. JUDGE TINLEY: And I think the more major issue is, which of those two values, or somewhere in between, do we plug in? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A thousand, or what he's going to end up spending, giving him about $2,600 or $2,700. SGT. CUMMINS: Also, the Operating Equipment, I'm assuming that that 2,200 that was budgeted, and then the 1,692 that was spent was for the computer -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably. SGT. CUMMINS: -- that y'all put in. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or printers or whatever. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- SGT. CUMMINS: Which we won't have that expenditure. 8-1-07 bwk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 79 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to go back to secretary salaries, Sergeant. SGT. CUMMINS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're at 25,897, and you're proposing $3,200. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thousand? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the other one, Operating Equipment, we never settled on a number. 1,000? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Add the 1,000 to his 1,692. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, he's not needing the 1,692, so maybe 1,500 there? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Give you a little bit more breathing room there, Sergeant. SGT. CUMMINS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tell us about the $3,200 on the secretary salaries. What's that? SGT. CUMMINS: She's been doing a great job. She's doing -- she came in at a very baseline salary. She's caught on to everything we've asked her to do a lot quicker than we really thought that she would, and with that, over the last year that she's been here -- the last two years, there's -- there just continues to be more office paperwork in every 8-1-07 bwk 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 department that you're going to have that we're doing, whether it's with the District Attorney's office -- the Sheriff talked about this earlier. We put a lot of people in jail. Every time we put someone in jail, we have a video of it, so we have to make copies of those videos, whether it's one for us and one for the District Attorney, the prosecutor -- whether it's the county, district, or the District Attorney, we provide them a copy of that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this person on the -- the county's step and grade system, or -- it is the county system? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was my next question. Where'd you get the 3,200? Just pluck it out of the air, or is it part of our step and grades? SGT. CUMMINS: Absolutely. I just plucked it out of 15 the air. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The person's on our step and grade system; I think we need to keep on that system. One or two -- she's been here two years now? This will be her second? SGT. CUMMINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: She'll get an automatic longevity increase this year -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- under our system, so she'll SGT. CUMMINS: I don't know that. 8-1-07 bwk 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be getting a -- what's that translate to, Ms. Hyde? MS. HYDE: About 30 -- about $700. j COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, she'll get that ~~ automatically. ~I MS. HYDE: Annual. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If the -- if the job description -- I just ask that you get with our H.R. Department on job description. You know, if she's -- SGT. CUMMINS: It has changed, and we've actually got -- spoken with the H.R. Department about it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's -- you know, if that classification needs to be changed, then I'd be in favor of an adjustment. If it doesn't need to change, then I'm not, just because I think it's a county employee and has to stay with the system; otherwise, we end up with a -- everyone in this room coming with that same argument, that workload's increased, so we need more money. And we just can't afford it, in my mind. SGT. CUMMINS: They need to make that request. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Most of them do. JUDGE TINLEY: If you don't ask, you don't get. Is that your theory? SGT. CUMMINS: That's right. You got to take care I of your employees. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's definitely a 8-1-07 bwk 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Well, it wouldn't just be those in this room. Those in the room representing department heads or elected officials, and they'd be -- they would be speaking on behalf of multiple employees. SGT. CUMMINS: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: And -- but -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you can refine that with the H.R. person. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get with me later. H.R. is trying to give me some hand signals. MS. HYDE: When I talked with D.P.S., her job description has changed enough to warrant the longevity plus one step. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. HYDE: That's it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which would bring the number I to what? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whatever that is, we're willing to do. SGT. CUMMINS: I'll find out what -- JUDGE TINLEY: I can tell you. 26,1, that's going to be 1,300 roughly. That's 5 percent. Steps are at 2 and a half, so -- okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Without any COLA adjustment? 8-1-07 bwk 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: No, no COLA adjustment. Yeah, the two -- but two steps round figure will be 1,300. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. HYDE: Her longevity will go into effect in September, and then the next increase would go into October, so the longevity has already been budgeted. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think -- I'm not sure. Is the current -- is the current salary -- does that fit within our current step and grade? MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. She'll be at a 17-2. JUDGE TINLEY: With this next increase? MS. HYDE: Yes, sir, effective September. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And what you're saying is, ', because of job description change and additional responsibility, there should be a one-step increase as a result of that. That's the justification. MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No problem. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. SGT. CUMMINS: All right. That was easy. MR. TROLINGER: Excuse me. There's an annual cost of -- I believe it's in your telephone budget, for the Internet connection to the courthouse for Odyssey. Is that 8-1-07 bwk 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the telephone. MR. TROLINGER: I believe last year we had capital outlay for D.P.S. We provided the computer, the hardware -- the initial cost of the hardware, and I believe on the order of $720 per year. I may be high on that. JUDGE TINLEY: Are you talking about the broadband? MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: 60 bucks a month? MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. Just want to make sure that doesn't get overlooked. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. If you'd check into that? Okay, that gets us to Road and Bridge. Where's Road and Bridge? 21. Mr. Odom. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: On your personnel issues, of course, you're requesting some increases there. MR. ODOM: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: I think it goes without saying that that's going to have to be considered in -- in parity with all the other county employees, unless you've got specific instances in particular employees' situations dealing with job description changes, educational increases, something that may fit within our -- our mandatory policy dealing with longevity 8-1-07 bwk 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and education. I assume you've already got those plugged in? MR. ODOM: I have that plugged in. But, basically, that -- I gave everybody a 2 and a half percent because of the essential personnel, the deeming of that, and the disciplinary effect that that entails; that they will be there, and disciplinary action will be taken. So, if we're at that point, I know that it's implied, but if we're going to do that, I think that they receive just like the Sheriff got a year ago. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say that again? MR. ODOM: Essential personnel, the 2 and a half percent increase because of that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why are your employees more essential than other employees? MR. ODOM: Why did the Sheriff get 2 and a half last year, that they're essential? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think they did. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, they did. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't recall that terminology, anyway. They might have got an adjustment for salaries across the board. MR. ODOM: Got an adjustment for salaries based upon the fact that they were essential personnel. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't recall that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't recall that. 8-1-07 bwk 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the solution is, if they did, we can reduce that. MR. ODOM: That would be fair. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think we've done -- for the past several years, we have looked at law enforcement salaries and made adjustments of the jailers first, and then the deputies, but I don't think it was because they were essential personnel. MR. ODOM: Well, your memory and mine are two different ones, sir. Sometimes I'm right; sometimes I'm wrong. know. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I wasn't here, so I don't COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, maybe you can get out the minutes of that meeting and -- MR. ODOM: Well, I'm sure -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- prove it out. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, I think the Judge's comment is we'll look at all those salaries later. MR. ODOM: Plus I also added -- I also added one position back that was a 17-1, which I've been trying for the last several years, when that was taken away, to build that up. So, that's all that I have built into that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, there is one 8-1-07 bwk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 87 MR. ODOM: That is right, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. ODOM: But I will take a look. If this doesn't go through, I will take a look at the fact that -- for merit increases or something like that, I may look at. I just looked at everybody across the board for 2 and a half. And there are people that are justified to bring up, but I didn't do that to be fair to everybody, because of the new designation of the people if they're essential personnel. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Leonard, on the one additional person -- personnel that you mentioned, now, I know we approved one more clerical position for you last year, I believe, wasn't it? MR. ODOM: That was clerical. I asked for two positions last year. JUDGE TINLEY: Then -- okay. MR. ODOM: And I only got one. One was for the office, and one was to go back into the field. And this one is to go back into the field. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's look at that. If we could, I want to find out where you've got that individual. If we budgeted for 702 this past -- this current year, and you put a 2.4 percent increase on that, that brings it to 719. I don't see the additional person, is my point. 8-1-07 bwk 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it should be in Crew JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right? I mean, that's the line item. MR. ODOM: Well, maybe I missed it. It should have been that we had the 17-1. Am I right, Truby? MS. HARDIN: The 17-1 for last year that is being filled part-time now is in 15-611. MR. ODOM: Yeah, that position. MS. HARDIN: And Crew Salaries. And that was the only one we got. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was a part-time last year? MS. HARDIN: No, it was budgeted for full-time, but -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- okay, this is the one -- MS. HARDIN: -- the person is only working three days. We need to change that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, is this a -- a full -- MR. ODOM: I'm looking to put a full-time individual as a 17-1 into the field. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But is this increasing someone ~ who's a part-time now? MS. HARDIN: No. MR. ODOM: No. 8-1-07 bwk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 89 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, just another full person? MR. ODOM: Full person. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It goes under the crew -- under I 111 . MR. ODOM: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But this number that's here does not reflect that person? MR. ODOM: Apparently not. I thought it did. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: From 674 to 719? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's -- MS. HARDIN: Yes, it's in that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It has to be. JUDGE TINLEY: No, the original budget was 702, and you put a 2 and a half percent increase on there, and you're going to get that number up to 719. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: So that individual is not there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: So, that 111 needs to be increased. MR. ODOM: 17-1. JUDGE TINLEY: To add a 17-1. MR. ODOM: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there anything else? I 8-1-07 bwk 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 don't -- there really weren't any changes off recommended. JUDGE TINLEY: No. No, Leonard is extremely tight figuring his numbers, and -- MR. ODOM: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: -- occasionally he'll have to do some budget amendments, but really not that frequently. He's got a good handle on them year-round. MR. ODOM: Yeah. If you look, what I presented was less money in the new budget than -- than the one I'm currently doing. And I thought I had the 17-1 in the whole thing in there. I'll go back and look at that. I just swear that I -- that I had both of them in there, and I just -- maybe I missed it, then. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I don't have a problem with that 17-1, because we talked about there was a lot of things that didn't happen last year that you thought was going to happen; the airport, and then parks and moving things around. So, you know, I think that -- I don't have a problem with that one personnel that you -- JUDGE TINLEY: Well, and he had -- he had somebody that was actually assigned to him that -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We moved. JUDGE TINLEY: -- he's now lost over to Maintenance, so that one's been shifted. 25 I MR. ODOM: That was -- 8-1-07 bwk 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HARDIN: That was budgeted in our ours last year. MR. ODOM: But it was taken back out. MS. HARDIN: So that's what's the difference would I be . JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, that may be where the 17-1 is. MR. ODOM: I think that's it. I want to say my budget is less with what I just proposed to you than what I'm doing right now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the guy that you had is COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, the guy -- MR. ODOM: Well -- MS. HARDIN: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: One person left and a new one's coming in, so not a net change. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. ODOM: Th at's right. Thank you, Truby. I knew I had this right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just needed a little confirmation, didn't yo u? MR. ODOM: I just need a little support. I'm telling you that what I presented to you with my 2 and a half percent and the 17-1 is less money than this year, and I would like for you to give my people acr oss the board a 2 and a half 8-1-07 bwk 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 percent, without affecting the budget. And I've -- JUDGE TINLEY: Hard to argue with. MR. ODOM: Well, I think it's fair. JUDGE TINLEY: Like I say, it's hard to argue with. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but I don't want to argue. JUDGE TINLEY: We do have a parity problem, though, and you understand that. MR. ODOM: I understand. But I -- you know, if -- but this courthouse is not essential personnel. My people are. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it depends on which person that comes in for services. You ask that person. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'd rethink that one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just depends on who's out in the hallway waiting to get some service. MS. HARDIN: Yeah, but they don't come in when it's iced over, and we don't -- MR. ODOM: You don't have tort liability. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We could argue this all week long, so why don't we just move on? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Got me offtrack on that one. MR. ODOM: I've accomplished something if I've done that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Capital Outlay. MR. ODOM: Capital Outlay, sir. 8-1-07 bwk 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I had -- two questions. First, on the foreman trucks, what mileage do we have on those current ones? MR. ODOM: Over 200,000 for one, and about 185 for gasoline, and that's a V-10, and those are 1999's. So, I'm interested in replacing those with my people. Those are the oldest ones. And I think mine that I traded in had 227,000. So, those vehicles will -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: They need to be replaced. MR. ODOM: They will -- I wish we could get them at 60,000 miles, or 65. But -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Your portable welders -- MR. ODOM: Portable welders, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you tell me what kind of welder you can find for $1,200? MR. ODOM: Well, they're those little cracker-box deal. What we're talking about is Ingram out there lost the old welder we had, the old hand crank. I've tried to have that repaired and taken back in, and they say that this is -- this is beyond anything out there. And I had it repaired a little bit. These are more cracker-box Hobarts, running around $1,200. We looked at Northern, and something they could put in the back of the truck or a backup to go out in the field. JUDGE TINLEY: But they're truly gasoline 8-1-07 bwk 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ODOM: Which one? JUDGE TINLEY: The gasoline engine-powered. MR. ODOM: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, they're -- you don't need a generator in addition to them. I'm just trying to figure out -- I need to go buy some of those for me. MR. ODOM: Hobart was out there. I looked at Grainger, and they were running around 2,000. I went down to Northern and looked, and they were running around 1,194. That doesn't mean the price hasn't increased a little bit, but this has been within the last two months when I was looking at things. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, these are inexpensive -- MR. ODOM: Inexpensive. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- in a sense, throw-away after MR. ODOM: Probably after a couple years. Maybe a Lincoln -- I've looked at Lincolns in the -- at Home Depot, and those little cracker-box they got, and so they're running around 1,100, 1,200. Sam's sometimes has them, and so that's what I was thinking of, that that crew could put it in the ', back of the truck, go with it. We could have one back in the shop as backup to the different guys that have it. But I can't repair that one; I've tried. 8-1-07 bwk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 95 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can't repair any of them for $1,200. MR. ODOM: Yeah. So, I thought that was the most cost-effective one. We don't do that much, but when we do, we need -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: You might a little bit here or out in the field. MR. ODOM: Little tack welding is all. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leonard, what do you got in Special Projects? I don't see anything. Where is it? MR. ODOM: Special Projects, yeah. There's a back sheet. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under Contract Fees. MR. ODOM: Under Contract Fees, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, I'm sorry. MR. ODOM: And, basically, Hermann Sons right-of-way, we're looking at being able to acquire some right-of-way from the bridge up to 480, and do some realignment on Hermann Sons there around King Salvage with the Highway Department. So, we think that we plugged in around 19,500. I have striping on Sheppard Rees, from Bear Creek to the city limits. It's a little bit over 4 miles, and then from Elm Pass, 480, to Elm Pass II is 26,500. Now, I was looking at a hydraulic and engineering study for River Road Crossing there in Hunt, that real narrow crossing. You and I 8-1-07 bwk 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Highway Department says that they're going to fund that 100 percent, but that's where I was looking at that. If we didn't -- if I did have to spend that, I wanted to look at Fall Creek and do a study there for that crossing at Fall Creek. So, I don't know how far 14,000 may take me, but it will get me somewhere down the road on either one of them. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Speaking of Fall Creek, it's been several years since the first part of that road was rehabilitated, coming off of lower Turtle Creek up -- MR. ODOM: Sealcoated. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sealcoated, yeah. Is that MR. ODOM: We'll take a look. I don't know whether it'll be this budget year or the following budget year. I need to tie in. I don't know how much I'm going to finish this year. I can't ever -- my wheels are spinning in this ~ water, and I -- that's what I'm afraid of. We're going to try to see how much I get finished, and we're going to shoot sometime this month. Toward the third week, we're praying that we have sunshine for a while. But we're going to try to finish our projects this year, and then I just have to -- I haven't tried to look at it. It's sort of ludicrous at this point to -- to worry about it. I mean, let's just find out what I've got, and then what I don't finish will have the 8-1-07 bwk 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, where -- I have no -- I think it's -- well, the Hermann Sons right-of-way, that's for the full right-of-way acquisition? MR. ODOM: That's for the acquisition. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then you can -- and just in your other line items, you've got the funding to do the road shift, or -- MR. ODOM: Well, I believe that you and I talked; it would probably be the next budget year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before you do that? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, to do that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, just checking. MR. ODOM: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Lane -- MR. ODOM: I don't have a problem with getting it in place, and we'll see where we're at. But, you know, if -- if we go -- I can't tell you what the scenario of 1931 through 1963. I can tell you from the '50's through '63, what it looked like. But that's what FEMA's telling me, that we're going back in weather. So, this is -- in my grandparents' and dad's day, it was pretty hot, but how bad the weather was in the winter, I don't know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- what about Lane Valley, 8-1-07 bwk 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 which is a big -- you and I know about it; I'm bringing it up more for the Court's benefit. Just as a refresher, Hill ~ Country Co-Op's putting fiberoptic now down Lane Valley, and II Leonard and I have been working with Hill Country Co-Op and, you know, landowners, and I think I brought up to the Court that Voelkel Engineering is doing some surveying to figure out long-term where right-of-way acquisition may make sense on Lane Valley to cut off some of the corners or some three or four -- well, there's two cattle crossings under the road; one of them is about to cave in. Anyway, there's some things out there, and because of the fiberoptic line, it's kind of pushed all this to the forefront to figure out where we would, long-term, want right-of-way. Are we going to be at the point on -- I'm thinking mainly 'cause of Mr. Henry's property, of needing to have some funds for acquisition on that part of it maybe this year? What are your thoughts on that? I know Voelkel was back out there doing some of their work again, because their -- some of their points, I guess, didn't coordinate right on their GPS. MR. ODOM: Yeah. Part of that's going to be tough, because you got 30 foot. Some of it's prescriptive easement, something in a deed that says the family's got 30-foot, all the way back. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 25 ~ MR. ODOM: To answer your question, at this point, I 8-1-07 bwk 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 don't see it, other than contingencies, which I've kept at 20,000. Unless -- unless we went in, instead of a hydraulic study, we might have 14,000 there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. MR. ODOM: I don't -- and you would have to plug something in. I didn't think about that, other than maybe, you know, we might be able to -- at least on the Crenwelge's property right there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That part, I think we can postpone that issue off to another year, if we can at least figure out where we're going. MR. ODOM: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe. I'm just worried more about the Henry property, 'cause I know I did meet with them. MR. ODOM: For the Court's -- we're looking at the possibility of -- whatever we do is at least 60 foot, as far as we can get from the back, from Privilege Creek there where it's proposed in the future all the way to the highway. I mean, it's going to be 30 foot. The roadway is right there, as Jon just said, and crossings are very, very narrow. So, you increase that -- whether it gets developed during our time, I -- you know, I don't know, but we're trying to get it all in place. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our thinking is that we need to figure -- we need to make sure that fiberoptic line doesn't go 8-1-07 bwk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 100 where we're going to need right of way in-five years. MR. ODOM: That's right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause we don't want to have to move it once it's there, so we're trying to -- we're asking Hill Country Co-Op to do as much as they can, if they have to get that project done this year. So, we're trying to at least -- maybe not make the acquisition, but know where we're going to go with the acquisition down the road. MR. ODOM: If we -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: We may want to put something -- I don't know, maybe 5,000, maybe 10,000. MR. ODOM: Maybe 10,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just so we can start. I ', MR. ODOM: But I don't have the slightest idea. That property is not like it used to be when I first came here, so it's pretty expensive. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Start working on it. MR. ODOM: Yeah. If we don't move -- do the work toward widening this right-of-way with the people that will work with us at this point, everything that we move and we make them move that, then it costs the taxpayers money. So, we're trying to do this at one time, to lay it out; that they lay it out back behind the fence lines, that we have an alignment, and we don't have to pay for it in the future. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What about the off-system 8-1-07 bwk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 101 bridges that we're going to be having built in the next two years? We're going to have to fund 10 percent of that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. That's right. MR. ODOM: But we had discussed at that point of going to the -- whatever they call that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In-kind. There's some in-kind involved in that. MR. ODOM: Yes. Well, we were going to do 350, but we were talking about if we need the money, we would go to the infrastructure there -- bank there that the Highway Department uses, and we would do that. And I think, at that point, that's the reason I would like to have that structure -- I'm talking about Fall Creek, that we would look at borrowing the money at one time or having a line of credit set up that we could borrow that amount as they come down, and we wouldn't have that. And I -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The figure is 279. MR. ODOM: 279? I'm thinking that we probably need to be -- I don't know, half million. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That is our cost, 279,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For all the bridges? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: For all seven -- all six bridges. At seven, they're going to replace -- MR. ODOM: $200,000, at least, a crossing, from what we've talked about. What I just saw with my engineering at 8-1-07 bwk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 102 Town Creek was 171,000-some-odd dollars to do Town Creek if we went forward. I don't think we should go forward any more. ', I've spent the $112,000, and I was obligated to spend 110 for Hermann Sons, so I fulfilled that obligation. But there's another 170 there, so those type of crossings are going to be 200,000 more. I think we could do that certainly less than -- than River Road, because you don't have nowhere to tie in, any elevations. So, the one at Fall Creek's going to be a little bit higher, but I think some of that's going to be in that 200. So, I'm going to guess 500,000 or 600,000. But, again, this next year, this October, I will be paying off our debt. We've already paid one note on the zipper, so I have one last payment on the distributor, on the chip spreader, and the zipper. So, in October, we're out of debt, so that gives me some room to pay -- take a note and start to pay it over the next four or five, six years, amortize it out over a certain period of time, and then we pay it off as we see what we've got. So, I don't think we have a problem as far as adding a quarter of a million dollars or $300,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, these don't come due ~', in this next budget year, do they? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, they probably won't be any of them done in this budget year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Be '08 and '09? MR. ODOM: It will be, yes, '08-'09, I would think. 8-1-07 bwk 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Yeah, you're looking '10 or '11, by the time something's probably completed, by the time they get through some. of it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, back to the right-of-way, rather than designate it as Lane Valley, if you went to your right-of-way line item and added 10,000 there, that would cover -- at least have something in there for some of that Lane Valley work. MR. ODOM: So, you want to say 29,5 or 30,000? COMMISSIONER LETZ: For right-of-way? MR. ODOM: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You have -- what do you have in MR. ODOM: 19,5. JUDGE TINLEY: Make it 30? COMMISSIONER LETZ: What line item are you on? MR. ODOM: Well, I'm sorry, did you -- didn't y'all receive one of my copies here, what I have? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah, we got that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I saw that one, 19,5. But I was wondering if, under your 557 -- MR. ODOM: 557? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Put it under right-of-way surveying. JUDGE TINLEY: Surveying and engineering. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. It would be better to put 8-1-07 bwk 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it under your -- you're right, put it into contract fees. MR. ODOM: Yeah. I'm just keeping that -- that's one we've always had, just holding it around 2,000. That's for odds and ends of going in there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, put the other one at 30,000? MR. ODOM: I would say 30,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which line, Jonathan? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's on this -- MR. ODOM: Contract fees. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Contract fees. MR. ODOM: Add 10,000. MS. HARGIS: I get 60,000 on that one. JUDGE TINLEY: And that's going to plug in -- II MS. HARGIS: 553, what do you have? MR. ODOM: Well, I have 60,000 total, so if you add ICI '~~~ 10,000 to it, would make it 70,000. MS. HARGIS: Where's your 19,5? I don't see that. JUDGE TINLEY: 553. MS. HARGIS: Included in the 60? Okay. MR. ODOM: Right, yeah. You -- I apologize to the new Auditor. She has to think like an Aggie, and I -- if I die now -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't wish that on her. MS. HARGIS: No, no, no. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Contract fees go to 70,000? 8-1-07 bwk 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ODOM: 70,000. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Now we've busted your budget for you, see? MR. ODOM: Well -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To 70? JUDGE TINLEY: Here you did all the work to come in below, and here we go to -- to putting you out of business. You can't make that claim to fame. MR. ODOM: Well, that's y'all's prerogative. There are some good projects that we're looking at. But I would like -- Commissioner Oehler, what do you think on this 14,000 for that -- for that crossing there? Do you want to -- you feel that we won't have to participate with the state at all I at that Goat Creek Cutoff? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They said that they -- there would be no -- they didn't indicate any money will be expended by the County or anyone else. They just came -- I mean, we got the letter saying, you know, we're going to do it. MR. ODOM: Yeah. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And they didn't indicate any expenses to the County whatsoever. MR. ODOM: Okay. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I mean, I don't know how else 8-1-07 bwk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 106 to take it. If so, they should have said something. MR. ODOM: I'm going to go on that assumption; that we'll look at the budget if this is approved, when y'all finalize it, we'll see where we're at. Then the next budget year, we'll look at Fall Creek, and that may fall in line pretty well for an engineering study on that to see where we're at. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: River Road really needs it worse, I think. MR. ODOM: That's in better shape than you are. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Got to be in better shape than me. That thing is so narrow -- MR. ODOM: You know, the old Model A, the old Model T roads coming into Corsicana there, going to -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Ten -- not more than 10 feet wide . JUDGE TINLEY: Where is that? MR. ODOM: Goes out to Highway 1340. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My River Road's in better shape than your River Road. MR. ODOM: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There are -- there's nothing safe about that bridge. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, do you have a spot in here for work that Wayne Wells does for the County? I know 8-1-07 bwk 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 anything he does for the -- under subdivisions gets billed straight to the developer, but -- MR. ODOM: Ask me again? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Any work that Wayne Wells may do for the County. I don't know if you've used him on anything. On subdivisions, we get reimbursed 100 percent for his time. Is there times that you need him? MR. ODOM: Yes, and he'll review this up here with the state. He met out there with me, -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. ODOM: -- with Troy. And I would -- told him I would -- once I've got a better idea and we get it staked out, I'll get back with him. But I do. I don't use him that much, but -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's included in the contract fees? MR. ODOM: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Engineering services. MR. ODOM: Or engineering services, or -- JUDGE TINLEY: 457. MR. ODOM: -- contingencies, if I -- if I use more than what I think. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. ODOM: This year, I'm not really going to have special projects -- special projects, what we just discussed. 8-1-07 bwk 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, just as a -- a note for our auditors, the -- under Administration, 600-102, probably should change that title to Administrator's Salary, as opposed to Engineer's Salary. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a carry-over from when we had Frank Johnston on for part-time. Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Are all the I.T. recommended upgrades plugged in? I've got a note here, "I.T. hookups or upgrades." You recommended 1,800. Is that plugged in -- in here? MR. ODOM: This is what we figure. I don't know. Truby -- are we talking about 600? Is that where we're at? This gentleman had some stuff in here that I don't feel that -- when I looked at my budget, I don't see that I need. But I don't know what he's -- where we're at. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we find out? MR. ODOM: Yeah, ask him. MR. TROLINGER: Well, you've got a computer that's completely out-of-date, so -- MR. ODOM: You're talking about mine? MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. MR. ODOM: Mine works. I wouldn't worry about mine, okay? JUDGE TINLEY: Don't call us, we'll call you. 8-1-07 bwk 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ODOM: That's right, sir. That's mine. It's not online, so I'm really not overly concerned about it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. ODOM: I get on it every now and then, look something up. That's it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What else is in that 1,800, Mr. Trolinger? MR. TROLINGER: And then there's the -- the new software that the County Clerk's installing; for instance, it automates and gives you the capability to look up plats, if you were on the county network. And you need to be on the county network to do that. So, I recommend upgrading the DSL to a higher bandwidth, the broadband, so that you can be a part of the county network, so you can use the services that we have here in the courthouse at your office. Now, I know -- I know a lot of things you have to come over here and get a stamped copy, but we've got a lot of new tools this year, these past two years, that y'all don't have access to. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The Court is not going to have plats any more. MR. ODOM: Everything we have on any plat is filed in our cabinet, so I have the original -- one of the originals that comes there. So, we have to keep that on file there, too, so when people come in. But I don't know -- gentlemen, you know, I'm not a computer wizard, but I'll say that it 8-1-07 bwk 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 works for me, and if it's not broken -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think the big picture is going to be that your office is going to have to get on with the county system when it comes to some of the payroll functions and personnel functions, purchasing. MR. TROLINGER: And that's -- that's the Auditor's office. We're changing the -- a lot of this is going -- we're going to go to stuff that they're saying that we need to go to, to make their lives work better, and so you're going to have to get the technology to be able to access -- talk to the county system. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'd like for you to be a part of the Kerr County system. MR. ODOM: I've always felt we were. We were just a little bit isolated. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't like strings and tin cans to talk to you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The budget is going to be done on the computer online in the next year, so you're not going to get any money unless you are able to talk to our computers. MR. ODOM: I have -- that's not a problem. Really, it's not a problem, as far as going. The only thing I'm worried about is that access -- or putting things in, I've already -- he's been out once before, and to be quite honest, my computer that's old was loaded with viruses because you had 8-1-07 bwk 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 an open server, and that open server killed my -- my computer. I couldn't even get it up. You were supposed to fix it. It wasn't fixed. I had to hire somebody to come get it, fix it. Cost me 100 bucks. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's trying to get you a new MR. TROLINGER: That was before my time. I have no idea -- MR. ODOM: No, sir, it wasn't before your time. But I -- you know, there's limited access that I need. That's it. And the data is important to us, that no one comes in there and hacks it. Right now, it's safe. My computer wasn't safe; had an open server in my building, and every time I turned around, I was downloading the virus. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- MR. TROLINGER: I have no idea what he's talking about. That's before I started working here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All you can -- JUDGE TINLEY: Let's do one at a time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Road and Bridge was far ahead of the rest of the county in computer and what y'all were doing, you know, budget, recordkeeping, everything else. The County's caught up in a lot of areas. H.R. and Auditor's department are going to require a lot of stuff to be done online to get payroll done and to get budget done and to get 8-1-07 bwk 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~, purchasing done. MR. ODOM: That makes sense. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's going to have to be done through one county system, so what it takes to get your department to do that has to be done. And I don't know; I just know the philosophy of where we're going, and it's up to Mr. Trolinger and your department to get together, figure out what we need to do with that. JUDGE TINLEY: In order to get there, it occurs to me we need to -- under 600, Line Item 570, you've obviously got something else in mind for the 400; to increase that by 1,800, for a total of 2,200. MR. ODOM: Which one am I on, 600? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 570. JUDGE TINLEY: 570. MR. ODOM: 570? So, you're saying -- JUDGE TINLEY: 2,200. MR. ODOM: 2,200. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MR. ODOM: All right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Except that I don't know, if he doesn't want a new computer, why he needs a new computer. MR. ODOM: That's the way I feel. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He just said the one he's got doesn't work very well. 8-1-07 bwk 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ODOM: I got it cleaned up now. COMMISSIONER LETZ: He got it fixed; just didn't use I.T. to fix it. I mean, I don't think -- we need to get the broadband stuff that John needs done. That has to be done whether Leonard gets a new computer or not. I don't have a computer. I don't use one here, so I don't need one. I don't want to spend tax dollars on one, so if he doesn't want a new computer, that's fine. MR. TROLINGER: The broadband is actually more appropriate on the telephone line item. I think right now it's all -- it's all rolled up in the telephone line items. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it included? MR. TROLINGER: That's where the increase will come, in is telephone for the DSL upgrade. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What will that upgrade cost? MR. TROLINGER: $660 per year, and it's a recurring cost. JUDGE TINLEY: That's 700 added to the 400? MR. TROLINGER: If that's existing telephone, yes. JUDGE TINLEY: 1,100. MR. ODOM: Instead of 22? That will be fine. JUDGE TINLEY: That excludes the computer, right? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What did you say about the 8-1-07 bwk 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TROLINGER: The telephone is actually where the DSL, the broadband service -- MS. HARGIS: So, add how much? COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we add -- we leave capital outlay at 400 and we increase Telephone to 6,100. JUDGE TINLEY: 'Cause it's going to be within telephone? MR. TROLINGER: The DSL, 600. MR. ALFORD: What about printers for the plats? MS. HARDIN: We had a printer for the plats. We get the original copy of every plat, so -- MR. TROLINGER: They don't want any, Brad, so we're going to have to just get them on the county network, is what we're talking about. MR. ALFORD: Okay. MR. TROLINGER: The -- the cost to upgrade the broadband, I don't have an exact number on it. It's a rough number, but $660 per year, and that's in the telephone line item. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. TROLINGER: That is a recurring cost. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Increase 420 to 6,100 and leave 570 en. Is that what you got? Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: While it's not in this 8-1-07 bwk 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 particular budget, I did talk to Leonard about giving me a number, 'cause he's involved in it, to finish the bridge over Flat Rock Lake Park. He still has some work on that he's -- MR. ODOM: I'll get back with you on that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the Parks budget. MR. ODOM: May I do this? I'm not a computer person, but Truby's sitting back here. Do you have anything to say about the computer, or will it work or not work? MS. HARDIN: I would like to know what -- MR. ODOM: Come on up here. MS. HARDIN: -- the speed is that he wants to do broadband that we don't have. MR. ODOM: We're not trying to be controversial; we're trying to make the thing work. If it's not broke, we don't like to fix it. I'm just -- that's my whole way. But -- and I know things are changing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- well, that's the whole point. MR. ODOM: If we make the changes, let's make it right the first time, because I turn it on and I turn it off, and it'll come up to my favorites that I may need to look at something. That's it. MS. HARDIN: Okay. I'd like to know what the broadband speed is that he's talking about. MR. TROLINGER: Well, the details of it, I do not 8-1-07 bwk 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know exactly what will be available in October. We've got two things going on. One is with the city, with the integrated MS. HARDIN: I just want to know what the maximum speed's going to be. MR. TROLINGER: And in that case, it will be very high; we're talking about 4 Mbs. MS. HARDIN: Whatever -- whatever we have now is the highest that KTC offers, and that's what our system is on. MR. TROLINGER: And then with KTC, there's an option, which the Sheriff has done, to add a -- a second modem, basically. MS. HARDIN: And do we have a contract for our telephone with the telephone company? Ours expired last year. Did anybody ever -- you were supposed to do that. Do we have that in place? MR. ODOM: He wasn't here last year. MS. HARDIN: Yes, he was there. MR. TROLINGER: Last year's contract for your telephone system, where you pay the maintenance costs each year for -- MS. HARDIN: No. MR. TROLINGER: -- parts and pieces? MS. HARDIN: Everything we have, computer and telephone, is through KTC on one contract, under Telephone. 8-1-07 bwk 117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TROLINGER: Right. And is it still being paid? The Auditor would have to answer that. MS. HARGIS: I don't know; I have to look. MS. HARDIN: We just-have a monthly fee. MS. HARGIS: I will say that the KTC line, when we put Incode on there, it won't be fast enough. You will be really upset, because it -- MS. HARDIN: Okay. MR. TROLINGER: So, basically, that's what I'm doing, is bumping that up to cover the -- MS. HARGIS: You'll sit there and wait for the computer to come up, and you're going to be frustrated. Because with the -- when I was with the City, just to give you an idea, Police Department -- John said he could actually fill out by hand six purchase orders, because he was on KTC instead of the broadband, and they're switching everybody to I broadband. MR. ODOM: Okay. MS. HARDIN: Okay. So that means, then, we're no longer going to be -- our broadband will no longer be under I KTC? MR. TROLINGER: Possibly. I don't have the details worked out, but I have the costs. MR. ODOM: I don't know how this phone system's ~ going to work, then. 8-1-07 bwk 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HARDIN: Well, I don't know. We no longer have a contract; we're just going month-to-month on it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we let you guys work that out while we go on with our budgets? MS. HARDIN: Okay. I have two small things that he didn't mention or didn't get to or whatever. On 15-600-461, which is the lease copier, the -- we plugged in 1,800. I went out and got informal bidding. It'll go down to 1,250. MR. ODOM: So we can reduce that $550. MR. TROLINGER: Truby -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which line? Which line, Truby? JUDGE TINLEY: 461. MR. ODOM: 600. MS. HARDIN: 600-461. MR. TROLINGER: Does that have the network capability so y'all can print to it from the computers? MS. HARDIN: No. MS. HYDE: We need that -- you need that. MS. HARGIS: You really do need that. MS. HARDIN: We have -- I have the price here. The difference in the price was -- we now have 15,000 copies before we have to pay anything, and that'll be at $104 a month. If we go to where we network it, we get 3,000 copies, 8-1-07 bwk 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and then we have to -- and the lease goes up $20 a month. So, if you use the printer -- I mean, what they're doing is, they're supplying -- they furnish you with all of the printing materials to do the copier, so you're either looking at the one for the printer or you're looking at the one for the copier. And in my estimation, it was cheaper to just use the printers that we have, which can be networked and are I networked. MS. HARGIS: What you want on this is not necessarily to be able to print into it, but you want to be able to scan into it, so that, for instance, if you have some documents that come in that you need to send to somebody by e-mail, you can scan them into your printer with this Internet capability that you don't have right now, 'cause I -- MS. HARDIN: I do have it on my printer. MS. HARGIS: On your printer? MS. HARDIN: 39 pages. MS. HARGIS: It's still faster to do it on your copy machine. It's much faster to do on it a copy machine. JUDGE TINLEY: So, are we back to 1,800 there? MS. HARDIN: No, it's more than that. It's a lot I more than that. MR. ODOM: Whatever y'all wish to do. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Leonard. 8-1-07 bwk 120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HARDIN: It's a hundred -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: High level of cooperation MS. HARDIN: It's $150 a month. JUDGE TINLEY: That's 1,800. MS. HARDIN: For 18 months -- no. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, 12 months. JUDGE TINLEY: 1,800. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. HARDIN: Is that 1,800? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: What else did you have there, Truby? MS. HARDIN: Okay. The other one is just in -- on 15-611-569, you have in your copy projected for year-end as 20,000. All we had is 2,000, and I didn`t know whether that meant anything to you or not. But -- JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not so sure but what that wasn't a -- MR. ODOM: Typo, maybe. JUDGE TINLEY: -- a typo. The original budget apparently was 2,000. MS. HARDIN: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Looking at the historical numbers running 1,500 to 2,300, and you've spent almost 2,000, and it's saying 20,000. I -- 8-1-07 bwk 121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HARDIN: Okay. MR. ODOM: And the number was less than -- than this year's budget, so I think that we're -- just a typo is what I thought it was. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. i MS. HARDIN: I'd like to make one comment; it was about the plat. All Jannett's doing is -- it's my understanding, is she's taking that plat and she's scanning it in so that she has an electronic record of it. We get the original copy, and so we have a paper copy as a backup-type thing. She gave us her old printer so we can print copies of those original ones and hand them out if we need to do that. I had a gentleman from the city the other day who said he couldn't find original copies of plats, and we have those in our office. So, I think sometimes the old way and the backup needs to be there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know, on the plats, if you're going to keep a copy of the -- hard copy, I don't know why you really need the access to be able to print them. I'm -- MR. TROLINGER: Well, from an I.T. standpoint, what happens if the building burns down? You have no backup. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but the backup -- Jannett has a backup. MS. HARDIN: She has a backup in her office. I have 8-1-07 bwk 122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's about to change. That's about to change. MR. TROLINGER: That's -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Copies in Jannett's office are now going to be kept -- I think it's on the next agenda. I put it on yesterday, and we still have to vote on it, but everybody seems to be in agreement -- Jannett and Voelkel and myself, so far -- that those copies that are being delivered to her, she's going to scan them, but all the copies are going to be held with the County Surveyor from now on, and all the previous years, from the beginning, and all future years are going to be kept in one place after they're scanned by her department. She will no longer have any hard copies. MR. ODOM: So, when they bring it in, they'll bring the 11 copies to us. We'll still keep a copy and bring that to the Court; am I right? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, you'll bring it to the Court, but once that's done, it's -- there'll be a copy -- they'll be an original put in -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're just saying they're going to keep their hard copy -- MR. ODOM: Hard copy. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- in their files. If it gets 8-1-07 bwk 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ODOM: Or Lee. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- or Lee, who also have backups. MR. ODOM: That's what we're saying. I -- you know, the old system works the way we've got it, particularly if someone comes in. We go to the file and look it up. If they got volume and page, we've got it. Anyway, but we'll look it up and pull it off the screen. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, from their standpoint, this system makes a lot more sense. Anyway, just -- I have a real hard time seeing how it's going to be very user-friendly with the digital version, working with it day to day. I mean, I think if someone wants to look at one, that's going to be fine, but to have to work with it every day, to put out one here, one there, it's going to be a lot easier to have a hard copy, which they have now. Anyway -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Which we have. MS. HARDIN: Thank you. MR. ODOM: Old dog dies hard. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, I understand. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Was that pleasant? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Always. 8-1-07 bwk 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I get? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll tell you in just a I second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: As soon as I find it. Pretty ~ good. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not many changes. JUDGE TINLEY: I had gone over these with Ms. Pieper, and under Personnel, you've got one merit that you're asking for; is that correct? MS. PIEPER: Actually, I'd like to call that a raise. I don't think "merit" is the appropriate terminology. This is a job increase in responsibility and duties on this person. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, it's a job description change. MS. PIEPER: Not completely changed; it's just we've added more -- I've added more duties onto this person, yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- so -- JUDGE TINLEY: Job responsibility increase. MS. PIEPER: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: And that -- what is -- is that a -- what, a one-step? MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir. 8-1-07 bwk 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. PIEPER: That person is now a 13-3, and I would request it to be a 13-4. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Has there been any change as far as you doing -- continuing to do civil and what has been your responsibility, the civil court? MS. PIEPER: No, there's no change at all. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: To change -- Linda's not going to that take responsibility? MS. PIEPER: She and I have talked about it, but it's not gotten that far yet. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's a division. Any -- there's certain civil in County Court at Law that you maintain, and there's other family law cases, I guess, that -- MS. PIEPER: That she maintains, that's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not being picky over numbers; just curious about the Miscellaneous line. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The slush fund? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Going down. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We budgeted -- JUDGE TINLEY: Are you sure that what you had to do is -- is complete? You may need to go back and check on that. 8-1-07 bwk 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We budgeted 400, and projected year-end is zero. What does that mean exactly? Did you spend exactly $400, or what does that mean? MS. PIEPER: No, sir. According to this budget, I've spent 127 of it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you will spend some more. MS. PIEPER: I'll see what our last printout showed that we've spent. No, it shows I have $272 left in that line item. But that's just for miscellaneous things that come up. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. MS. PIEPER: I had 400 in there, and the Judge thought that we could drop it down to 200, which is fine with 15 me. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cool. Thank you. MS. PIEPER: Also, on the Line Item 569, we can take that down to zero. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. We're doing good so far. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Sure you don't want to go back on up there, start at the top? MS. PIEPER: No, sir. Y'all are going to give me that, aren't you? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We haven't done anything 8-1-07 bwk 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're not bad people. JUDGE TINLEY: The capital outlay that we've got there, 5,760, that's I.T.-recommended, I think, isn't it? MS. PIEPER: That is correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems that all of our -- we must have, in the past several years, accomplished almost county-wide a lot of our capital outlay requirements of upgrading cabinets and things of that nature, 'cause that's just -- you don't have -- I mean, pretty much all we have in this budget for the most part are I.T. requests. I know other years we've always had different file cabinets, changes in other stuff, so I guess we've finally got to where we have pretty good equipment in all that area. JUDGE TINLEY: Another item is, some of our furnishings requests, Maintenance has been constructing some of those, fabricating those directly to our needs, and I think we ought to continue looking at that, 'cause they do an excellent job. And -- MR. TROLINGER: And, Jannett, aren't you trying to sell or -- or auction cabinets? And you're purchasing software and computer systems for -- MS. PIEPER: Well, my plat cabinets is going to be on the next agenda, for those to go to our County Surveyor. 8-1-07 bwk 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But, yes, and then we did -- there was two cabinets we did on eBay, and I guess there was no bids or whatever. They're still downstairs, so -- MR. TROLINGER: But all the things that were in those cabinets are now -- MS. PIEPER: Are now gone. MR. TROLINGER: -- on the computer. MS. PIEPER: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, so some of the money we spent in the past is finally -- MS. PIEPER: It's paying off. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- paying off, which is good. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's see. The only other budget that you've got any -- you got two more that you've got expenditures -- actually, three. Records archival. You've got one part-time salary out of that. And old records preservation, that's a dedicated budget, is it not? That can only be used for that purpose? MS. PIEPER: On the Records Management Preservation, the 28 fund? JUDGE TINLEY: 634. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Archival one. MS. PIEPER: Those get confusing. Yes, that is a self-funding account, and that is for the part-time employees. And then on the Records Preservation, that is to have a 8-1-07 bwk 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 company come into the office and -- and start scanning old records, start getting those out of the way. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What happens to those old ones once they're scanned? MS. PIEPER: Depending on if we can shred them, we'll shred them, depending on the archival. If -- if it's stuff from the 1800's, by law, I have to keep it. But, yet, with them being scanned in, if somebody wants to search history or something, it's much easier. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MS. PIEPER: We don't have a whole lot of those. Most of it is land records. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'S0's, '60's, '70's, all that stuff? MS. PIEPER: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. PIEPER: And then I have a lot of court records that we're trying to do ourself. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's see. Then we go to Elections. Big item there is the H.A.V.A. comes out. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. MS. PIEPER: But H.A.V.A.'s not over with yet, but for right now, it's -- that portion of it's okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Your big Records Management budget, 404. 8-1-07 bwk 130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going back to election. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that -- isn't that an election year coming up, '07-'08? MS. PIEPER: Yes. I have an amendment election in COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then we have primaries, and then we have general. MS. PIEPER: Then we have primaries, right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It looks like -- I would have thought it would be more of an increase this year. Looks like, basically -- MS. PIEPER: Well, for this November election, we're consolidating it to four locations, so that's going to be a good cost savings. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But the -- the primary and the general will probably -- MS. PIEPER: On the primary, we only pay for mail ballots and early voting. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, all that's reimbursed from the parties, then? MS. PIEPER: No, that is county. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, but the -- MS. PIEPER: The actual election day, when you have 25 ~ 150-plus workers, the primaries pay that. 8-1-07 bwk 132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess we'll wait and see what happens. MS. PIEPER: The idea is to let them use the common area below for the central count. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Records Management, the big records management budget. I say big; it's -- you got a lot in the other one. But you're proposing to add one deputy there -- to allocate there? MS. PIEPER: That is correct. She's working part-time now, and I would like to make her a full-time. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, is that a half a person, then, as far as the budget is concerned? She's already half; you just add another half? JUDGE TINLEY: Did you have one and a half there previously? MS. PIEPER: No, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What did you have? JUDGE TINLEY: One person at 50,000? MS. PIEPER: No, sir. Out of that budget, I have two people. This will make a third. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So we got three, okay. Now, is that one of your existing positions that you're moving over under that budget? 8-1-07 bwk 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. PIEPER: That person is now being paid out of the other Records Management under part-time. JUDGE TINLEY: Records Archival? MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: So, you're converting that part-time person to a full-time person? MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: But that's an existing person, albeit a part-time person now? MS. PIEPER: That is correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But does the Records Archival -- you're going to hire another part-time person? MS. PIEPER: I would like to, yes. I would -- this person that I am hiring -- that I would like to hire for this, I would like her to be mainly assigned to my County Court at Law section, taking care of all the records there. But the staff that I have there, they keep up with court to a point, but our files are building up. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you going to replace a part-time under Records Archival? MS. PIEPER: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You are. So, what we're doing, then, is adding from a self-funded -- we're adding to the County's funding, right? For this other position? 8-1-07 bwk 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. PIEPER: One of those funds also helps to fund this account. I don't know how the Auditor works that. I believe it's the Fund 28 fund. As of April, I know, Mindy I ~ said that there was $96,000 in there. JUDGE TINLEY: Net increase in your office is one full-time person; is that what we're hearing? MS. PIEPER: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: But you're not increasing the funding out of your County-funded budget, but rather out of the restricted budgets for records archival, records maintenance? MS. PIEPER: That is correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Self-funded. MS. PIEPER: That is correct, other than the longevity plus the one raise. JUDGE TINLEY: Other than -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So, this -- the new position comes out of a dedicated fund. JUDGE TINLEY: Would not the longevity -- MS. PIEPER: No, that person's not entitled to longevity. JUDGE TINLEY: You're talking about under your general County Clerk budget? MS. PIEPER: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. MS. PIEPER: And just for your benefit, on the 8-1-07 bwk 135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 general fund, at one point my office had three -- what was classified as three senior clerks, and an administrative bookkeeper, and those titles have been eliminated. The pay I from the three senior clerks went -- when they moved on, I did not fund those positions. Instead, I hired at a lower rate, just a deputy position. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. PIEPER: There was too many chiefs, basically. So, we've done away with that, which helped the funding as well. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, good. MS. HARGIS: So, you're not paying under -- under 28, just so I'm clear? MS. PIEPER: No, nothing in 28. I'm all zeros. MS. HARGIS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's pretty much it for you, isn't it? Okay. Thank you, ma'am. MS. PIEPER: Okay. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: What time's our workshop? JUDGE TINLEY: 2:00. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We may be here till then after we have lunch. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we just going to work 8-1-07 bwk 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 hope. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not what my hopes are. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Your wife's out there. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, I know. JUDGE TINLEY: That's why it's not his hope. COMMISSIONER LETZ: In which case -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: She drove all the way in. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm hopeful that we might knock out these next two rather quickly. Let's see if we can't do that. Juvenile Detention. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What number? JUDGE TINLEY: 23. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You gave us a new set of numbers, didn't you? JUDGE TINLEY: There's only one number that's changed. Now, the roll-ups are going to change, but there was -- that's the only number that changed from after we went over your budget, isn't it, Mr. Stanton? Just the one number on the additional juvenile detention officer? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. STANTON: Well, there are actually -- there would be another number, because if we're able to hire this other J.D.O., we'd be able to reduce the part-time budget by 8-1-07 bwk 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15,000, so that would -- I mean, we would be able to reduce it from 30,000 down to 15,000 by being able to hire this new J.D.O. JUDGE TINLEY: The net change is -- MR. STANTON: Net change would be $21,369, is what it would cost the County. JUDGE TINLEY: That's the increase overall? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: That includes the roll-ups too, doesn't it? MR. STANTON: No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: It doesn't, okay. MR. STANTON: The net increase overall for the County in this year's budget would be 69,116. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much? MR. STANTON: 69,116. That's with the -- I mean, that's with hiring the new person and that's with everybody in my department except for three of us, I believe, are getting cost-of-living -- or longevity increases this year. So, we've got a lot doing that. And we also, with the help of -- with Human Resources Department, because when we -- when we changed over and took over last year, the people that we hired were -- that we retained were all the shift supervisors, basically, from both sides of the building. And what we had to do is, when we hired in -- when we came in, we didn't change 8-1-07 bwk 138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 anybody's salaries; we left everybody's salaries the same and just went to work. And what we've tried to do this year is to plug everybody into the step and grade to where they need to be. And we put the shift supervisors at 18, the J.D.O.'s at 16, and the control room operator at 14, and plugged them into -- the closest that we could, to where they were at before. JUDGE TINLEY: So, what we were previously presented with, there's two numbers that are going to change. The -- the detention officer will be increased, and the part-time will be decreased. Is that what I'm hearing? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. STANTON: And, actually, I gave you -- I gave you the wrong number. The correct number on the overall change would be 54,116, not 69. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 54? MR. STANTON: 54,116. JUDGE TINLEY: Give me the detention officer -- the correct detention officer number. MR. STANTON: That should be on the -- it's -- the total salary should be 315,982. JUDGE TINLEY: And then part-time goes to what? MR. STANTON: To 15,000. From 30 to 15. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Okay. With an 8-1-07 bwk 139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 overall net change of 54,116. JUDGE TINLEY: So, the 30 that you requested on part-time that's in the most recent thing which you gave me needs to be reduced by 15? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me about the new employee. Is there something wonderful and magical about this person, or what -- what's the deal? MR. STANTON: Well, the wonderful and magical thing about it -- about any employee out there is the fact that they're certified, and that the problem that we're having is that our part-time positions aren't like everybody else's part-time position. We call part-time people in on a random basis to fill in for people during holiday, vacation, sick time, those types of situations, where it's not a -- a regular part-time position where they have set hours. And so it's really hard for us to keep our good part-time people, because, you know, we might use them two days one week, not any for the next two weeks, and then four days the next week, and they work 12-hour shifts. And so it's real hard to keep the good people that -- that -- you know, the good part-time people that we need. And by being able to hire one, what we're trying to do is hire one of the part-time people that we have now, to hire one of them to -- actually, what their job 8-1-07 bwk 140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 description -- what they would be is a J.D.O., but what they would be doing is filling in for the 1,200 hours a year that we have scheduled for vacation time for all the employees out there, plus being able to fill in for holiday time, comp time, and other things like that. And what we're going to do is schedule everybody's vacation out for the whole year, and basically then we'll work the new person's schedule into that where they'll cover everybody, so we'll be able to reduce the amount of part-timers and the amount of part-time people we have to use. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But this person will be a full-time, 40-hour -- MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- employee? MR. STANTON: There will only be -- with the 1,200 hours we schedule for the vacation time, a normal part -- or a normal full-time person, I think, works 2,080 hours a year, so we're only looking at about 880 hours left over for the whole year that they won't be filling in for people taking vacation time. JUDGE TINLEY: And this is an individual that has demonstrated dependability and is already certified? Has the appropriate training and certification? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. 25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sounds like a good plan. 8-1-07 bwk 141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Makes sense. JUDGE TINLEY: Next question. There's -- there's a recommendation that we -- that we do some modification there by that outside building. MR. STANTON: I have it on my list. JUDGE TINLEY: Were you coming to that? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. There's actually four things -- or three things I wanted to talk to the Court about. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. STANTON: One is the gate. Juvenile Probation Department and -- and the detention facility, I know that we're looking at leasing that building, and that still is -- is a little bit down the road; we haven't got the final results. But the Probation Department has been utilizing the rear classroom of the old detention facility to hold a lot of their classes. They hold -- their drug and alcohol counseling I think is out there now, their Probation Assisting Education, and their 4-H program. And what we would like to do is to be able to put a gate on the outside of the building, or to fit a gate on the outside of the building where they could access that classroom without having to go through the main building every time. And the estimates we've got, it's going to cost about $700 to do that, and so that was another thing that we were looking at to present to the Court to see. I believe 8-1-07 bwk 142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that I could probably go ahead and do it now out of my current budget if we wanted to do that, but that would be something that would be really helpful for the Probation Department. I So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: That makes sense. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It does make sense. I'm curious about what kind of gate you're putting in there. I mean, it's going to have to be something -- if we lease the other facility out -- MR. STANTON: Well, the way it's structured is that when you go out the back -- the very back of the old facility, there's already -- and then there's a portable building over I here . COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. MR. STANTON: There's already a gate before you walk up; there's already a gate here. What we would do is secure this gate, and then at the end of the little walkway, there's another fence over here; we'd put the gate over here where you could open it, so that building would still be secure. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. MR. STANTON: Away from the portable building. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the contingent plan in the event we lease the building and we -- the outfit leasing it wants to use those classrooms? 8-1-07 bwk 143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. STANTON: The two groups that we've talked to, you and I -- or I've talked to them; I don't know if you specifically talked to them about this, but I've talked to them, and they said that most of the time when they would -- the Probation Department would be utilizing that building is at night, and they would not be utilizing that classroom at nighttime. And so the Probation Department could still utilize it, especially if we had the gate on the outside where they didn't have to walk the kids through the middle of their secure area. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thanks. JUDGE TINLEY: Conjunctive use, I've talked to the -- to the contract proposers, and it's both evenings and weekends, and they indicated their use would be during the day. And they didn't see a problem with conjunctive use. So -- MR. STANTON: The other thing that I'd like the Commissioners -- I'd like you guys to think about is that the camera system that we currently have at the facility, we go through approximately about 800 VCR tapes a year, at a cost of about $4,000 a year, and the quality of the -- the quality of the tapes -- or the quality of the video, the recordings, is not very good. It's -- and we are asking -- or looking at possibly changing out our camera system and our security system to a digital-type recording system, and it looks like 8-1-07 bwk 144 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it's going to be in the neighborhood of $30,000 to $35,000 to change that system out to a digital recording system. And, last but not least, is being this is our first full year in the new building, we were running into a little problem as far as locks on four of the doors out there. We've had Maintenance out there. We've had locksmiths from here in Kerrville out there. We've had locksmiths from San Antonio out there. Nobody seems to be able to fix it. And Brinks wants approximately $850 per lock to replace the locks, plus installation, and that's for them to come out there and fix these doors. COMMISSIONER LETZ: These are electronics locks? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: And how many we talking about? MR. STANTON: Right now, there's four of them, at approximately $4,000. JUDGE TINLEY: What's the installation cost, about $150 per? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: So, about $1,000 turnkey per lock? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. I'm sure the Probation Department would love it if we could do that so they don't get stuck between the doors and have to sit there for 15 minutes waiting for a key. JUDGE TINLEY: And your new digital cameras was how 8-1-07 bwk 145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 much? MR. STANTON: 30,000 to 35,000. That's going on the Sheriff's figures; he's the one that gave me those numbers. I had got some estimates of 25 to 30. He said 30 to 35, somewhere in there. JUDGE TINLEY: Sounds normal. MR. STANTON: So -- JUDGE TINLEY: You say that you feel like you've got enough in this year's budget -- you got enough room to go ahead and do the gate out of this year's budget? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Would that include the -- whatever's necessary on the electrical for the security lighting? I think the lights are already there, aren't they, on the west side of that building? MR. STANTON: There are lights already over there. I have not stood out there at night to see if they come on yet or not. JUDGE TINLEY: And maybe an electronic -- of course, that would be good for security anyway, wouldn't it? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably so. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have enough wiggle room in this year's budget to do the locks? MR. STANTON: I'd have to look and see. I'm not 8-1-07 bwk 146 1 sure. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 half. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe do two. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe do -- yeah, maybe do MR. STANTON: Right. I can look and see. I'm not ~ positive on that. JUDGE TINLEY: Your annual supplies for the VHS tapes are, like, $4,000 a year? MR. STANTON: Four bucks a piece. We have to have some kind of specialized tapes. They're -- the tapes are $4 a piece, and we actually -- I mean, we go through about 700 to 750 tapes a year. My math might be wrong. JUDGE TINLEY: 400 -- about three grand, yeah. MR. STANTON: Is that right? Three grand. And then the problem is, where do you store the 700 tapes a year? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. If you're going on C.D., it's -- MR. STANTON: We've got -- we've got -- actually, we've got two rooms -- two cell blocks or two rooms full of VCR tapes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got to be a better way. MR. STANTON: It seems like there would be, yes, sir. And just the overall quality of being able to -- like, when we had our escape attempt a good while back, the hardest part of the whole thing was being able to utilize the tapes 8-1-07 bwk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 147 that we had. I mean, we had six different views of what happened. It was just being able to actually determine what exactly happened from watching the video tapes, because they were so -- the quality was so poor. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's probably something we COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: See if you can come up with the liability -- there's a huge liability out there. We need the cameras so you can see what's going on. JUDGE TINLEY: See if you can get a better estimate than what you got from the Sheriff. MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then the gate, that's -- go ahead and just do that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do it now. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then the locks, if we can get that done this year -- MR. STANTON: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- as well. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Even better. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It amazes me that our facility was built with bad locks and bad cameras, and I can't 8-1-07 bwk 148 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 remember what all we fixed since we've owned the thing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A lot. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Septic system. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sewer system. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. MR. STANTON: One of the -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Electric. MR. STANTON: Well, and I think this is something that Maintenance can fix, but something that probably needs to be brought up is we still get flooded every time it rains. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's okay. MR. STANTON: The kitchen -- in the kitchen and the ~ main quarter. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's tough. MR. STANTON: We get an inch -- an inch of water in there every time we get a good rain, just because -- and I'm not sure what it is. It's something with the sallyport and the drainage and everything. It just -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make sure you don't plug in appliances when you're standing in the water. MR. STANTON: We put our Coke machine and our candy machine right there, so it's -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you put, like, a French drain somewhere? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Probably. 8-1-07 bwk 149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right through the kitchen? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't Leonard go out and take a look at that with a view toward -- MR. STANTON: Not since I've been here, no, sir. Tim's been out there a few times, and he's come up with some ideas of how to fix it, but we just -- he hasn't -- it's getting the equipment out there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we have Mr. Odom take a look at it? MR. STANTON: Okay. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I am not the liaison to Road and Bridge. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I am the liaison to Juvenile Detention, so I'll talk to Leonard. MR. STANTON: We appreciate it. JUDGE TINLEY: The capital outlay, then, you're going to give us an update on that number, correct? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, on the -- JUDGE TINLEY: The current one is I.T.-driven, according to the notes that I've got. MR. STANTON: Well, it's -- the I.T. that Mr. Trolinger's talking about and the I.T. that I'm talking about are different. JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. The current number of 12,9, that's all I.T.-driven, according to what I have. 8-1-07 bwk 150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. STANTON: Oh, okay. I don't have that in my budget, the 12,9. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, your capital outlay is going to a minimum of 42,9. We added 30,000 for the cameras. MR. STANTON: And I guess I don't have any capital outlay -- I've got it in operating equipment. I put $2,000 in i there because we need to purchase a new computer. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's in there. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. But the capital outlay, that's 12,9, and I'm showing that as being I.T.-recommended. MR. STANTON: Yeah, that's totally I.T. JUDGE TINLEY: So, anything with the locks or the new digital camera system's going to have to be addressed on top of the 12,9, whatever you can't -- for example, if you can absorb a couple of those locks in this year's -- MR. STANTON: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: The balance, plus the camera, will have to go into this current budget, so if you'll try and get us a good estimate on that, and we'll try and get that plugged in. MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I think I missed an item. I have four locks and the camera. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And a door. 8-1-07 bwk 151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gate. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gate. JUDGE TINLEY: That's going to be -- that's going to be handled out of this year's budget, though. He said he's got the funds to go ahead and do that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. JUDGE TINLEY: From what he's got. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much? What was the figure, about? MR. STANTON: About 700. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 700. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: About 1,000 a piece for the locks, if he can -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. STANTON: I guess the burning question on the lock situation, is that something that I need to take care of, or is that something that Maintenance -- 'cause that was kind of a discussion that -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good question. ~~ MR. STANTON: -- that Tim and I had, was who needs to be the person that does that, and whose budget does it come out of? And, I mean, I -- I know that it can come out of mine; that's fine. I just -- that was the question -- conversation that we had, that he didn't know the answer and I 8-1-07 bwk 152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would say Maintenance. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think it ought to go under I Maintenance. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. Well -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Increase his budget. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, by 4,000. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Lock maintenance, juvenile -- JUDGE TINLEY: We don't have a separate detention facility maintenance, and when we're looking at operating costs for that facility, because we're going to be talking about leasing that, I think we need to keep these costs segregated, just like at the jail. And I'd just as soon not create an entire new budget for detention facility maintenance. I'd like to keep that as part of the facility, so that when we look leasing costs and what our costs are, leave that over there, as opposed to shifting it over to a general maintenance budget. Does that make sense? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, yeah, it does. We're trying to fashion what the cost would be to lease it, yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Needs to stay in there. JUDGE TINLEY: So, I think we need to leave it with 8-1-07 bwk 153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. STANTON: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And right now, he's going to take the gate out of his current budget, so there may be a couple of locks. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it comes out of your budget, but I think it should be run through Maintenance. That makes sense to me. I mean, run through Maintenance from the standpoint of Tim coordinate the lock people. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Coordinate the activity. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Activity. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, that's okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Not a problem. We need to keep the costs there so that we know what our costs on that facility are. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He needs to know what's going on in case he has to repair them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I'm saying. We need to let him do the work, even if it's out of your budget. MR. STANTON: The unfortunate situation is, nobody can do the work on these locks except for Brinks, and they seem to know that. JUDGE TINLEY: They're proud of their people, aren't they? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. 8-1-07 bwk 154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who's next? JUDGE TINLEY: Y'all want to go ahead and try and knock out the probation? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's go to lunch. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Why don't we -- why don't we ', go ahead and come back -- come back about quarter till 2:00, I II guess. We'll be in recess until quarter till 2:00. (Recess taken from 12:20 p.m. to 1:53 p.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.- Let's come back to order, if we might, and we'll go to the next item on the list. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, you -- you just might mention that our workshop's going to be delayed a little while. There are some people here for that workshop. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I appreciate that. We had scheduled a workshop dealing with the Youth Exhibit Center policies and rentals and things of that nature; it was scheduled for 2 o'clock. We're still working on the budget workshop that convened at 9 o'clock this morning. I think the intent is that we'll go ahead and finish our budget, and then when we conclude our budget, we'll pick up with the workshop, so that'll be delayed for a short period of time. Insofar as being able to tell you exactly, I can't do that. Just stand by and periodically check in. The next item we got is the 8-1-07 bwk 155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Juvenile Probation Department. That's -- 19? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 19. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The figures there are the ones that have been approved by the Juvenile Board. The roll-ups are not calculated. I expect we're going to let the Auditor do that. The one that, of course, jumps off the page is on j the second page, 482, Alternative Housing. That number has grown significantly. The -- the number projected for this year is not correct. What did you calculate that one to be, 190-something? MR. DAVIS: The actual projected? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. MR. DAVIS: $249,857.41. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's back up. Projected this year, year-end. MR. DAVIS: What I did was I looked at October 1st, ~, '05, to May 3rd, '06 when I put these numbers together. The number of bed days, that's 1,488 bed days that we had -- "we" being Juvenile Probation -- had in the J.D.C. Not talking about any other numbers with any other placements, any other facilities. This is strictly Kerr County to Kerr County members I'm talking about during that time period of 10-1-05 to 5-3-06, 1,488 bed days. I looked at -- when I put these numbers together, I put them together on May 3rd. Where we were at that point in time of the year, October 1st, '06 to 8-1-07 bwk 156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 3rd of '07, we went to 1,402 bed days, so 14.38 percent increase in the number of bed days. That initially was about when I put together the number of 230,000. I went back in and realized that I'd made a mistake in my numbers and I had not calculated that the 1,488 bed days was at the $83-a-day rate that the department was then paying. The rate as of September 1st, '06, was at $90 a day, so that's going to be another 8.43 percent increase. MS. HARGIS: And in numbers, now, 249 what? MR. DAVIS: The actual request is 250. $249,857.41, based on -- when I was looking at the actual money that was spent in '05-'06, and which that ended up being $202,133. JUDGE TINLEY: That's a projected year-end number? MR. DAVIS: That was the actual for '05-'06. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. DAVIS: Yes, sir. Based on that, and then I was doing my projections and my increase, where we were in '05-'06 and where I -- going on the 14 percent increase in bed days, and then factoring in the 8.43 percent increase in costs per bed day, that's where I get the great big humungous number that you see before you now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At the $90 a day. MR. DAVIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that number going to hold for '07-'08? 8-1-07 bwk 157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 number of this -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I mean as a per diem rate that's charged us, is that 90 going to hold? MR. DAVIS: It should, yes, sir, unless Kevin comes I back and -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That's our number? MR. DAVIS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, sorry. MR. DAVIS: This number is strictly talking about -- this is strictly on Kerr County numbers. This is not even including a single placement in a single facility outside of Kerr County. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I misunderstood. Thank you. MR. DAVIS: Yes, sir. I apologize. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, my fault. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're -- you know, with those assumptions, which -- shouldn't we allow for placement elsewhere? JUDGE TINLEY: Well, now, he's got some other funds that he -- state funds that he can use for that, and that's what he tries to use them for. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: This is money that's going across the 8-1-07 bwk 158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right pocket to the left. JUDGE TINLEY: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we just -- so there's -- then you keep it in another budget. MR. DAVIS: Correct, yes, sir. For clarification, we have budgeted -- this current fiscal year, we have roughly $117,000 of state money that we can use for secure placements and facilities wherever we choose. We can choose them in our facility; we can use them at Rockdale or wherever we would like. That number's going to increase by at least 16,000 for '07-'08, and potentially more, but we've been told 16,000 is a pretty firm number. We don't have a definite -- the check is not in the bank, but we've been told it is in the mail. I'll believe it when I see it, but I think the 16 is pretty firm. We may get more. But that is actually state money. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jason, you have to forgive me; I go in and out of a coma sometimes. And I want to use the Judge's formula on previous budgets that we've looked at. And what we do is look at the projected year-end, and that says 145,000, and now you're asking for 250,000. Would you step through that with -- for me just one more time? How we -- how we're making that giant leap? MR. DAVIS: Yes, sir. There's two -- before I go 8-1-07 bwk 159 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 into -- yes, sir, I will. The first thing -- thanks, Kevin -- I want to look at is, we're seasonal in our budgets, oftentimes. For instance, right now we're down as far as our number of bed days and where we are in detention. Now, our placement rate in other facilities is pretty consistent; it's a pretty constant number. That doesn't fluctuate as much, but the number of kids we have in -- now I'm switching over to strictly Kerr County Juvenile Facility. The number of kids we have there will vary greatly, anywhere from, you know, 3 or 4 kids at a time to 12, 15 kids at a time. With that being said, you know, for instance, May of 2006 -- and Kevin just gave me these numbers, but, you know, he's looking at his facility billed out $40,000. In June of 2006, they billed out less than 20,000. That's -- summer hit; school's out, less kids get picked up at school, less arrests at school, those types of issues. There's going to be a fluctuation, so when you're looking at the projected year-end, that's got to be factored in, that we're going to have these waves. And that is why, when I was looking at this, I was looking at the actual money that was spent, because I think that that fluctuation will really account for that. Now, with that being said, and with that stipulation in place, I come back to the formula we put together, and what I did was I looked at the actual money spent for '05 and '06. Not any projections, but what we actually spent at the end of 8-1-07 bwk 160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the year. When I took that number -- and I don't know where I put that -- what I did was I looked at '05-'06 and I said, okay, the actual money is 202,133. And I said I want to compare where we are at this point in time of the year -- the target -- the date there was May 3rd. I want to compare where we are in '06-'07 as to where we were in '05-'06. And when I do that, when I look at those numbers, based on the numbers that I have -- of kids, bed days in the J.D.C., we've got a 14 -- is that right? JUDGE TINLEY: 14. MR. DAVIS: 14 percent rate. 14.38. That's for the first increase. That's the first jump. Okay, the second jump is on the actual costs that we're paying per bed day. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MR. DAVIS: In '05-'06, we were paying $83 a bed day, and in '06-'07, we're paying $90 a bed day. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MR. DAVIS: That's going to be an increase of 8.43 percent. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MR. DAVIS: Hence the massive jump. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $7. MR. DAVIS: Is that clear as mud now, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, it's clear as mud. Seven dollars a kid increase from one year to the next, and 8-1-07 bwk 161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 what -- how many kids are we talking about increase? MR. DAVIS: Talking about -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't know, because we fluctuate. MR. DAVIS: During the point that I -- exactly, we don't know. But, you know, if I'm looking at bed days, you know, we're not talking about actual children. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand the difference. MR. DAVIS: But as far as bed days go - - 14, 15, 16 -- 214 -- 214 additional bed days from '05-'06 to '06-'07. JUDGE TINLEY: For the same time period . MR. DAVIS: In the same time period. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, do we have a cap on how many young people we house there per day? MR. DAVIS: As many beds as he has; 25, I believe. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 25 is the cap? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- JUDGE TINLEY: Is that what you're set up for, Kevin? You can take as many as 20 -- what, 24? MR. STANTON: We can hold 25 kids. JUDGE TINLEY: 25? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you're staffed to the 25? 25 ~ MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. 8-1-07 bwk 162 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're staffed to 32 or something like that, I think. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. MR. STANTON: Actually 32, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then how does this affect -- if we have an increase in Kerr County beds, what do you do about that with these other counties? How do you handle that? MR. STANTON: Well, I mean, if we ever get -- if we ever get to 25 kids and we're packed, and Kerr County brings in another kid, we call one of the outstanding counties and say, "You need to come pick your kid up; we've got a Kerr County kid." COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Have you ever had to do that? MR. STANTON: No, sir, not to this point we haven't. We've gotten up to 25 kids, I think, four or five times this past year, and luckily, we've had court the next day or something like that, and the kids have been released or something like that, so we've never had to actually remove a kid. MR. DAVIS: If I can intervene, Commissioner, you know, if we get to that situation, Kevin knows he can call me if he wants to have a detention hearing on a kid or maybe do a conditional release so that he can get money coming in from another county, you know, unless we just specifically have to 8-1-07 bwk 163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have a kid in there. There's usually one or two that we could, you know, feasibly safely release. So, if -- you know, if we're looking at having some other county money come in, it's very feasible that -- and likely that we could just release one of our kids from custody. MR. STANTON: This might help everybody to understand a little bit better. If you take and just look at that one -- this is the paperwork that I handed Jason -- Mr. Davis a few seconds ago. If you look down at -- what it is is a breakdown of all the counties that we contract with, and it's actually a total of what each county represents as far as our billable days and number of kids. If you glance down about six lines to Kerr County, you'll notice that so far this budget year, Kerr County has put in $223,820. That's how much has come out of Jason -- Mr. Davis' budget into my budget, as far as from the Probation Department to revenues, and they represent 65 percent -- or not 65 -- 83 percent of our billable days. So, with two months left, if you project those numbers out, with two months left, yeah, Jason's looking at close to $260,000 this budget year that we're currently in. If his numbers continue to be the same for the next two months, he's looking at approximately $260,000 that it's going to cost him just to house preadjudicated kids. Now, when we're talking about these kiddoes that -- and, like Commissioner Letz mentioned, well, shouldn't we look at other 8-1-07 bwk 164 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 preadjudicated kids here. We -- we put the post kids everywhere else, and those are the long-term kids. And, so, just the pre kids itself, and -- and their numbers have gone up a lot. I mean, they've detained 317 kids so far this year. Last year at this point -- and I'd have to go back and look for sure, but last year at this point, I think they were down at about 260. MR. DAVIS: 267, somewhere around there. MR. STANTON: 267. MR. DAVIS: One other factor, as well. Rex tells me that his petitions -- which the petitions are filed for adjudications in a juvenile case -- are up 22 percent, which is an extremely -- and I was looking at our 14; I said, "Oh, my goodness, this is a bad number," and he says, "We're up 22 percent." COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can see how that number factors into growth later. COMMISSIONER Baldwin's first questi~ accurate number, we're closer to 260. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER LETZ: But to go to Commissioner ~n, the reason that 145 is not an already at 223, and it's probably BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. LETZ: Okay. BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. 8-1-07 bwk 165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where are your out-of-county expenses, or housing expenses for kids you send out of county? Where are they reflected? MR. DAVIS: We've got -- right now, the sources for those revenues are either state money or out of this account. This line item or state funds, either one. They don't break it down into pre or post. It's a secure facility or a non-secure. Are these lock-down places where they can't get out of, or is it a treatment center where they can walk out the door? And so the facilities we're using -- Rockdale, Hays County, those primarily are the two we've used this year. We've got a couple others that we utilize, but those are primarily what we're looking at right now, are those two facilities. And it does -- it would be this line item with the two additional state line items which, again, right now this -- this year, about 117,000, and at least 16, and possibly more from the State next year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: About how many youth do we, have placed outside the county? MR. DAVIS: At any point in time -- like, right now I think we have five kids in placement. We have four or five. Just a second, Commissioner, and I can give you a -- if I find my -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And those are -- MR. DAVIS: I can give you an actual number, not a 8-1-07 bwk 166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And those are, like, specialized treatment facility-type -- JUDGE TINLEY: Long-term. They may be sex offender treatment, they may be substance abuse treatment, or they may be special behavioral programs. Those are the generally the three that they go to. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have a slot for me i somewhere in one of those? JUDGE TINLEY: We -- I've been looking, but I haven't found anybody that's willing to accept you. You got to have -- the facility has to agree to accept a particular -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, that's hard. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Age may be a factor. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it might be. Okay. MR. DAVIS: Last year at this point in time -- or when I was looking, as of our May 3rd date, which is when I put this together, we had spent roughly $105,000 out of county in other placements. '06-'07 at this same point in time, we were actually down to 83 -- a little over $83,000, so out-of-county placements had actually gone down, which is keeping -- attempting the keep more of our money here when we can. With the changes in T.Y.C., I don't know how that'll affect us as far as placements. Obviously, we can't send misdemeanor children to T.Y.C. now, so you would say, "Well, 8-1-07 bwk 167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you're going to be placing more children." The other side of that is, you've got every department in the state fighting over a limited number of beds, which is why this empty building that's sitting out here is a bright, shiny object to a lot of people, because there-are a lot of people watching it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I guess my only question is, is 250,000 enough? JUDGE TINLEY: Well, based upon the 223 number, it would indicate it may not be. However, he does have some state funds if he -- if he doesn't use it for long-term postadjudication placements, such as we also have some boot camps that come out of there. But if they're only going to increase that by 16,000, there's going to be more pressure to put children that might otherwise belong in T.Y.C., because of the rule changes, where we're going to be compelled to put them in secure facilities long-term, postadjudication, and I see that number as probably going up because of the T.Y.C. rules that -- go ahead, Jason. I'm sorry. MR. DAVIS: One other thing is the 117 plus the other 16,000 we're looking at for next year, that's a guaranteed number; that's what we know that they're going to give us. There are some other incentive programs, whatever you want to call it, some other pools of money available that we're constantly applying for. Small county diversionary fund 8-1-07 bwk 168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for counties with juvenile populations -- juvenile age populations under 4,000, which we're 3,993 this year. We just made it under the wire. Level 5 placement, for instance, for sex offenders. There are other pools of money we can go back in and apply for, and we do. Jesse is very good about staying on top of that and going after other state money as they make it available. To say that we're only going to get the 117 plus the 16,000 is not a totally correct statement, because we're going to try like heck to go after the other pools and compete with the other departments in the state. Jesse's been very good at finagling some money, and we hope that that will continue. We never know. JUDGE TINLEY: But, in answer to your question, Commissioner, 250 may not be enough, because even if we get additional moneys, that may still not be enough for the postadjudication long-term. We'll just have to see. MR. DAVIS: With the 170 we're at right now, we're basically -- our detention budget is shot. I'll be back in front of this Court very soon. MR. STANTON: One of the things that -- with the whole T.Y.C. problem is what it's going to cost, and it's bad for Jason, bad for probation departments; it's good for detention centers, is the fact that it takes longer for probation departments to place kids in residential facilities than it does in T.Y.C. So, that means kids are going to be 8-1-07 bwk 169 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 spending a longer time in detention, which is good for me, bad for probation departments, because they're going to have to spend more money holding the kids, trying to get them in these residential facilities, whereas they could before send them to T.Y.C. Now they're going to be stuck holding them in detention, not knowing what to do with them, so that's going to cause an inflation in those numbers also. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did I hear you say that you could interchange the moneys? You could use state money into this pot, or you could use our money over into the state side? MR. DAVIS: We do, and traditionally what I do is blow their money first. I try to spend every dime of the state money before I touch ours. And we count on the secure placement. I've got two state line items, basically, and then a couple of other pools that we can go into. We try to get all of that spent before we touch our county funds. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. MR. DAVIS: You're welcome. MR. TROLINGER: And speaking of that, the I.T. entry for 10-570 can be zeroed out from the $4,500. That can be zeroed for the Juvenile Probation budget. Jason's found some -- federal source? MR. DAVIS: Our IV-E, Judge. We're going to use -- we're not going to do it at one time, but we're trying to slowly integrate new computers, maybe one a month, one every 8-1-07 bwk 170 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other month, something like that, and use federal funds for that. Federal funds will not allow us to detain children. We can't pay for locking them up, we can't pay for handcuffs, we can't pay for a car we transport them in. There's certain things we can spend this federal money on, and one of them is computers, so we're trying to phase into that as well. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, Mr. Trolinger will take 4,550 off this budget? MR. DAMS: I didn't see that in my budget, no. JUDGE TINLEY: It's -- MR. DAMS: Mr. Trolinger put it together. If it ~ was there, I didn't -- JUDGE TINLEY: No, it's there, because I put it -- I put it in as I.T.-recommended. MR. TROLINGER: Yes, that's correct. Remove $4,542. JUDGE TINLEY: Under 569, it's still I.T.-recommended. We're just going to figure out a way that we don't have to pay for it. MR. DAMS: That would be the idea, yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: That's good. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Kevin, to-date, you're about -- outside billings into your facility are about $100,000 to-date? Outside billings? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. Yeah -- yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 8-1-07 bwk 171 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 JUDGE TINLEY: And they are growing, are they not? Little by little? MR. STANTON: Oh, yes, sir. Yeah, we've got contracts now with -- as you know, we got Burnet County and some of the other counties, Uvalde and Burnet -- Bandera, I mean. Burnet and Uvalde, I guess, are our biggest contributors besides Kerr County. But Burnet -- this is the first year we've actually got all of Burnet's kids, and they ', seem to lock up quite a few kids. So -- and it -- not as many as Kerr County, but -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not quite. MR. STANTON: Not quite. But -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're working on it. MR. STANTON: -- they're working on it, yeah. And every one of these guys I've talked to, the chiefs at the other counties have said, you know, it's going to continue to increase, just because of the fact that juvenile crime is on an upswing again. Plus the fact that with the T.Y.C. problems, they're going to be having to secure more kids. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have either of you heard when T.Y.C.'s going to release the contracts to some of these vendors? MR. STANTON: No, sir, I haven't. 25 I MR. DAVIS: No. 8-1-07 bwk 172 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. DAVIS: They're pretty hush-hush about that ~ right now. JUDGE TINLEY: Not even any plausible rumors flying I around? MR. DAVIS: No, sir. Not even from the probation people, no one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Play it close to the vest, don't they? MR. DAVIS: I think right now they've got the reins pulled pretty tight on them. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll know when the phone rings. JUDGE TINLEY: Any more to go into there? Let's move on to Environmental Health. Where's that? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 22, maybe. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 22. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 23? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 22. JUDGE TINLEY: 22. MS. HULETT: We have had some personnel changes, so some of these numbers have changed since it was submitted, so I thought maybe we might want to go over those. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. We don't need the roll-ups; 8-1-07 bwk 173 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 just need the -- the personnel, 101 through 105. MS. HULETT: 105 is 45,495. JUDGE TINLEY: 45,495? MS. HULETT: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. HULETT: Which affected the FICA, 201, which is ~ 11,554 -- JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we don't need the roll-ups. They can calculate it. What about 104? MS. HULETT: That has not changed. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any change in 103? MS. HULETT: No. JUDGE TINLEY: What are we doing -- doing anything with 101? MS. HULETT: I was told not to put anything in there. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. HULETT: So, I'm interim, and mine is reported under Designated Representative. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. HULETT: Under 104. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're saying that you're not putting anything in Code Enforcement? MS. HULETT: No, 103 is Code Enforcement. We're talking 101. 8-1-07 bwk 174 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 38,906. MS. HULETT: 38,906. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I thought I heard you saying you weren't putting anything in there. MS. HULETT: No, under 101, the manager. I'm interim manager, and I'm -- my salary's reported in 104. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Capital outlay -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, let's stay there just for a second. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On this manager issue, are we going to remain with an interim manager, or are we going to hire a manager? Or -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe we're going to designate a full-time manager. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, shouldn't -- if that's the case, shouldn't we put some kind of number in there? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think it needs to be put in 23 last year. 24 25 be honest. 8-1-07 bwk COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't tell you, Bruce, to where it had been. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there is a number from 175 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Current budget's 38,566. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There it is, yeah. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 38,566. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the projected year-end is 42, and we don't even have a person. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why is that? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I have no clue. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not -- there's not even anybody in the slot. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why not 4,000 with nobody in the job? That's great. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, Judge, you want to put that 38,566 over there? JUDGE TINLEY: Well, of course, then that's going to affect 104, because effectively, one of them -- in 104, one of the allotted positions under the position schedule is -- unless we increase the number of positions in that office. Now, that, of course, brings about a whole 'nother issue. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, actually, what we've done is we've hired Code Enforcement full-time. We put him on a part-time until the first of the year. We feel like that that position ought to be funded at full-time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that in here? MS. HULETT: That's reflected in 130, yes, sir. 25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we put a manager's salary in, 8-1-07 bwk 176 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we won't be bringing on another person into the budget. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But that -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right, 'cause we had one leave. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. But the acting is already covered in 104. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Provided for in 104. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 'Cause that's where she is now. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 'Cause we have two Designated Representatives down there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we leave the manager slot open right now, and then -- I don't know Commissioner Oehler's feelings, but sometime in the next month, Commissioners Court will decide what we're going to do about that, and then the money will be shifted into final phase. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I will say it will be done at the next Commissioners Court meeting in two weeks. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I meant. I didn't mean today, we have to put something in there, but at 8-1-07 bwk 177 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 some point. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For budgeting purposes, there should be a -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, we don't want to have zero in there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't want to have zero in there at all. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Now, capital outlay, I notice you've got plugged in 2,166. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I.T. recommended is 32. JUDGE TINLEY: 3,275, according -- does your 2,166 -- is that -- is that inclusive of any of the I.T. recommendations? MS. HULETT: That is for the computer, I believe. I think that was broken down between hardware and software, is what we had that broken down between, 'cause that was the only expenditures that we had, right? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got a software number -- MR. TROLINGER: The only capital outlay money you have is for computers? MS. HULETT: Yes. MR. TROLINGER: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: And what we need to do is substitute the 3,275 for the 2,166, then. 8-1-07 bwk 178 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the 11 -- and the 1,110 under software. She split it out into two numbers. If you add those two together, you end up with 3,275. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. HULETT: Yes. MR. TROLINGER: Okay, very good. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty easy to follow. MS. HULETT: Okay, good. So that one's okay? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the administration, recommended is 3,275. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, 2,166. JUDGE TINLEY: 2,166, because you have to add that -- two lines above that is software, and that's where you get the 3,275. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see what you're saying. MR. TROLINGER: It would simplify things if it was all under 569. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, you want to show -- instead of 1,110, show zero, and then instead of 2,166, we'll show 3,275. MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8-1-07 bwk 179 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TROLINGER: And that is for three new computers, and that's all correct? MS. HULETT: Yes. MR. TROLINGER: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Did we ask them if they wanted a ~ computer? MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. We're in full agreement. JUDGE TINLEY: I see. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only Mr. Odom so far says he doesn't want one. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I declined the first year. I made the request and denied my own request. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I still decline. MS. HULETT: And we're hoping to use one of the computers that we're replacing to use for our surveillance equipment, 'cause we needed a computer dedicated to that, so one that we're replacing we're going to be using for that ~ purpose. JUDGE TINLEY: But that'll stay in-house? MS. HULETT: It's in-house, yes, sir. Stay in our department. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. With respect to any of the other entries between the personnel at the top and the capital outlay at the bottom, any questions, concerns, comments, thoughts? 8-1-07 bwk 180 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TROLINGER: Telephone line. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only two that you changed. MS. HULETT: I think we've submitted that request to y'all already about possibly getting a telephone line for our office for our Code Enforcement people. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You did, but you haven't proposed a solution, since the system's maxed out. MS. HULETT: Oh. Well, we were told that maybe y'all might need to talk to Mindy about that; that there might be -- you know, that she may offer a solution for that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: She has an actual line? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, she's searching for one. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I think she is, because she's paying extra for her own fax line as a separate -- separate line coming in, if I'm not mistaken, isn't she? Yeah, she may be in as big or bigger bind than you are. But with that -- with that one item, that's all you've got for us? MS. HULETT: That's all. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got one more question, the site cleanup. MS. HULETT: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me what that is again. MS. HULETT: That is for solid waste, in the event that we have to go in and try to clean up a site ourselves. That was what that money's dedicated for. We hope next year, 8-1-07 bwk 181 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with the addition of the full-time person, that we will be able to be more aggressive in that area. And this year, we've kind of robbed that account for training, but -- since we had some personnel changes, we needed to do that, but we hope next year that -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: By "be more aggressive," you mean up front to get those people to clean their own place up? Or is that what you mean? MS. HULETT: Well, the hope is that they clean their place up, but in the event that they don't, then we want money set aside so we can do what we need to do to have it cleaned up. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There was a small decrease there, is the reason I'm asking. MS. HULETT: I think it's the same as it was last year. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In that context, we have never got a final report from the gentleman who occupied the manager spot before you were into it about his great cleanup scheme that he had sent out letters to in various places -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- and so forth and so on. He did one in Kerrville South, and may have given us a final. He did one in Center Point. I never saw a final report on -- 8-1-07 bwk 182 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 or progress report on that. MS. HULETT: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, are these efforts still ongoing? Are they stopped? MS. HULETT: Well, they're -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Finished? MS. HULETT: We're in the process of trying to take care of the backlog right now that we reported on in July -- excuse me, on June 11th. That is an ongoing process right now that Mr. Garcia is actively involved with. Right now, we are spending a lot of our time just trying to get those caseloads entered into the computer, and we're also having a lot of active cases right now that they're working on as well. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you speaking to solid I waste or O.S.S.F.? MS. HULETT: I'm speaking to solid waste. We are also using them to -- Mr. Garcia to assist us with septic complaints, though. We've had a lot of them since the rain. There's been a lot of surfacing septics out there, so we've been using his assistance in that area, too. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, ma'am? MS. TREVINO: I was just going to tell Commissioner Williams I can get him a report on that Center Point -- finish that out for the Solid Waste. I can get him a report on that. And we're seeing new cases there, of course. Still working 8-1-07 bwk 183 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with a lot of those in that area. JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's music to his ears. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to see that, Julie. ~ Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me inquire about this site cleanup. Are there some federal/state moneys that are available if we expend our funds doing the cleanup, that we can apply for reimbursement, either state or federal? MS. HULETT: I'm going to have to check into that. Mr. Garcia and Mr. North are really more versed in that area than myself, but we can certainly, you know, look into that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You need to check with ~ AACOG, and -- MS. HULETT: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- there are funds -- they have -- they dole out $800,000 to $900,000 a year in various grants for all sorts of things like this. MS. HULETT: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I need to look into it for the next grant round. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is she working off the same sheet that we are, with your recommendations? JUDGE TINLEY: I think so. I think what she said was her request was the same as last year's budget. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Her request was. 8-1-07 bwk 184 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HULETT: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: What -- what my -- what my recommendation was was based upon projected year-end. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: So, any other questions on this one? Okay, thank you. MS. HULETT: Okay, thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to Animal Control. That's under that same heading, same tab. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- JUDGE TINLEY: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. You have a -- like, a 14 percent increase in the manager's salary. MS. ROMAN: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ms. Hyde, can you come up with a report on all department heads as to -- going back, like, three or four years, their salaries? Because it seems, you know, it's much easier for me to look at all the department heads differently. We had a little bit of this discussion, I I think, at our last Commissioners Court, or last -- one of our other workshops about -- we have an irregular pattern of how we have addressed department heads' salaries. MS. HYDE: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if we look at them all on a spreadsheet format, you know, going back however many years 8-1-07 bwk 185 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you can do reasonably, then we get an idea that we're not skipping some and giving an increase more regularly, or -- MS. HYDE: You want it for next Commissioners Court? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before we end up -- I mean, we need to start finalizing the budget, so either time this month. I think we have time. I think those aren't going to be a huge ticket item to affect the budget, but I think it would be -- from a fairness standpoint, we ought to really look at them all at one time. JUDGE TINLEY: What else you got in the personnel? MS. ROMAN: There's two changes. On 642-104, Animal Control Officer, and I was requesting an additional kennel worker on 106. I had originally -- right now, I currently have one kennel worker. What I turned in to y'all, I was requesting two. I am wanting to request just one and a half, one full-time employee and one part-time employee, which would change those numbers from 42,838 to 30,694. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a total of one and a I half? MS. ROMAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We have been able to get community service to give us some assistance. That's why she's able to do that. MS. ROMAN: Correct. So I'm eliminating my part-time. I'm eliminating one part-time, 642-108. That 8-1-07 bwk 186 1 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: Which other one do you want to ~ change? MS. ROMAN: 104. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What do you want to do? MS. ROMAN: We'll be changing from 48,468 to 52,244. I have hired an experienced animal control officer; as y'all know, Marc Allen is back, so I'd like to be able to -- to increase -- increase his salary. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So you're proposing an increase. You hired him within the budget that you currently I have? MS. ROMAN: Yes. Yes, and he would be the assistant rabies control authority. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Based on his experience -- MS. ROMAN: Based on his experience. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- and everything. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's good. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know Janie's glad to have I him back. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's excellent. MS. ROMAN: Like I said, and that would actually bring it down to -- the difference would be 8,368. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Now, tell me what you're doing. You're adding a half an animal control officer? 8-1-07 bwk 187 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. ROMAN: One-half kennel worker. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, just a kennel worker. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 106. JUDGE TINLEY: And is that -- is 106, then, correct COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it changes down to MS. HYDE: Judge, take the kennel workers down to 1.5, 30,694. Increase -- increase the other to 52, so it's a net -- it's a net-net once you do that of negative $8,368. However, comma, we want to use 5,500 of that savings towards an animal control trailer that we don't have at this point. I worker? I workers. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We haven't got to that point. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's slow down just a little bit. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're way ahead. JUDGE TINLEY: You're adding a half of a kennel MS. ROMAN: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, one and a half kennel MS. ROMAN: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. ROMAN: And that total would be 30,694. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, with so you far. Then you're going to add something else? 8-1-07 bwk 188 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. ROMAN: I'm going to leave the animal control officers' positions, but increase one officer's salary due to -- to experience, so that would bring those numbers up from 48,468, to 52,244. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got it. MS. ROMAN: So, the difference would be 8,368, ~ negative. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then we're going to use four of that on a trailer. This is exciting stuff. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We haven't gotten to the trailer yet. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Haven't got -- MS. ROMAN: Haven't gotten there yet. JUDGE TINLEY: Are you going to use the Assistant Animal Control Officer money under 105? MS. ROMAN: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: You're going to add the increase to that, so you're going to have the same number of bodies there; is that correct? MS. ROMAN: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: So, are you going to add the additional to 104 or 105? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 104. MS. ROMAN: 104. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Totally? You're going up one 8-1-07 bwk 189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. ROMAN: No, not necessarily. MS. HYDE: We're coming down a half an employee. MS. ROMAN: Coming down, yeah. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: She's getting rid of a full-time; then she's going to replace the full-time with a part-time. MS. ROMAN: No, I'm not getting rid of a full-time. MS. HYDE: She had a part-timer that was in there for part-time. That's coming out, $3,900. MS. ROMAN: Correct. MS. HYDE: That's gone. And then she had two kennel workers. She's requesting two full-time kennel workers. That was turned in. JUDGE TINLEY: She just told me -- MS. HYDE: And so what she's doing is taking away half of one of those. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't want to talk about what she's asking; I want to talk about what she has versus what she's going to want. I don't care about that middle column. MS. ROMAN: Basically, all I'm -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: She can't give up someone she never had. MS. ROMAN: Right. I -- in last year's budget, we budgeted for a part-time salary, but that was just a weekend 8-1-07 bwk 190 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 kennel worker, okay. We are no longer doing that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. ROMAN: That is zeroed out. So, basically, what I'm requesting is a part-time kennel worker that will work Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. i COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MS. ROMAN: Okay. And they will come in at a 13 -- I a 13-1 . COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That's the .5 employee? MS. ROMAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Then you'll have one full-time kennel worker? MS. ROMAN: And I currently have one full-time, yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then you'll have one assistant animal control officer? MS. ROMAN: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, she'll have two. MS. ROMAN: And -- no, one assistant animal control officer. COMMISSIONER LETZ: One animal control officer. MS. ROMAN: One animal control officer. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then -- MS. ROMAN: And one assistant local rabies control authority, which would fall under animal control officer. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, I got you. 8-1-07 bwk 191 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then one manager. MS. ROMAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you'll have a total of 4.5 ~ employees? MS. ROMAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And how many do you have ~ today? MS. ROMAN: Well, with me, 5.5. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 5.5. And how many do you have today? MS. ROMAN: Five. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you're just adding a I half. MS. ROMAN: Half employee. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: She's adding a half an employee, and we've doubled the size of the facility. I think that's pretty good. MS. ROMAN: Now, on capital outlay, I have the -- JUDGE TINLEY: Let me make sure I got your numbers ~ right. MS. ROMAN: I'm sorry. JUDGE TINLEY: 103: 35,976. MS. ROMAN: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: 104: 32,244. MS. ROMAN: Correct. 8-1-07 bwk 192 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 JUDGE TINLEY: 105: 22,504. MS. ROMAN: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: And 106: 30,694. MS. ROMAN: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: And nothing under part-time. MS. ROMAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- going back to 103, that's kind of a -- to be decided. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, yeah. I'm talking about requests based upon what she just told us. Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. ROMAN: We're clear on that? Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Now, let me ask this question. You just brought somebody on board. MS. ROMAN: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: And you bought them on board on something within your budget. MS. ROMAN: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: But at some -- at some step other than entry level, correct? MS. ROMAN: Well, I brought him in at -- yes. Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: It's not a Step 1. It's Grade something, step more than one. MS. ROMAN: Correct. 25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Does that employee that you 8-1-07 bwk 193 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~ budget approval? MS. ROMAN: Correct, yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. ROMAN: Yes. However, like I said, due to his experience, his certifications, everything, I -- he's a huge asset to my department, and I think it would only be right to increase his salary. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I understand where you're coming from, but we start off with a rule that a new employee comes on at Step 1. MS. ROMAN: Right. Right. ~i JUDGE TINLEY: And -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Which is what we did, I I believe. MS. ROMAN: Yes. That was -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That was the way to get him on board, because she had an employee that quit. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- but, I mean, Janie came to the Court, as many people have, and asked for us to set that at a higher level. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is appropriate. JUDGE TINLEY: That has not yet happened. 8-1-07 bwk 194 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Based on his experience and whatever, whatever. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, done at the appropriate time. JUDGE TINLEY: You're looking at next year, and you're operating within your current year's budget, but next year's a brand-new ball game. MS. ROMAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Exactly. JUDGE TINLEY: All right, now I'm square. I'm ready to go to capital outlay with you. MS. ROMAN: Okay. We have 2,180 for a -- John, help ~ me out here -- for a new computer. MR. TROLINGER: One new computer, which needs to be in the capital outlay. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MR. TROLINGER: What we're going to call a webcam -- or three webcams, excuse me. And DSL or high-speed Internet access to connect them to the county network to allow the financial and so forth that -- the only thing to note here is that that -- that $60 at 12 months for $720 is a recurring cost, so that -- that actually should be listed as -- 25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: Telephone? 8-1-07 bwk 195 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TROLINGER: -- telephone. MS. ROMAN: Telephone, okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, telephone goes up to 3,800? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 38? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sounds like a lot. JUDGE TINLEY: How many phones lines you got out MS. ROMAN: Two -- two and then the fax. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cell phones. JUDGE TINLEY: You got a trainload of cell phones, don't you? MS. ROMAN: We have three cell phones. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Small train. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Three county cell phones? MS. ROMAN: Yeah, three county cell phones. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What? Cell phone's 3,800? MS. ROMAN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Total telephone is 3,800. MS. ROMAN: 3,800. JUDGE TINLEY: Hopefully we can bring that down if we get us a master contract. 8-1-07 bwk 196 1 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. ROMAN: Okay. And then we are adding $5,500 to capital outlay for a stock trailer. We're -- we're going to be doing the estrays for the Sheriff's Department, and if we're going to do this, I -- I have to have a trailer. The trailer that we currently have was the trailer that the city of Kerrville once had. It's not a covered stock trailer; it's a small trailer. It's very small. Not long ago, I was on a call and had to haul -- you know, do three different loads, so it's extremely important that we have a new trailer. JUDGE TINLEY: What was the Sheriff using? MS. ROMAN: They, I believe, years ago had a contract with, I believe, Brad. And, Brad, I believe you were using your personal trailer? MR. ALFORD: We did on some. We contracted a lot of it out. If it was something quick and easy, I ran home and got the trailer and picked it up. JUDGE TINLEY: You've got a trailer that's suitable? MR. ALFORD: Not any more, no, sir, not for you. JUDGE TINLEY: Talk to you about leasing it. MR. ALFORD: My personal trailer. Marc Allen used to use his personal trailer. JUDGE TINLEY: Does he still have one? MR. ALFORD: Say no. Say no. MS. HYDE: Say no. MS. ROMAN: No. No. I know that I'm sitting here 8-1-07 bwk 197 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going, "No." COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There was an occasion to have a little cow roundup one Friday afternoon, and I had to go borrow a trailer from a friend, because the County doesn't have one at all. MS. ROMAN: Right. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And, you know, then I had to take it back, and I had to wash it out too. JUDGE TINLEY: Did anybody -- did anybody make a video of that? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It wouldn't have been that interesting, 'cause nobody got hurt. JUDGE TINLEY: Oh. I thought maybe we could sell it and generate a little revenue from it. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't think so. It was pretty -- pretty uneventful. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a 16-foot trailer, what you're looking for? MS. ROMAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Makes the capital outlay 7, 680. MS. ROMAN: Correct. (Low-voice discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much is it? 8-1-07 bwk 198 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 76. MS. ROMAN: 7,680. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Total. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not the trailer. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, on top of the 2,180 you already got. MS. ROMAN: That's for the computer and the -- MS. HARGIS: No, 'cause you don't want to add 2,180; you want to add 720 less than that. MS. ROMAN: Oh, that's right. Minus 720, that went into the telephone. MS. HARGIS: Should be 6,960. JUDGE TINLEY: Subtract out 700 even. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mrs. Auditor, how much did ~ you say? MS. HARGIS: 6,960. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 69 what? MS. HARGIS: 60. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 6,960. We're gaining on it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bill, how much was the trailer? MS. ROMAN: 55. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 5,500 I think. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: And we don't need to have anything in 8-1-07 bwk 199 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 correct? MS. ROMAN: Mine and Marc's. JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I'm talking about. MS. ROMAN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a note the Judge has here about the city stuff, and I concur with his comment about administrative costs. What's the breakdown between city and county, in your opinion? MS. ROMAN: I'm working on it now, and I'll have those numbers to Bruce tomorrow. I do have to say that the numbers in the city have gone down some. I'd say they're probably about 50/50 instead of 60/40. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I -- my thought was. I mean, I thought it would probably be a little bit high on the 60/40, but we need 50/50. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We may have to have that number when we have our joint meeting. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's exactly -- MS. ROMAN: That's why I'm going to have it to him I tomorrow. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You will have a copy of it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cool. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Everybody sitting here. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, what is it the City's 8-1-07 bwk 200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They want to adjust it to what the actual use is, but I'm not sure -- I thought they came out with 60/40 the other direction. MS. ROMAN: It used to be 60/40 the other direction. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: But what they've done, there are some of those animals that you didn't determine origin, and you take those out, and then they've got some formula by which they carved up those numbers which tends to compound it going the other direction, and then they've suggested taking out the -- the administrative costs. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which are not in there anyway. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, no. We -- we probably need -- I would say, what, a third of Commissioner Oehler's time probably needs to be allocated over there, and the County Attorney's -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Some, yes. JUDGE TINLEY: You know, if we're going to play that game, allocating out administrative costs, we can. There's a lot of things we need to do. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And also, I was just made aware of -- I haven't gotten a phone call, but I encouraged someone to call you, Judge. The -- JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 8-1-07 bwk 201 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, this is okay. Ingram animal control officer was killed in a car wreck. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And they are going to need to maybe contract with us to do that service. And so I will see that Mr. -- that Mr. Zachary calls the Judge and, you know, makes a request for us to do that. And maybe we can -- we're right at the right time of year, but we could handle that. And they -- you know, at budget time, they -- if they decide to do that with us, he could allocate the funds to the county rather than to that control officer job. JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have a feel for what their numbers are? MS. ROMAN: I know that at the moment, they're paying us -- I believe it's $350 a month for approximately -- isn't it $350 a month? And for -- I believe the contract says no more than 10 animals per month. So, I can tell you now, they don't ever bring in more than 10 animals per month. JUDGE TINLEY: But that's -- MS. ROMAN: But that was also -- JUDGE TINLEY: -- that facility. MS. ROMAN: Correct. Correct. That was also because their animal control officer did not do animal control full-time. He was also code enforcement, you know, street maintenance, all of that. So, I couldn't tell you right off 8-1-07 bwk 202 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 -- right offhand, but I know it's not -- it hasn't been a whole lot, but that's also because it wasn't really being enforced due to the lack of time he had. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Incidentally, the Animal Control new facility is -- the drains that we had the problem with because of the construction -- original construction are being fixed as we speak. Hopefully they will be in compliance whenever it gets through this time. MS. ROMAN: He also donated the self-watering system, so they're installing that as we speak as well. So that will help a great deal. JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a flush mechanism for the drains? MS. ROMAN: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Or are you talking about the potable MS. ROMAN: Potable water. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. ROMAN: For the dogs. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Been a lot of changes out there this last six, seven months. MS. ROMAN: Yeah. 25 ~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How's the adoption rate? 8-1-07 bwk 203 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MS. ROMAN: It's slowed down a little bit, but it's slowed down throughout the city. I mean, Freeman-Fritts, Humane Society, everyone's slowed down. It usually does this time of year. People are on vacation; you know, they have company, you know, people visiting or whatever. Over the summer, it normally slows down, so -- but we're still -- it's still higher than it ever had been before, so we're doing 8 ( good . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TROLINGER: Animal Control and Brad Alford have done a great job promoting via the county web site. MS. ROMAN: Yeah. MR. TROLINGER: And we're going to increase that with the capital outlay computers. MS. ROMAN: Right. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The rain, I think, has factored into that adoption rate. It rains so much every day, nobody wants to go get a wet dog or cat out of Animal Control and take it home with them. (Laughter.) Not that they get rained on. MS. ROMAN: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to the Extension Service, under Tab 24. MR. WALSTON: Alyce's position is included on there, so I just brought you what I had. JUDGE TINLEY: You didn't bring us what you didn't 8-1-07 bwk 204 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WALSTON: I can't bring you what I don't have. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Refresh my recollection on why we need to do this travel separate. MR. WALSTON: Mainly, it simplifies and prevents problems with our recordkeeping with College Station. And any time we go to reporting to them what our travel -- any of our salary, we've got to have a certain -- we've got to have travel. And when it was tied up in salary, there was nothing saying exactly how much travel was. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it's an Aggie problem. MR. WALSTON: I'm preventing problems that I've been running into year after year after year. JUDGE TINLEY: Looking at what you just gave us, Mr. Walston, looking across the top, it shows a salary item and a travel item, -- MR. WALSTON: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: -- present and proposed, for yourself, the F.C.S. and 4-H, and then when we come down to the miscellaneous expenses, we've got two more travel items, a stock show and a reimbursed. Reimbursed -- MR. WALSTON: The reimbursed is the same as the -- as for the 4-H Program Assistant. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that -- 8-1-07 bwk 205 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WALSTON: So, you don't -- we can take it out of miscellaneous. JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly where I was going. MR. WALSTON: I didn't catch that. JUDGE TINLEY: But down at the bottom, it's proposed to be increasing 43 to 48. Up top -- MR. WALSTON: Should be 43 to 48. JUDGE TINLEY: -- it shows 43 to 43. MR. WALSTON: It should be 48. JUDGE TINLEY: So, what you're saying is we need to "X" it out up at the to p; is that correct? MR. WALSTON: Whichever you like. Take it either waY- JUDGE TINLEY: If you can get it? MR. WALSTON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably, to keep them all the same, leave it at the top and take out the reimbursed travel line item. MR. WALSTON: That's what I did on mine, I just took I it out . JUDGE TINLEY: But at the top, you want to change it I to 48? MR. WALSTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't want to. JUDGE TINLEY: Well I'm speaking to him. 8-1-07 bwk 206 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why is stock show travel listed separately from other travel that you have? MR. WALSTON: The stock show travel is -- is travel that I use strictly for going to stock shows and as a reimbursed travel. The other travel comes in as a monthly. You know, and that is probably why the 4-H Program Assistant was listed down underneath. It is reimbursed. So, the program assistant travel and stock show travel is all reimbursed travel. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we should leave it down at the bottom, and we should probably call that Reimbursed 4-H? MR. WALSTON: That'd be fine. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that identifies why we have that? Take it out at the top. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, is the total travel for you, for example, is that the total of the 55 up on top and the 6,000 down below? MR. WALSTON: The reimbursed travel -- I mean the stock show travel and the county -- and the regular travel, 55. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, your travel line item total is 11,005, proposed? MR. WALSTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. He drives a lot, I 25 ~ guess. 8-1-07 bwk 207 1 2 pickup. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WALSTON: I'll let you see my odometer on my j JUDGE TINLEY: Is all of that out-of-county travel? MR. WALSTON: No. The -- the stock show travel is, and that's when I'm going out, helping kids buy projects, going to stock shows; that's reimbursed. The county travel that I do driving around in town, regular travel, that's the 5, 500. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's a travel allowance, MR. WALSTON: That's a travel allowance that comes COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We pay it, not A & M? MR. WALSTON: No. Y'all pay, yes. JUDGE TINLEY: But when you leave the house in the morning, conceivably, the odometer starts ticking? MR. WALSTON: No. When I get -- when I leave here in the morning -- when I reach the office basically is when I start keeping up with it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you keep a log, though, when you're -- I mean, for that -- for your allowance portion, you don't keep a log, or do you keep a log? MR. WALSTON: Yeah. It's -- I -- it's part of my Commissioners Court report that we turn in, is a travel report, and it's daily, whether it's in-county or 8-1-07 bwk 208 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WALSTON: Yeah. There's a lot of the small mileages that are local, but then, when I have to go to Uvalde or have to go out of county, that's where I use the reimbursed travel, the stock show travel. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. WALSTON: And I'm -- last year, I -- the way the '~ stock shows are laying out now, we've got kids going to Houston, and they're there for three weeks, or we're in San Antonio for two weeks. It costs just about the same to drive back and forth as it does to stay there, so I'm going to probably have to start cutting back somewhere and not get to be there every day that I have kids there, because I've been out of that -- the stock show travel since June. And we're in the midst of trying to purchase projects and everything else, so that makes it a little tight. JUDGE TINLEY: Under your personnel up here, you're increasing one secretary from 23,644 to 25,641. Is that -- does that fall in line with the longevity increase that's due? MR. WALSTON: That's including the longevity. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's also -- JUDGE TINLEY: But that's all it is, a longevity? MR. WALSTON: No. No, it's -- it's an increase from 8-1-07 bwk 209 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a 14-3 to a 15-4. She's gone from a regular secretary to a lead secretary with more responsibility. I gave the job description to Eva, and we sat down and -- JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're listing them here -- listing that individual here as an office manager. MR. WALSTON: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Change in job responsibility? MR. WALSTON: She won't be necessarily supervising or evaluating, but she'll be the lead secretary. JUDGE TINLEY: It's a 14-3 to a 15-4? MR. WALSTON: Yes, sir. MS. HYDE: That includes her longevity. MR. WALSTON: That's including longevity. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, essentially, what you did was you went one grade up, and then the longevity. When you add that to it, it goes to -- okay. Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that working out -- the reorganization out there working out all right? MR. WALSTON: Yeah. Yeah. You know, it's a matter of doing some training and some time, but it's working good. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good. JUDGE TINLEY: In your management structure, how do ', the clerical -- the office help fall in relation to the 4-H 8-1-07 bwk 210 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WALSTON: Right now, the way it's set up is, Jamie is responsible for the 4-H and ag, and Alyce is responsible for the F.C.S and helping fill in as far as whatever we need as far as mail-outs and helping cover phone calls so Jamie can get things done. So, she's more of the receptionist, and also doing the F.C.S., whereas Jamie is able ', to get some other things done and take care of the 4-H primarily, as far as the clerical part of it. ~' JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if -- see if my understanding is correct. So, essentially, you have two different structure tracks; one's ag, one's F.C.S. Now, overall, you're in charge. MR. WALSTON: Uh-huh. JUDGE TINLEY: And then you've got two different tracks that feed off of that. One's an ag track, one's an F.C.S. track. You've got your agent, F.C.S. Under that agent is a -- primarily, the responsibility would be the clerical support for that individual. Over here on the ag side, directly under you, is the 4-H -- MR. WALSTON: Uh-huh. JUDGE TINLEY: -- Coordinator, and then you've got the clerical individual that's directly responsible for ag and 4-H. MR. WALSTON: Ag and 4-H. 8-1-07 bwk 211 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: So you've got a dual track there. MR. WALSTON: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. WALSTON: And there's -- I mean, it's not cut-and-dried. I mean, they work together, and -- but primarily, that's the way it's set up. JUDGE TINLEY: For a command structure, that's the way it works. MR. WALSTON: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any questions? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. I wanted to point out, though, that Mr. Walston recently was -- the Sheep and Goat Raisers Association named him the outstanding County Agent. Is that in the state? MR. WALSTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was in the county. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, sheep and goat -- he's the best one. Best one we have. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But if you look at the Sheep II, and Goat Raisers Association, it's basically San Angelo and some west Texas stuff; it's not really -- I mean, you don't find a lot of sheep and goats up in Dallas. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not too much. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Don't find many in South 8-1-07 bwk 212 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Texas, either. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. Congratulations. MR. WALSTON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What a great honor. MR. WALSTON: And I also got with John on our outlay on our computers, and he had that -- he already had that set up, and I think we're on target for getting -- JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That number that I've -- when you and I talked about it, and I indicated to you that was subject to I.T. review. MR. WALSTON: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: And that's needed? MR. TROLINGER: Looks like we've got the standard Kerr County computer, and an additional for the A & M software; is that right? MR. WALSTON: What we're looking at is, we can -- we can purchase -- it's a cost share program, which the County purchases half -- half of it, and then A & M furnishes the other half. And, in reality, we're getting a computer and software. MR. TROLINGER: Okay. MR. WALSTON: So, it'll still be a Texas A & M computer with software on it that we're able to use. MR. TROLINGER: Sounds wonderful. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Does that make it work 8-1-07 bwk 213 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 differently 'cause it's an A & M computer? MR. WALSTON: No, it makes us get about -- gets us a $750 computer for -- you know. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, do we need this $1,000 allocated here, I guess, is my question. If A & M's going to furnish that? MR. WALSTON: Well, they're not furnishing -- we're paying for it. They're paying for the other half. It's a cost share. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We pay half. JUDGE TINLEY: We pay half, they pay half, and it's their computer? That sounds like your ambulance, Buster. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's an Aggie theory. Evidently, it works. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not a good deal at all. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly like my ', ambulance deal. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You ever get a ride in that ambulance? (Commissioner Baldwin shook his head.) JUDGE TINLEY: You reckon City of Kerrville got the idea from them, or vice-versa? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Got a traitor among us. JUDGE TINLEY: I see. 25 ( COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: City of Kerrville's head guy 8-1-07 bwk 214 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is an Aggie. Go figure. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's pretty nice. JUDGE TINLEY: So, we pay half -- we pay $1,000 for a half of a computer which costs us $850, and A & M owns it? Is that the deal? MR. WALSTON: Well, I don't know what it's going to cost us. It's been costing us about seven and a half, what it's been costing. JUDGE TINLEY: So, we'll say it's a $750 computer that we're going to pay 1,000 for half of it, and then A & M owns it. MR. WALSTON: No, you'll pay whatever it costs, the 750 or 1,000. MS. HYDE: What a deal. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you use it all the time, '~ or just on certain days of the week? MR. WALSTON: Unfortunately, we use it every day. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm not going to understand that one; I can figure that out. Anything else? MR. WALSTON: Have to go to A & M to understand. JUDGE TINLEY: I can't get unstuck from that sticky black bottom down there. MR. WALSTON: I understand. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Walston. MR. WALSTON: All-righty. I -- just to let y'all 8-1-07 bwk 215 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know, we'll probably try to get y'all another report as far as here at the next meeting, but to give you a report on 4-H numbers, we're looking at 408 4-H enrollees, which is the most we've had, Laurinda says, in the past 17 years. So, we've got a little over 1,600 total kids contacted, and through the 4-H program, which is about 23 percent of the available -- the kids in the county. JUDGE TINLEY: In the demographic range? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's good. MR. WALSTON: So, we've had a good year. Had kids get a lot of scholarship money that y'all have seen. This has been a really good year for us. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the only observation I can make about that, Roy, is that, looking at my detention days in the Juvenile Detention Facility, you need to get more kids in your 4-H program. MR. WALSTON: We'll take all that we can get. I know. JUDGE TINLEY: We're trying to channel you some. MR. WALSTON: We're trying to get there. Thank y'all. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay, County-sponsored, next 25, I guess it is. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 26. JUDGE TINLEY: 26, excuse me. Not a whole lot of 8-1-07 bwk 216 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 change in what I've done there. I don't think there's any increase in expenditures. I did reallocate some CASA money to Big Brother/Big Sister. My rationale for doing that is that CASA has discontinued service to our courts, with the exception of -- of Texas Department of Human Resources -- whatever name they're using this week -- that's dealing with children's services and whatnot, where they terminate kiddoes and all that sort of stuff. I'm drawing a blank on that. My thinking is that if they're going to service that state agency, the state agency ought to be paying them for whatever home study or other -- other work that they're doing for them, so I've zeroed them out. I have increased the amount, but not by the same amount, to Big Brother/Big Sister. The reason I've done that is that they are picking up a good bit of the slack when it comes to mentoring outside of the school program. The school program -- it's kind of confusing to me. Under the school mentoring programs, they will permit mentoring only for that specific time frame that they allocate, and if there's going to be additional mentoring by that same adult with that same child, they disassociate themselves from it. So, what we have happening is that the kids that really need mentors badly, the way we're continuing that -- I say "we," but what's happening is that these kids are getting into the Big Brothers/Big Sisters program, and these same mentors that they have in school are there by 8-1-07 bwk 217 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 becoming Big Brothers/Big Sisters to these children that they have in the school mentoring program. The continuity seems to work well. But I think they're picking up a lot of that slack, so that's the reason I increased them, not by the same proportion. Other than that -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the top line, under Trapper I Contract -- JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- it probably needs to be the same as we budgeted this year. The difference there is, Kendall County may never have requested their money, which is their issue, not ours. But I do know that the trapper that i we're paying part of his salary, which is Mr. Barnhart, has done an outstanding job in the eastern part of the county, and it's a very -- even if they do request money, it is a great benefit to Kerr County, and we're getting far more than our -- I mean, certainly our money's worth out of -- I don't know; is it 10? Whatever it was, 5,000 or 10,000 we were paying towards his salary. I think it was 10,000. JUDGE TINLEY: 10 or 12, I'm thinking, out of the Kendall County -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, we paid through interlocal agreement, paid Kendall County a certain amount, and then their trapper covers basically the eastern third of Kerr County. That way we're able to keep Keith Adams out basically 8-1-07 bwk 218 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in Bruce's area 100 percent, which is a big area, and where he spends his time, and it works very well. JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't know what our maximum exposure was under those contracts. I'm hearing from you it's the 31, 4. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe so. I think we paid 25 percent of his salary. I'm not sure what adjustments they have made on their salaries. I thought we had it right last year; that's why I say 31,4. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Even though the projected year-end looks low. I'll try to check on that, though. JUDGE TINLEY: Emergency management. That falls under the EMS -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You sure? JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think that's where it falls under. It may not fall under anything. It shows that -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that the director and things that we pay for? JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's a health and emergency -- I'll see if I can find that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I saw it earlier, but I don't know where it is. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I think -- is it after -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you -- off the top of your 8-1-07 bwk 219 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HARGIS: This is not your EMS. Your EMS runs a couple hundred -- a hundred-some thousand dollars. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I think this is the thing that you and Raymond Holloway do. MS. HARGIS: I think that -- yeah, I think that's what's this is. This is the emergency management training, when -- when we have an emergency. I think that's -- JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, all I can say is, if that's the case, at least as of -- through March 31st of this year, we haven't done a very good job of it. Or we've done a great job at it, whichever way you want to look at it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Done a great job. Done ~ nothing. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. HARGIS: Well, I took all the tests. You can have my plaques, if you want. JUDGE TINLEY: Is that the Government Financial Accounting Association or whatever? MS. HARGIS: No, this was -- JUDGE TINLEY: You ever read Lottie Stinson's column on that? MS. HARGIS: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Go back and find it sometime. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, on the emergency 8-1-07 bwk 220 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 management thing, I mean, this has been a -- I've tried to bring it up, I think, at our last City/County meeting. I think this all needs to be looked at. I don't think it's been looked at since the Chief was designated this person, last century sometime, and I think it probably needs to be looked at and make sure that the right people are in the right positions. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Jody and I did some work on that just the other day, as a matter of fact, a new roster of current personnel from the various disciplines. And we submitted the new roster of current personnel. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Submitted it to who? MS. GRINSTEAD: The L.E.P.C. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under that thing, the designated -- as I understand, the designated person to make decisions on county roads is the Police Chief in the City of Kerrville, which I think that's one example that I don't think it's accurate. I think that needs to be changed. 'Cause the last time I think I looked into it, it was in '83 when this was done. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, federal law requires you do it every five years, doesn't it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that may be. I think it's been updated, but the original designations that were done way back in '83 don't necessarily make sense now, and I don't 8-1-07 bwk 221 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know -- I have no idea why they were made the way they were. Maybe that made sense back then. But I think the county road closures and things of that nature should not be under the city chief; it should be under probably the Sheriff, from our standpoint. But, anyway -- anyway, that's a different topic for a different day. JUDGE TINLEY: My suggestion is, let's don't plug in any money for it now, and -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's good. JUDGE TINLEY: -- maybe we won't have to spend any. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sounds good. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Zero. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Zero. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, fine with me. We've got a Water Development category down here that I -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Zero. JUDGE TINLEY: Zero that out? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That money we put in under Professional Services, the small amount that I thought we needed there. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The -- the KCAD number that's in there I took from what they had proposed to us at their -- in connection with their budget and their allocation. I had the occasion to be talking to the Chief Appraiser yesterday or the day before, and I told him I had every confidence that we 8-1-07 bwk 222 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would vote against his budget because of the salary issues not being on parity with other public employees. I didn't get a bobble out of him, which doesn't surprise me, 'cause what we do is of no consequence in that scheme anyway. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't seem to be. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think we should lobby the school board members. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Biggest contributor. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I mean -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Because, I mean, they're even getting bigger increases than what they're giving their teachers. That's not right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They do it every year. JUDGE TINLEY: Go to the teacher's union. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. Well, that doesn't do any good; all they do is stand up and yell, but that doesn't accomplish anything. You get the board members that approve that contract. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe if they would disapprove it, maybe KCAD would start -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If they would disapprove it, I believe it won't pass. JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, there's no question but what if the school district disapproves it, it won't pass. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 8-1-07 bwk 223 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: But if they approve it, it does pass. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right. That's why I say we need to lobby those school board members to follow suit with the County in being fair to the rest of the community. JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, that may not -- well, it's based on last year's taxes, not the current year's taxes. Their tax rate is coming down substantially this year, so next year they may not have full control over it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you got Ingram on board with you, then you definitely -- K.I.S.D. and Ingram, certainly, together control it. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe I can gather up Ingram. JUDGE TINLEY: Emergency management. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, the date on this is 7-26-07. That's how diligently this item is being worked upon, and I think Ms. Grinstead needs to be complimented for her timely work on this matter. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What did we -- what is it? JUDGE TINLEY: This is a local emergency planning committee membership update form. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: How about that? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's impressive. 8-1-07 bwk 224 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Read 'em and weep. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is this based on some knowledge that you had to do this, or did you just pull this out of the sky? I thought I'd ask. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is -- I think I'm speaking correctly; I don't believe Ron Derrick's in that position at Sid Peterson Hospital any more. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, he is. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought Ron took a job in San Antonio. didn't he? 26th. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't know. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: He went to Fredericksburg, COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was a long time ago. JUDGE TINLEY: If so, he's done that since July the COMMISSIONER LETZ: He was planning on going to work for Methodist Hospital, I believe. Is there -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He might have, I don't know. He was with Peterson last time I was with him. JUDGE TINLEY: As of July 26th, he was with them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe he didn't take that job in San Antonio as he had mentioned. Better leave him on here, JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely. He hasn't submitted his then. 8-1-07 bwk 225 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 resignation. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who did this? You? JUDGE TINLEY: Well, of course. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why do you have the Police Chief as opposed to the Sheriff as the law enforcement person? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, Jody did it. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems to me that law enforcement should be the Sheriff, who has far broader jurisdiction and authority than the Police Chief. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe you can file an amended ~ report. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Previously, I agree, it was Chuck Dickerson. Just a thought. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: See, that's why the Chief of Police is shutting down county roads. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'm sure you went off the form of the previous one. But, anyway, that was just -- it's just a -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think it needs to be a new designee. JUDGE TINLEY: I do all this hard work, and what do I get for it? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Criticism. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Abuse. 8-1-07 bwk 226 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We'll go to Collections, COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I want you to -- I want you to explain. What are we going to do with KCAD? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Vote against it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I know, but I'm with Bruce. I think that we need to make some kind of concerted effort to -- I don't know about lobbying them individually, 'cause I don't -- I don't know -- I don't know about one or two of them any more. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe they can tell you who the others are. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, wouldn't it be simpler, though, to get a letter from the Judge to the superintendent saying this Court says no? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'd rather do it to the school board members; I think it might be more effective. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, send it to the school board members or whoever, but I can't see us -- or I can't see me going knocking on their doors and talking to them. It just seems like to me it's an easier, effective way to -- to write -- write a letter individually to the school board saying that Commissioners Court intends on voting against it for this and this and this reason. 8-1-07 bwk 227 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They did think their salary should be, at a minimum, the average -- average increase of the entities. Doesn't have to be ours or KISD's, but at least should be no more than the average for a minimum. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I totally agree. It's long overdue. They've been getting by with it too long. I really don't think that those budgets are reviewed that well by the school board. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't either. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And I sure don't mind calling the Ingram bunch or the Hunt school board. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The more we can -- you xnow, 1 think the city of Ingram has a vote, too. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So does city of Kerrville. JUDGE TINLEY: That's something that we maybe need to put on the agenda and take formal action on it. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think so. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, from the city standpoint -- of course, we still need the schools to get it, but at least you can get the city of Kerrville on board that these increases should be comparable to what's being given. We can bring that up on Monday. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: City of Kerrville pays so much anyway, they probably think that they're trying to get them up 8-1-07 bwk 228 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to the level of city employees. MS. HARGIS: No. To be honest with you, if you set aside the salary issue, this -- this CAD is far behind any of the others in the state that are twice as big as they are. I mean, nobody gets the rolls -- I've never seen such inefficiency, and you're paying more. Harris County beats this time frame, and they're horrible. They've got their rolls ready. If Harris County can get their rolls ready, that's the most disorganized group in the world. Why can't this little county get their tax roll ready? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a good point. We're getting worse service, and they want more money all the time. You know, if they were doing an outstanding job -- MS. HARGIS: Everybody's budget is depending upon what they're giving us, and it's going to be so late that if we had that, we wouldn't have to -- we could finish the budget before that new deadline and wouldn't have to comply with the new legislative changes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Plus, to even make it work -- JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's true. MS. HARGIS: Which is going to cost us money. If you get your budget done before September 1, you don't have to do the new changes, but if you get them done after that, you have to go on the web site and you have to do all these other publications, which are newspaper publications, which cost 8-1-07 bwk 229 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 money. So, they're actually costing us money. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other part of it, they don't -- all of the Comfort school district, which is the -- from here to the east, most of that area, really, they don't even do the appraisal; it's all done by Kendall County. They don't even -- they just accept Kendall County's values automatically, so they don't even do any appraisal in the whole eastern -- northeastern part of the county. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You mean, like, Whiskey ~ Canyon? COMMISSIONER LETZ: They don't do any of that. Don't do our place, don't do anything in Hill Country Ranch Estates. Cypress Creek's all Kendall County. MS. HARGIS: She said Dallas County got theirs last Thursday. MS. HYDE: Dallas County got theirs last Thursday. MS. HARGIS: Montgomery County got theirs last week on Monday. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's the 29th. I think it was the -- MS. HARGIS: The 24th is when -- when Montgomery County and Fort Bend County got theirs, on the 24th. Those are big counties, high populous counties, with -- JUDGE TINLEY: I think the normal deadline, though, is the 29th, I believe, wasn't it? 8-1-07 bwk 230 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HARGIS: That's their drop-dead deadline, but most of them have the tapes to the Tax Assessors by the -- between the 24th and the 29th so that the entities can beat the 31st deadline. Because if you're a city, you have to have 60 days to present it to the City Clerk. Well, the 31st is your drop-dead date, and if you don't have your value -- you know, I think it's -- I'm sorry. I've been doing this for a long time, and they're just not very efficient. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe we should appoint you to I that board. JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate your insight. MS. HARGIS: I've been on it before. But -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway, I would tend to agree. I was on Kendall County's, and not that they're any -- hold up a great example, but -- MS. HARGIS: They said it was a software problem, but they were late last year, so I don't buy that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Always late. JUDGE TINLEY: What I was told was that they were late in getting their notices out, and because they were late in getting notices out, that extended the length of time in which people had to file notice of protest, which then, in turn, extended the length of time for the next step, and however that process works. MS. HARGIS: That's because their software 8-1-07 bwk 231 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 apparently was new. Then why were they late last year? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Write that letter, Judge, to all the entities on the Appraisal District. Tell them all to vote against it. MS. HARGIS: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hargis and I will work on a draft of a letter. She's -- she's just about half cranked up. I'm going to give her about half a day more to st ew on it, and she ought to be really good and steamed. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Be a good l etter. Where do we ha ve this number for AACOG dues? I don't see it anywhere. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The what? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: AACOG dues. Can't find it. JUDGE TINLEY: Where have we taken that from before? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I was looking at. I just went throug h the whole thing and can't find it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Auditor should know. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Our AACOG dues, Jeannie, where is it? MS. HARGIS: I don't know. JUDGE TINLEY: I think it was under Nondepartmental. I'd almost bet you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I looked; I couldn't see it. Maybe I missed it. 25 I MS. HARGIS: Let me find out. 8-1-07 bwk 232 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Anyhow, the number is 305 -- MS. HARGIS: 3,056? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is probably under -- as I dues . COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I couldn't find it, Jon. JUDGE TINLEY: Under Nondepartmental. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I couldn't see it. JUDGE TINLEY: Look under Number 2. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Number 2? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, Number 2. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me go back and look at it again. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably under Books, Publications, and Dues, 4,200. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, okay. Well, okay. Can't separate out what books and publications are from -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: From the dues. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, but the AACOG number is 3, 056. MS. HARGIS: Let me make sure where that's at. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. But that would be -- I mean, otherwise, I wouldn't know what other dues would be in that -- TAC dues are the only other thing to be in there, 8-1-07 bwk 233 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 maybe. MS. HARGIS: Next year, when we have our notes, we'll have all that in there. JUDGE TINLEY: I know you're still thinking about what you're going to say to the Appraisal District, aren't you? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: After you write the letter, let it cool off a day before you send it. JUDGE TINLEY: We will get an asbestos envelope to transmit that puppy. Commissioner, I'm like you; I think that needs to go under County-sponsored as probably a separate item. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It really should not be lumped up in the -- JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's where it goes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I'm on Collections now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that it on County-sponsored? JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to line out CASA, 442, and put it in AACOG dues. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County-sponsored, again, was which tab? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 26. JUDGE TINLEY: 26. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 26, okay. That's a good 8-1-07 bwk 234 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Got it. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: Are we going to have any more scheduled -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next one is after we get the JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Which I was told a couple of weeks yesterday or the day before, whichever day it was that I was talking to the Chief Appraiser. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can get an update, then, at our next court. JUDGE TINLEY: Collections-slash-Court Compliance. That's under 6. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Number 6. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Since he doesn't offer to give us a trailer any more to move strays around, I think we ought to cut him. (Laughter.) JUDGE TINLEY: At least we could lease it from him, you know, at an attractive rate. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, but we'd have to go chase it down every time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see he's proposing a $2 increase to Assistant. Mighty generous of you. MR. TROLINGER: That's per day. 8-1-07 bwk 235 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ALFORD: I was thinking annually. MS. HYDE: Ouch. JUDGE TINLEY: Projected year-end is greater than what's budgeted. I don't know how we get there. MR. ALFORD: I don't know either. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Looks good. MR. ALFORD: Thank you, gentlemen. I do have one question, though. Y'all kind of brought up a deal -- we're going to request or are requesting a scanner in capital outlay for this year -- or for next year. I think we'll have enough remaining in this year's budget, with a budget amendment, to go ahead and buy it. I'd like to go ahead and try to buy it. Commissioner Williams and I, last year, worked out where my gentleman helps part-time in the clerk's office. They're out of work stations now, so we're kind of not necessarily wasting resources, but we may have some extra resources we could use. If I could go ahead and maybe do a budget amendment and get the scanner ordered, we could get it up maybe a month or two earlier, 'cause if we wait till October 1, if y'all approve it, it goes to January by the time we get it up and working. So, maybe I could do a budget amendment, go ahead and get that going; we can start doing some of the scanning documents. JUDGE TINLEY: We can start scanning that much sooner. MR. ALFORD: Yes. 8-1-07 bwk 236 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Makes sense you'd want to do that. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sounds good to me. MR. ALFORD: I'll come back to y'all later, then. Thank you, gentleman. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We -- I don't think it got on the bottom of y'all's; I just added H.R. at the very bottom, because that one didn't end up on anybody's list. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: H.R.? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Where is that? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What tab is that? JUDGE TINLEY: I'm trying to figure that out. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What tab are you, Ms. Hyde? MS. HYDE: Sir, I have no idea, but I'm at the bottom, I think. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Guess we don't have a tab for you. MS. HYDE: Commissioner Baldwin, I made this just for you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you so much. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Hey, I found it. JUDGE TINLEY: What's it under? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Number 12. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 12. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That was a lucky flip. 8-1-07 bwk 237 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By golly, there it is. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In living color. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's an H.R. rep? MS. HYDE: H.R. representative. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, what -- MS. HYDE: Why do I want one more? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. What are we talking about with that? MS. HYDE: I think it's attached to the next page; there's a listing of why I'm requesting one full-time rep. It's still under half of what is recommended by most local, state, and federal entities, which is a ratio of 1-to-100. So, we should have three, but right now we have 1.5, so really, I'm asking for another one. Things that we do are all done underneath there, but not included on that list are things like -- I talked with Commissioner Oehler a little bit, and I think it's more under the heading of risk management. There's been a lot of risk management done this year, for lack of a better term. Perhaps the Judge has another term for it. But there's been a lot of work that's been a little bit outside of H.R., working with other departments, elected officials, and helping with -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you define that as 25 ~ risk management? 8-1-07 bwk 238 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HYDE: At times. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think she's even done some JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. I know of one day -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you probably need some help. Hopefully, just leave it at that. Don't look so piercing. MS. HYDE: I'm grinning. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did I hear you correctly? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Piercing? Yeah, just staring. I think that a lot of the reason there's been a lot of things that you've been asked to do and you're doing it is because the department's new, and they were things that needed to be done. I'm not sure that I see the need for a full-time person -- additional full-time person. I think a part-time person down there or something like that, but that's just how I see it. I think that there's a -- you know, I'd like to go longer and see -- get everything, 'cause a lot of the work that -- the heavy work that's going on right now, and I think I going on probably for the next six months, is kind of getting us caught up to where we should be, and you've been doing a lot of that since you've been here. 8-1-07 bwk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 239 MS. HYDE: I just ask that y'all keep in mind that there's a lot of training that you've asked me to start next year, and we also have to keep in compliance, so those things take time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could it be done with a part-time person instead of a full-time person? Two part-time people? MS. HYDE: Well, one part-time person needs to be payroll. Payroll right now continues to be almost a full-time job. And, you know, the thing that's not on here that we had talked about four weeks ago, during the first budget, was regarding eDoc versus Incode versus what are we going to look at for getting ourselves in compliance with FLSA? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let me come at it from a little different angle, maybe through the back door. One of the reasons why you're here is because a lot of the things in the H.R. department weren't being done. MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are there any of these in your list that you're asking for to justify another position, are they not now being done? MS. HYDE: No, we're doing them. We're doing them. However, comma, I've got one person who's payroll. And that's why I work weekends, and that's why I work nights. So, that's a lot of work. 8-1-07 bwk 240 1 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: Mr. Trolinger -- right, you and Mr. Trolinger. MS. HYDE: Me and Mr. Trolinger, yeah. We talk on the cell phone throughout the night. MR. TROLINGER: After-hours security for the courthouse. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Something else -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: First thing you know, they're going to want a panic button. JUDGE TINLEY: Are there some things that -- that you're now doing that you don't feel like you're devoting adequate attention to, or some things you think that legitimately fall under your H.R. function under the law? MS. HYDE: Well -- JUDGE TINLEY: That maybe you haven't gotten your teeth sunk into yet? MS. HYDE: FLSA, timekeeping and payroll. Because right now, what we use is a time -- time system which is paper, stray paper. If we are audited, it -- the first fine is $10,000 per employee, per day, up to 30 days. Which -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For what? For violations? MS. HYDE: For violations, yes, sir. We should have seven year's worth of backup documentation, so it'll be another four years before we'll have that. But all that documentation has been noted so that if we get audited, they 8-1-07 bwk 241 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 understand that beginning October 1 is when you received an H.R. person; this is what we've done since then, so that they will at least see that we have tried and attempted to get into compliance. MR. TROLINGER: I talked to the Sheriff a little bit about the software issue, and I've discovered that the City uses the Incode software for their police department personnel, but they have a different structure than the Sheriff. And I believe it's an issue of overtime that -- that makes that difficult. MS. HYDE: Right. MR. TROLINGER: In other words, the City's paying on a regular basis overtime at a certain rate, and the Sheriff is I doing something else. JUDGE TINLEY: Comp time. MR. TROLINGER: I think that's the roadblock on the -- on the software, where we're having to look to a third-party outside of the software we already have. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to my question. Are there any other besides FLSA? MS. HYDE: We were not doing COBRA, we were not ~ doing FMLA. As you're well aware, we were not validating insurance to a major extent. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do you mean by that? MS. HYDE: We overpaid insurance, Mutual of Omaha. 8-1-07 bwk 242 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MS. HYDE: Multiple times for several years. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You've already told us that. MS. HYDE: Those things appeared at first to be much more important -- of much more importance, and trying to get those cost dollars back down, which I think we've all done a good job. Mindy has been a super help. But now this year, we need to go into federal compliance issues, E.E.O.C., safety, FLSA, those type of things. Those are -- those are federal guidelines. Those aren't our guidelines, it's theirs, and we surely don't want any undue attention brought to us. So, with the policy book meetings that we're having, part of that is absolutely right. The Sheriff's Department -- law enforcement is different, but that doesn't mean that the other two-thirds of the county employees cannot do it right. Does that answer your question better? ', JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I just want to know the areas that either, one, you feel like you're not giving enough attention to, because -- MS. HYDE: You're not giving enough to safety, as well. Now, we did focus on three areas, the three places that we're having the most worker's comp injuries, and as you guys are well aware, we've gotten checks back, so we've reduced those. Animal Control has not had one -- knock on wood -- in 120 days. Prior to that, they had one -- they were averaging 8-1-07 bwk 243 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 one every 4.5 days, so that's a huge difference, just in making sure that they have the proper gear, they're using the proper safety modes. Same thing with maintenance. We had several maintenance accidents and injuries, but they've had two safety meetings, but we also were able to get the employees to go and have them talk about what are the issues they're having when they try to do their job? Do they have the right tools? Do they have the right eyewear? You know, do they have hats? Do they have water? Those type of things. You know, employees can be your greatest source of information, and just getting them together -- we've got them together twice now, and our plan is to start having monthly safety meetings and reenact our safety committee, which currently -- that's my fault. I have not asked for new members. But we have two people that are deceased on the committee, and we have one that no longer works here. So, you know, it -- it's not a good committee at this point. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Plus, I believe she wants to implement a computer training program with some of our older computers, set up stations to train employees to know how to operate the system that we have in the courthouse to make it more efficient, and I think that's a -- those are things that I believe have been mentioned that need to be taken care of, that haven't been. And I'm not saying that we have a blank check here, but I think that she does need another employee. 8-1-07 bwk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 244 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, what I've seen, Commissioner, is anything that came down the pike in the last year that didn't clearly fall within some existing department was -- kind of got into the funnel going her direction, and she became the jack of all trades, as it were. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: She's helped me tremendously with my stuff, with the things I'm liaison for. And at least part of the situations, and I think most of them -- I know Animal Control, Environmental Health, and -- and the Ag Barn stuff, we've done some things on that, and I think she's uncovered a little bit of -- of information in the library budget that I missed. MS. HYDE: How about if I say this? It's going to be something you heard earlier this morning, but please don't get angry at me. What about if I -- if I do compromise and say, okay, let's try a part-time person and see how it works? With the understanding that -- you know, I -- I don't like doing a shotgun approach, and that's the biggest problem that I'm having right now. I don't feel like I ever get anything done well. I get it done, but it's not to my expectations or what I would want at times. But -- and if I can't do that, then I request that y'all remember this so that I can come back and say, "Look, I need help." COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think the other side of that is -- I appreciate that offer. I think the other side of 8-1-07 bwk 245 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it is that, just from the standpoint of timing, Jody came on, you know, right during this whole period. Some of these things that you have been doing, in my mind, you know, if she had more experience, she could have done some of that. We need to shift some of that workload to Jody's office. Which we don't want to get her overburdened either, but at the same time, I think she has some time to do some of the things, and a lot -- for example, a lot of the Ag Barn daily stuff. You know, it was easier to let you go ahead with that; you're a little bit familiar with it, but I think a lot of that now can probably be up at Jody's office. So, I think there are some things that you -- I mean, we want you to have the staff to get done what you need to get done in the H.R. department. I just see that there's a -- a lot -- we're so far better off in that whole area than we were before. I think once we get a lot of this kind of done and more into a standard routine, I think your workload will come back some. I think you still will need help down there, but I don't know that you need a full-time person. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Eva, is there any chance that your current part-time employee would go full-time? MS. HYDE: No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: She doesn't want to. MS. HYDE: She wants part-time. She wants 8-1-07 bwk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 246 MS. HYDE: She had thought that it was going to be 24 hours a week, and it's been 32 -- pretty much 32. I work her 32 two weeks and then 24 one week. I'm trying to keep it underneath the budget to show that I -- I was trying to work towards keeping it under the budget this year. But -- and she's done a darn good job. I think that we were all surprised at what we thought she knew versus what she had never been trained on, and how we kind of jump-kicked in there. JUDGE TINLEY: One thing I don't want you to -- to neglect are the safety issues, the worker's comp, the safety -- safety committee and safety training. And if you'll look back, just during this past year, we've got another safety award that's coming -- MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: -- from Texas Association of I Counties. MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: That they just haven't gotten over here with. We had a considerable chunk of money saved on worker's comp this past year on our liability insurance, about $53,000. MS. HYDE: Right. 8-1-07 bwk 247 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: That was a -- that was a direct credit against our premium cost. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No question that we can -- I mean -- JUDGE TINLEY: We'll make that money. MS. HYDE: We'd like to also make sure that this year, if we do implement the wellness program with our insurance, that we can get out and help people understand why it's important. You know, wellness -- wellness, the big two are smoking and weight, and if we can get people to lose five pounds, it decreases by 3 percent what your insurance cost is, just because people don't get as sick or have as many problems, weight-related problems that you don't realize. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You give me credit for the 15 I've lost? MS. HYDE: Sorry? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does he get credit for the 15 he's already lost? MS. HYDE: Not yet. I don't think -- I don't think we can accrue it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to say I'm -- I'm kind on the same page with the Judge. I think that a lot of your effort this year has been diverted -- your attention has been diverted to things that probably don't fall traditionally under the H.R. realm. And my whole role in this 8-1-07 bwk 248 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is to make certain that all these things are done in compliance and totally and completely. As I said earlier, that's why you're here. So, if it's going to take additional help, a half-time person to start with, to get you there, with the refocusing of everybody's efforts, then I can go that way. MS. HYDE: Appreciate it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In your offer, you said that when -- when I see that I need help, y'all don't forget, and I'll come back to you and ask you for a full-time person. Do you see that happening within this next year, in this budget year? Or is that something that we'd talk about next -- MS. HYDE: I'll try very hard not to. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excuse me? MS. HYDE: My goal would be not to. I'll try very hard not to. But, at the same time, I think that it depends. I mean, I'm not going to fudge. I think that it depends on -- do some of our personnel issues in other areas maybe decrease? Because we've had a lot -- we've had a lot of issues this year that has taken a lot of time. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think all those things that you've talked about taking on, you know, like the insurance orientation and the computer classes and all those things are very important, and I see the final product of having better employees and all of that. I understand that. But I -- I think that we need to take baby steps in the thing. I don't 8-1-07 bwk 249 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 think -- and a full-time person is not a gigantic thing by any means, but, you know, being a tight old county, I just think .that we need to ease into it. For you, too. Why are you laughing? MS. HYDE: Absolutely -- no, I'm agreeing. That's why I said let's go part-time. But if I see, when we get into June, May, if I'm -- if I'm to a point where I'm going to need help, I'm going to come start hollering, because I need to be able to focus more on making sure I'm working with Looney on our insurance, making sure I'm working on the safety. Because the 150,000 to 200,000 that we're getting back for worker's comp, that's huge, compared to our payout. ', COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree. MS. HYDE: Our liability this year has decreased so much that it's helped us. And I don't want us -- I don't want next year for you to tell me, "How come you didn't save us that money this year, Ms. Hyde?" COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Well, I'm going to anyway. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Eva, where are we on streamlining payroll? We talked a long time about direct input into payroll from the department heads. Where are we in 23 I that? 24 25 MS. HYDE: We are no further, because the current -- the current system that we have, unfortunately, during 8-1-07 bwk 250 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 implementation, it was not set up, period. So, all you can do is go in and hit the number of hours that somebody works; that's all, so we're still going to have to have paper. If we're going to have paper and the computer, then let's look at what do we do? Do we stay with paper another year and try to get them all on paper, and try to save some money and see if we can get everyone streamlined on paper? Do we go to the additional software at $35,000 to $55,000? I mean, that was something that we had talked about in the first one, which it was 55,000 for eDoc. And it's 35 -- no, I mean it's 35 for eCode -- or Incode. So, I think it's -- MR. TROLINGER: Are you asking me? MS. HYDE: Sure. MR. TROLINGER: We use Incode. MS. HYDE: 'Cause we already have it. MR. TROLINGER: If they don't submit their time, they don't get paid. JUDGE TINLEY: That's novel. MR. TROLINGER: And start the system working. MS. HYDE: Okay, that's a real good idea, but we pay in advance. So, if you pay in advance -- MR. TROLINGER: So, number one, we need to bring Incode back to finish the implementation for the H.R. portion, timekeeping. MS. HYDE: That's right. 8-1-07 bwk 251 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TROLINGER: And then impose a deadline -- MS. HYDE: You're still not going to be able not to pay people. JUDGE TINLEY: How do you suggest that we do a skip so that we're not, quote, paying in advance? MS. HYDE: One week. JUDGE TINLEY: We're not submitting a payroll before -- MS. HYDE: One week. We hold them back one week, all new employees. Right now, we don't hold people back. We don't hold them back at all, so when I do payroll, I'm doing payroll five to six days in advance, before anyone ever works. So what happens is, if people don't turn in their paperwork saying someone's quit, someone's reassigned -- those are the big ones that we've had. Or I like the one where they quit, but then I have to put them back in the system to pay them one more check because of the vacation or whatever else they have, so then we screw up and -- excuse me, we mess up, and we forget and we don't take them out the next time. I mean, it's a real hassle putting them in and putting them out. So, we've done that multiple times, we've caught them. There's been one that we haven't caught; it's cost us $800. The other one we got back 3,200 where somebody didn't tell us for two months. We got the 3,200 back and the 7,600 back, but that's embarrassing. It looks like we have no control. 8-1-07 bwk 252 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, this is not a new discussion. I thought we went through this before. MS. HYDE: We did. JUDGE TINLEY: And the software packages we P.E.; that's prior Eva. MR. TROLINGER: Well, that's -- what we just discussed was the Sheriff's issue with how he pays. And it may be true that the Sheriff may have a higher, you know, initial cost for overtime if he starts using this software, but should he not do that? In order to be in -- MS. HYDE: I think what needs to happen -- I think what needs to happen, if we get the software -- if we get the software and we turn the software on, at 35,000 plus another 3,500, so that your reports could be written like you want them, that will be right at 40,000. Then we -- we need to enforce that people have to use the software, and we hold back one week. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You say hold back one week. What do you mean, "hold back"? MS. HYDE: You hold back one week so that when you do your payroll -- for example, we pay on the 15th and the last of the month. You hold back one week, so that when I pay, I'm paying from the 10th. So that if someone quits or 8-1-07 bwk 253 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 someone's gone, we have something that shows us that those people have actually worked, and that's why we're paying them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we -- I mean, is there something -- are the employees going to get a -- have a period -- a longer period between paychecks or something? I mean -- MS. HYDE: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nothing -- the employees don't see anything differently? MS. HYDE: It would be if someone started, for example, on the 2nd of the month, we would hold back the first five days that they worked, and then they would get paid for five. I mean, the system we have for our part-time workforce, they don't get paid except what they've worked, so when our cutoff is, like, the 23rd of this month, they only get paid through the 23rd. So, we're only paying them for what they actually worked. But the rest of us get paid in advance. JUDGE TINLEY: But to convert to that at some point in time, there's going to have to be a gap of approximately one-half of a payroll? MS. HYDE: Right, if you're going to try to do that. JUDGE TINLEY: Going to hit the fan. MS. HYDE: That's right. Hitting the fan is a nice way to put it. I need to be on vacation. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, you need to be here. MS. HYDE: Now, if we did -- we did a -- a pseudo 8-1-07 bwk 254 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 number. Mindy and I kind of hammered this one out and did a pseudo number. If we did it without having the employees do it -- pay for it, per se, it cost us about $80,000. (Low-voice discussion off the record.) MS. HYDE: 26,000 for the software. MS. HARGIS: Then you need -- MS. HYDE: Then 3,000 for the maintenance? MS. HARGIS: Annual maintenance. And then I haven't ', asked them how much it would cost to do the remainder of the implementation. I was going to -- I really didn't know exactly what all you needed. That's why I wanted you to -- MS. HYDE: If we bought the new software, implementation is included. MR. TROLINGER: Yes, the quote includes installation. But the H.R. module for Incode, is that needed in order to do payroll the way we want to? MS. HARGIS: Well, the things that we need right now to make payroll right, first of all, is she needs them to come back in and put in the codes for vacation and things of that nature that were not implemented, the programming language. That probably can be done, I would think, over the phone through -- with your help, through the mainframe, but they're going to charge us for that, because it didn't get done in the beginning. They had given her a quote of 2,500. I don't II know. Maybe we can get them to back off that if we buy 8-1-07 bwk 255 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 whatever else we did. The H.R., that will get everything on the pay stubs that we need as far as her tracking; you have what you call a time sheet program, which is on everybody's computer, and they would have -- they would all need a password and stuff, and they would go on and everybody can fill it out, and you can put if you worked, you know, a half an hour, whatever. You can put whatever your hours are on that sheet. Then they would need to be approved by their supervisors and so forth. Now, it's not going to have a tracking system like what Eva would -- the -- you know, the ultimate goal would be to say when I came in and I turned my computer on and I got in at 8:02, then it would show that I got in at 8:02. And if I went out to lunch, I would hit my computer again and it would say 12 o'clock, and then when I came back, it would be 1 o'clock, and so forth. MS. HYDE: They're still going to have to do a paper time sheet, and the supervisors can keep it or we can keep it in H.R., but they're still going to have to do a paper time sheet. Because if you're audited and they come in, they want to see that. Not everybody shows 8:00 to 11:00 I worked, 11:00 to 12:00 I'm at lunch, and 12:00 to 5:00 I worked. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you talking about compliance with FLSA? MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. MS. HARGIS: But the H.R. module itself provides for 8-1-07 bwk 256 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 which we really need. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I would like, 'cause I'm getting brain dead at this point trying to figure this out, is either put it on our next agenda, what needs to be done to fix these problems, or do it with our final workshop after we get the numbers. I mean, something clearly needs to be done. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you had the module -- if you had the modules and all that stuff, would you still need the extra person? MS. HYDE: I still need at least a half a person, ', yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, the software part needs to -- we need to get that. MS. HYDE: I agree. I just don't want us to jump in and it not be what we need. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, you need to get what's I best -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- for us. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's, you know -- MR. TROLINGER: And, essentially, $2,500 to complete the setup that was not -- that was not done at implementation. 25 ~ MS. HYDE: Is cheap. 8-1-07 bwk 257 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TROLINGER: And we can start having pay stubs that show vacation, et cetera. That's the first step. MS. HYDE: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see nods there. So, 2,500. That's pretty -- I can certainly live with 2,500. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How long will it take to get that, Mr. Trolinger? MR. TROLINGER: It's a matter of scheduling a person from Software. I don't know what the time frame is. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That can be done with -- is it possible to accomplish it in this budget year? During budget year? MS. HYDE: We can try. It depends on what they're doing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: At least get it installed and ready so that we can hit the next fiscal year running with ', this in place and working. Even if we don't implement it until October 1. MR. TROLINGER: Possibly. JUDGE TINLEY: Where do we need to plug in that I cost? MS. HYDE: I plugged it in where y'all had said to plug it in before, was which down there under Capital Outlay, I put in 35,000 to 55,000, and with big exclamation marks, "Oh, my god!" But John's saying -- I mean, excuse me, 8-1-07 bwk 258 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Hargis is saying 26,000 for software, 3,000 a year for the maintenance, and then $3,500 for report writer. MS. HARGIS: Now, the report writer we don't have to put under H.R. The report writer encompasses our whole -- our whole financial software system, and it -- to be able to convert it into Excel so that we can have better stuff; that -- that we can maybe put in -- you know, spread that line out amongst all the departments, or put it in his operating, 'cause that -- that financial report writer can be used on anything we have on Incode. It can be used on the budgeting part next year, the purchase order part. It's -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's a nondepartmental item. MS. HARGIS: It's a nondepartmental item. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Incode report writer? MS. HARGIS: Uh-huh. JUDGE TINLEY: And that's 3,500? MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under Nondepartmental. MS. HARGIS: Yes, I think so. I don't think that that's really -- JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe just put it under I.T. MS. HARGIS: She shouldn't take the blunt end of that one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or I.T. 8-1-07 bwk 259 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HARGIS: Whichever. MS. HYDE: And John corrected me also. He said under 570, to put -- it would be 26,000, and then under 563, it would be the 2864, plus an additional 3,000. And that one was one I'll kind of argue about later. MR. TROLINGER: We should negotiate that. MS. HYDE: Do you know what I'm saying, Commissioner Letz? JUDGE TINLEY: And the capital outlay, 570, is how I much? MS. HYDE: He said 26 -- John said put 26 in there. MS. HARGIS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are those real numbers, or are you just pulling them out of the air? MS. HARGIS: I just got them a few days ago. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You got them where? You got them from Mr. -- MS. HARGIS: Incode. I think we actually should go to 26, 'cause it was 26 and change. So -- (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you know what this is? JUDGE TINLEY: Puppet? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it's a doggy poo bag. The doggy folks want us to buy doggy poo bags to put in the park to grab ahold of that and put it under -- 8-1-07 bwk 260 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ooh, squishy. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they give you the prices for them. MS. HYDE: Oh, my goodness. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not kidding you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They want the taxpayers to COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My vote is no. JUDGE TINLEY: I recall during the dog park discussion that they were going to be provided at no cost to the county; refuse bags -- the little container, all the refuse bags and so forth. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, this note says if the County doesn't want to do this, maybe the owners will. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to go get a six-pack. Anybody want anything? (Laughter.) AUDIENCE: I'll take a scotch and soda. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we'll take us a break. Kathy's worn out. We'll come back in about 10, 15 minutes. (Budget workshop concluded at 4:07 p.m.) 8-1-07 bwk 261 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF KERR ~ The above and foregoing is a true and complete transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 31st day of October, 2007. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk _`' Q_~ BY : ~~//1 ~~~ Kathy B~lik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter 8-1-07 bwk