1
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
Friday, July 20, 2007
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
I 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
r
O
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
July 20, 2007
PAGE
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:
Organizational Development 5
Step and Grade Schedules 30
Non-Departmental 35
Commissioners' Court 50
Information Technology 75
District Courts 103
District Attorneys 11~#
County Judge 125
County Court 126
--- Adjourned 130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
On Friday, July 20, 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 me call to order this
budget workshop that we've scheduled for this time and date,
Friday, July 20, '07, at 9 a.m. It's a bit past that time
now. The schedule which we have posted has a number of
different elements on it, the first one of which is the
organizational development. I'm not sure what that -- what
all that might entail, but I'll throw it open and let somebody
run with it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: See who stands up?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Judge, my first
question is -- I was thinking about it in the shower this
morning, and in between songs. (Laughter.) And don't we
normally talk about salaries and COLA's and those kinds of
things first? Or am I just all wet?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that comes under
organizational development.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bingo.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Last year we said we were
7-20-07 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
4
going to do that first because of the tremendous impact it
had.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- in that vein, Commissioner,
when I have my discussions one-on-one with the elected
officials and department heads, my standard disclaimer to
those people is basically we work on the middle of the budget,
with the understanding that even that that we work on, if
they're for some reason not satisfied with what I end up with,
they're free to come talk to you about each and every thing
there. But with regard to the top of the budget, the
personnel issues, those matters are left for the full Court's
consideration, with the exception -- I'm willing to discuss
with them at least if they want to -- to do some
', reorganization within their department that would involve
downsizing, and they want to talk about how they're going to
do some reassignments and -- and adjustments in compensation
because of downsizing, certainly, I'm willing to listen to
that. Any -- any compensation issues other than longevity
increases or educational increases that come automatically
under our existing policy, anything other than that is for the
full Court. Additional personnel is for the full Court.
Converting personnel from part-time to full-time, for example,
is for the full Court. Then on the bottom end of the budget,
capital items that they may want for their department, that I
7-20-07 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
5
see as a full Court issue, too. So, the -- the issue of -- of
compensation for employees, other than longevity or
educational increases, certainly is -- is a subject that we
JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely, it would include COLA's.
It would include any salary increases; it would include any
modifications because of job descriptions and that sort of
thing, increases -- merit increases and so forth.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What were the songs you were
singing? You thought about this between songs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry, I can't reveal
that. There's ladies in the room.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On organizational development, I
just kind of thought of something; I think we've done a poor
job of training in areas in the past. Anyway, we just need to
keep in the back of our mind new department heads that we've
kind of put in positions during the year or moved things
around, that we might want to look at some of the training
budgets. The one that comes to mind is Tim Bollier. You
know, we pulled him out of the ranks and made him a supervisor
ruining a department, and haven't given him a lot of tools
really as to how to do some of those things, and we may want
to look at, like, sending him to some seminars and things
7-20-07 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
that, you know, help with that area. 'Cause I think those
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If there is such a thing.
You know, and on the other hand, the -- like, the
Environmental Health people that we've shifted around, they
have -- they have done theirs. I mean, they've gone out and
gone to school and got the certifications that are necessary
and all that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They've gotten that, but they
haven't -- I'm a pretty firm believer that you need to teach
people how to lead a lot, and how to supervise. I don't think
that's just innate in everyone. And I think -- like, for
example, Tish is down there temporarily, or interim-wise
anyway, running that department, and she may be another
candidate that may, you know, be good to go and learn how you
do some supervision a little bit, some techniques and things.
That --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think you're right, and
especially whenever it comes to supervising other personnel
and how to deal with them. You know, how to manage your
departments, you know, actually just the employee side of the
thing, giving people direction and other things like that.
Open Records Act.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And just the law as to what you
7-20-07 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
7
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When you're a supervisor,
there's a lot of things the law prohibits you from being able
to tell people. Maybe some of that can be done in-house.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think some of it is -- I think
you get a different perspective by going to -- you know, I
don't think you have to go to a maintenance supervisor school;
I think you could go to any kind of supervisor school. A
supervisor is a supervisor kind of thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Hyde might be able to
perfect some of that training for us as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think she can help. I mean, I
think she can find it.
MS. HYDE: We have in the budget -- in my budget
that I've presented, there's quite a bit for training, because
there are supervisor leadership schools, there are
transitional schools, and not all of them are very expensive.
Some of the stuff we can do in-house; we can give them things
to read and to practice. But I think that also getting out
for one day in a classroom setting, doing some role-playing,
being able to understand, especially since most of our folks
come from the hourly rank and then are put into a supervisory
role, that's hard too. You know, transferring from being a
worker bee to a supervisor, in the same work group. 'Cause,
7-20-07 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
8
And
so we've got one, if we have the money in the budget, for
September 11th for all of the folks that were newly promoted
that have been requested to go. Whether they go or not, that
will be up to them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- well, that may be.
Sounds like Ms. Hyde's thought about this, which she's paid to
do, and put it in her budget. That way, it doesn't get used
for different types of training; it gets used for the kind of
training that we're talking about. And then she can -- you
know, and that makes sense. That way also, if we make other
shifts during the year, it's not like you have to all of a
sudden cut out their certification-type training and
substitute this. It's more likely -- I think it will be done
if it's in her budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's where it
belongs. And I think the second component to that is, the
Court makes a policy ordering that new supervisors are
required to take this type of training within a certain time
frame after being elevated to that position, or put in an
interim position.
JUDGE TINLEY: What I'm hearing is that, from a
career development standpoint, we want to place that type of
oversight in the -- in the Human Resources Department, budget
7-20-07 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
it through that department, and then as those personnel
modifications or changes or whatever they are come about, of
course, H.R. department's going to know about that and can
begin to schedule whatever is appropriate for career
development for that particular individual or department head.
Is that essentially what I'm hearing?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a great idea.
JUDGE TINLEY: Makes sense. Makes sense.
MS. HYDE: I've asked for John -- and we'd like to
talk to y'all about it. I don't know if this is the right
avenue, but we have surplus computers, and we'd like to take
some of those surplus computers, put them downstairs and start
some C.B.T., computer-based training, so that new employees --
twofold. One, we can help train some of the newer employees
~i or existing employees on things like Excel, Word, Access.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Odyssey.
MS. HYDE: Odyssey, Incode. But also, we'd like to
set up a new-hire orientation so that we can do our E.E.O.
training, our haz. training, our harassment training, our
policy book training, and give them 30 days and allow them to
come down, so that anyone that's new hired for the new year,
you have 30 days, and we'll set up a training schedule. And
then throughout the next 12 months, existing employees can
also come down and be set up, 'cause everyone will know when
7-20-07 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
the training is, and they can sign up to be a part of that, so
that we can get our mandated training done as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a good idea. I
had the occasion, for the last couple of weeks, to spend a
fair amount of time with our new auditor, because once again,
I was the one chosen to write the management discussion for
our audit, and had to go through the numbers, even though it
took me a rather long time to go through it this year. But I
think, from talking with her, she's got some ideas that are
going to take some computer training county-wide, or county --
you know. And I think that would be a great facility to have,
you know, however many computers we need in a classroom-type
setting where they can get trained down there on specific
things that probably need to be done, such as, you know,
purchase order type things, you know, budget input
information, stuff like that. I'm sure she will be bringing .
that to us throughout the year, based on my conversations with
her. So, I think it's -- there is a lot of -- it's a good
idea to do that, especially if we have computers already
in-house.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ms. Hyde, in this
orientation -- I'm just curious about this -- would you
include the insurance program?
MS. HYDE: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or is that a -- you deal with
7-20-07 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
11
people like me, that it's an ongoing thing?
MS. HYDE: Well, I think that the -- we need to
start them out so they understand, that they can understand
what their -- what their insurance is, what it covers, what it
doesn't cover, how they can use it. A solid example is today
we had an employee come in and think that he could use his
card to cover his child, who's not covered under the
insurance, you know. So, there's still a lot of training and
understanding that needs to be got out there. So, yes, sir,
that would be part of it. There'd be a training for insurance
and then the mandatory training that we're not doing
currently.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Well, and then -- back
to the COLA issue. This Court has voted, and by court order
tied the COLA to some index that's out there. A couple of
times, actually. And -- are we still there? Or have we
~' decided that we're going to figure it out on our own? Or --
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, I don't know that we
have mandated that it be tied to any particular index. We
certainly look at a number of different indexes. You got
Department of Labor, Department of Commerce. You got urban,
nonurban, I guess. You've got southwest. You got all sorts
of different indices. I think -- I think we've used those as
a -- as a reference point, and in those cases where we have
made a decision that is equal to one of those indices, I don't
7-20-07 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
12
think it's necessarily an absolute that we've committed
henceforth to be tied to that indices, but rather just use it
as a -- as a reference point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, I think a prio r
Court did mandate. I don't know how tied that is, or even how
important that is. I like what you're saying, basically.
But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What the Judge says, what we
did last year, we used the U.S. Department of Labor statistics
as our guideline, and we also knew what other governmental
entities were doing in the area as well. We factored all that
in and we came to a decision.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't -- I don't think -- or I
think, actually -- I can't recall whether it was last year or
the prior year, one of them was the same number as one of
those indices. But I don't think we, per se, adopted the
indice -- the index, did we?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, we did not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I didn't think so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is really not related, but
one of the things that's always irritated me is when some of
the entities that we fund consistently give a higher than the
-- any number that I can come up with, from the governmental
entity. And I'm thinking of the Appraisal District as number
one on my list; they frequently -- every year that I've been a
7-20-07 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
Commissioner, I think they've outpaced the inflation rate in
their cost-of-living adjustments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're notorious for that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I really think that there's
a -- you know, I'd like to see us come out with a -- maybe on
the next agenda, Jody -- just a policy about how, you know,
just -- we don't like it when they do that. I mean, I think
people should be -- shouldn't go backwards in any given year;
they ought to be tied to an indices, a real one. But to
consistently outpace, you know, when we're funding that, you
know, with tax dollars, which the Appraisal District does
every year. They come out -- and we usually vote against
their budget every year for this very reason, and it does no
good. And it gets very little press, generally, too. I think
that, you know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think they have a
different formula for calculating than we do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Essentially, they take a
look at what other governmental entities are doing, and they
take a look at the indices that the Judge referred to, but
they also -- I'm advised they also crank the unused dollars
from the previous budget year, and they put that into a pool
somehow. So, their formula for doing this is different than
ours, but the end result is what you say.
7-20-07 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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: End result is that they're
higher than -- they may look at the other governments. They
pick the highest around and then add a little bit to that, you
know, and every year -- I mean, one year we may be high, one
year K.I.S.D. may be, or who knows? But they're consistently
high.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: K.I.S.D., the state mandates
a lot of theirs.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- I think I circulated
JUDGE TINLEY: They've taken a new approach this
year. They basically cranked in a -- a COLA, but they created
a merit increase pool, which is in a different budget category
and not allocated directly to salaries of the existing
individuals. But when you -- when you crank that in, the
aggregate increase -- and I'm speaking from recollection, but
I think it's fairly clear -- is approximately 7 percent. I --
I strongly suspect that those -- that pool will be suddenly
dissipated. I think that's the anticipation. Another --
another situation that we have seen consistently is some of
our district offices that we budget for. They plug in
consistently 5 percent salary increases every single year into
their budget.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- give me an example of a
7-20-07 bwk
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: District Judges.
JUDGE TINLEY: District Courts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, courts. Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: District Courts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Auditor's salary.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
8
9
10 budget.
11
12 this Cc
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I said the Auditor's salary.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, the Auditor has a separate
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's set -- it's not set by
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's true. But, you know,
we've got a two-tiered employee structure in this county.
And, you know, let's don't dance around it. Let's call a
spade a spade. We've got employees that work solely for Kerr
County, and then employees that fall under those other
structures that -- you know, that are basically under our same
benefits package, but are compensated differently. And what
they look at in the way of proposed increases historically has
been -- has been better, and I'm not -- I'm not sure that's
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well --
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's interesting about
fair.
7-20-07 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
16
3.3 percent, but if you look at the other sheet over there,
salaries as a whole is listed at 7 percent, so there's a
quantum leap between 3.3 and 7. How they get .there, I'm not
sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: The difference is the pool. They
don't -- they don't allocate that directly. They got it over
here, but I'll make a wager with you right now, Commissioner,
that at the end of the year, all that money is expended.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah. I wouldn't call
that bet, Judge.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They may be overbudgeting to
plan for that for the following year. They will have an
i excess.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, it's -- maybe a
resolution to these people that are doing this that are
affecting the Kerr County taxpayers. It probably won't do any
good, but at least it'll make me feel better.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think we can do something
about the District Courts and those employees up there,
because there are certain statutory duties they have that they
have the right to fund, like the Auditor and the District
Attorneys and things like that, but I don't believe they have
the authority to mandate us to give to the other employees --
they're actually Kerr County employees; they're not employed
7-20-07 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
by District Court. And I believe that it needs to be a policy
that we set whatever increases they're going to be, and they
be standard and even throughout all of our employees, and not
allow anybody to do that. Or if they want to do it, then they
can go about it a different way. But I really believe that it
needs to be consistent from -- through all county employees.
Whatever we decide, that's the way it should be.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's really the point of
what I'm saying.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think it is. I just want to
reiterate that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see two agenda items, then.
One is the entities, and one is Kerr County employees.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll see how it plays out in
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we found some more work for
Ms. Hyde. That'll keep her off the streets at night.
MR. TOMLINSON: Judge, one thing you have to
consider on the district employees is, I don't think, you
know, Kerr County can dictate what the other counties want to
I paY
JUDGE TINLEY: No, that's true. We can only dictate
7-20-07 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
MR. TOMLINSON: So we're talking -- only talking --
MR. TOMLINSON: -- share.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, if Kendall County
wants to make up the difference, that's okay, or whoever.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we're responsible for the Kerr
County taxpayers' funds, and we'll -- I'm going to let Judge
Schroeder worry about his folks down in Kendall County. Yes,
ma'am?
MS. HYDE: Can you clarify my "keep off the street"
thing tonight so that I understand exactly what it was that
I'm looking at to put a policy under?
JUDGE TINLEY: You're looking at new employee
orientation and training.
MS. HYDE: I got that one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Computer training.
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're looking at the other training
for new and existing employees on sexual harassment, --
MS. HYDE: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Open Records, open meetings, all
those mandatory type of subjects that they need. And you're
also in charge of monitoring career development and scheduling
7-20-07 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
training for that.
MS. HYDE: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you want, you can take a stab
at a resolution.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you get the supervisor
training in that, Judge?
', JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's career development, new
managers and supervisors.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have one more question
before you get off into whatever you're fixing to get off
into, and that is the forms that you sent out. You sent me
one to fill out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For my budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you send out the same
form to everyone? Or just --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then we get back
different -- all kinds of different things, one that I can't
read. And I'm wondering --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That won't happen next year, I
don't think. I think the -- in talking with the Auditor,
7-20-07 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
she -- the Auditor has told me that she thinks we need to go
into a -- it's all done computerized, no more handwritten
stuff.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Every department will input into
the computer; the Judge will look at it, then they'll meet.
Obviously, no change in all that. But it's going to all be on
one form and one computer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, and it should be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, as an example, this --
let's see, who is this?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a D.A.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 198th D.A.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That -- I don't know what the
hell he's talking about.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The D.A.'s do their own
I forms.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got -- we've got a few that are
-- that have taken license with how they put their numbers
together.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you for saying that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Diplomatic assessment.
7-20-07 bwk
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: In years past, it wasn't
anywhere -- wasn't on this form; it was more like on a yellow
note pad, I think.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Toilet paper.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think that I would
have been as kind. More like bastardization of the process.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Somewhere, we have some numbers
about the cost-of-living, so why don't we talk about what that
number's going to be?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one?
JUDGE TINLEY: Indices.
', COMMISSIONER LETZ: Didn't Ms. Hyde --
MS. HYDE: There's one to add. I went ahead and put
down the Social Security from 2006, and it was 3.3, so you
could add that one to it. It's about --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Show me what document
~ you're --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was in our box.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is this something we just
~ got?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In our box.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I presume Ms. Hyde put this
7-20-07 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
22
together.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes, I believe she did.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All urban wage earnings, all
that stuff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All kinds of numbers.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, there is -- there is no lack of
indices that are available for you to look at.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ms. Hyde, can you decipher this?
Is this kind of a recommendation that you see, or an average
of looking at a bunch of these that would be applicable to
Kerr County?
MS. HYDE: I looked at the ones that were wide-open,
~I and then I went ahead and I pulled out Social Security,
Government Workers, Government Workers of Southwest. The
D.O.L. website gives you multiples, and -- Department of Labor
website. And it looks like right now, the indice runs
anywhere from 2.7 all the way up to 3.6. It's a wide range,
depending on who you're looking at. The government -- the
government indices are 3.3 and higher right now.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I guess we need to know what
kind of a budgetary impact a 3, 3.5 would have on our overall
bottom line.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think -- I mean -- I mean,
7-20-07 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
what -- the answer is yes, but what we've kind of done in the
past is that that comes first. I mean, we figure out what the
impact is, but that we decide what that is and we do that, and
then everything else falls in place based on that, because our
number one priority should be employees.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a big ticket.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure it is.
', COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That and insurance, the big
tickets, outside of the Sheriff's Department.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- I mean, it is a big
ticket, and that's the reason we've been very, very tight in
our budget for the last several years, because of that.
That's also why I think the Court as a whole, probably led by
the Judge, has been pushing for voluntary staff reductions in
departments, so we can figure out how to improve productivity
and increase salaries when that happens. Because the salary
item is a huge ticket. But, I mean, we have to pick a number
somewhere to start with.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we're going to need to know
the budgetary impact, if y'all can make a calculation for us,
3 point -- three different calculations; 3.3, 3.5, and 3.7.
Will that work? And that'll at least give us some benchmarks
to start with. They ought to be able to calculate those.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Of course, it's going to be
7-20-07 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
with all the rollups.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'd do one at 3.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I'd do a 3.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The numbers, Ms. Hyde said from
2.7 to 3.6. Well, 3.1, 3.2, somewhere in there is where I --
you know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I think I'd start at
I 3.
MS. HARGIS: Start at 3?
JUDGE TINLEY: Start at 3 percent. And, of course,
that's going to include all the rollups with the taxes and the
retirement and so forth that we'll need.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, retirement's separate
anyway.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, but it's based off of -- it's
based off the base salary pool.
MS. HYDE: Base salary.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. So --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We don't have any --
JUDGE TINLEY: Part of the rollup.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We don't have any preliminary
numbers from the Appraisal District, do we? We see all the
stuff in the paper, but we -- have we gotten anything yet?
JUDGE TINLEY: The first numbers we got were from
7-20-07 bwk
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ms. Hargis last week, and they were -- they were not too
comforting. The first estimate indicated that ad valorem tax
revenues were going to be less than what they were last year.
You know, that's how I interpreted those numbers. Maybe --
maybe I missed something.
MS. HARGIS: Well, the preliminary roll that we
received shows 12 million in, and Tommy said we received about
11 last year. So, the preliminary roll with the freeze amount
is about 12 million, but that has to be broken out in each
department. And what I gave you last time was not correct,
because I didn't know where he had the numbers, so if you'll
just throw that out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Throw the previous one out?
MS. HARGIS: That sheet I gave you. Now, the
preliminary sheet we received from the Appraisal District does
show the 12 million. I can't give you the whole number.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay.
MS. HARGIS: And so that shows a slight increase of
about a million, two.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: So -- but, you know, I don't know how
the breakdown is yet, because I'm not familiar with that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, you're talking about
all the media attention given to the value increases. One of
the reports I saw said that a large portion of that increase
7-20-07 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
was in rural land. You know what happened there. The market
value increase is up considerably, but the vast majority of
those, I suspect, are ag values, so the -- the tax impact is
virtually nil.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Exactly.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, lest we think there's a big
bonanza out there, I don't think there is. Not from that
source, at least.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that story that you're
referring to indicated 19 percent, but about -- like, about
50 percent of it is the ag value difference -- differential.
Most everybody -- everybody talks about their evaluation of
their individual property is going up about 10 percent.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, there should be a pretty
big increase. Ag values, rural land values went up, but that
was constant. The ag values were unchanged from last year,
but the -- you know, homes and all the other went up anywhere
from, you know, 7 to 10 percent, so there should be a -- you
know.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There will be some increase,
but also, you -- you get that -- that number comes as kind of
I'~ a -- kind of a foul number, because you have a lot of people
that are over 65, and their taxes are frozen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
7-20-07 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
27
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And their valuation has gone
up tremendously, but it doesn't change the amount of dollars
they're paying in taxes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, they're supposed to
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Their number factors that in
automatically.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They did last year.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's just -- you know,
that's -- what gets reported in the paper includes all of
that -- that increase, I believe. And it doesn't take into
consideration that being taken out.
JUDGE TINLEY: That portion of it where tax -- the
tax amount is frozen.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you've got some additional that
is frozen this year over and above what was frozen last year.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Because of an additional group of
folks turning 65.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Correct me; something like
25 remember.
7-20-07 bwk
700 million last year was frozen?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Something like that, best I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: Judge? Another thing that you
probably want to consider, and I don't -- we don't have a note
-- a handle on the exact amount, but it appears through our
projections as of end of May, our fund balance will erode
about 2 and a half percent below what our policy is. And --
JUDGE TINLEY: Below what?
MR. TOMLINSON: What our policy is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: And we probably need -- we want to
look at it again at the end of July to -- to tweak the number,
make sure that we haven't missed something. So, that is a
consideration, to keep that fund balance within your -- within
your policy. So, right now, through May, it's 23.58 percent.
JUDGE TINLEY: 23.58?
MR. TOMLINSON: 58.
JUDGE TINLEY: 58?
MR. TOMLINSON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that also -- at the end of
last year, it was down to 19.7, I believe. Isn't that right?
MR. TOMLINSON: I believe, yeah, right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It got -- it went way --
JUDGE TINLEY: It dipped just below 20, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, 19.7 percent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the policy, 20?
7-20-07 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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 25 percent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 25?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we were -- we've recovered
Ili from where we were a year ago, but still not back to where
~ we're supposed to be. And that was largely done because of
the whole Juvenile Detention Facility, that -- and we knew
that it was coming. And we knew -- you know, and we hoped and
felt that it was going to recover, and it has, but it's still
not all the way back to where we wanted to have it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, if I'm reading these
preliminary numbers correctly, on the -- on the taxable
values, it -- preliminary numbers show about 860 million is
our freeze taxable values.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's up 160 million from
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Roughly.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's preliminary numbers. That --
if I'm reading them correctly, and I hope that I am.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Appraisal District gets a --
they've got -- values have gone up, and a lot of people are
going to be protesting, but also the other side of that is
that very few people would sell their property for what the
Appraisal District valued it at, home or anything else. I
mean, their -- their -- you know, the numbers are not bad
7-20-07 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
numbers. They may not be -- we're all having to pay them, but
that's what's happened to the real estate around here.
JUDGE TINLEY: The certified tax roll's due at the
end of this month, so we should be -- you know, in another 10
days or so, we should be getting a better handle on where we
are in terms of what our -- what our taxable income is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That has to be certified a month
earlier, correct? June 30?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think that passed. That was
early June. That bill -- they would have had to certify the
tax rolls, like, June the 6th or something. It was -- I don't
think that bill passed.
MS. HARGIS: I don't think so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. That would have been nice, for
planning purposes, to have the certified tax rolls then,
but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seemed pretty optimistic to me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we have anything else on
the organizational development category that we need to thrash
out here? Okay, let's move on to step and grade schedules. I
know last year, there was considerable work done on the step
and grade schedules, and as a result of that, we consolidated
everything under one step and grade schedule for all
7-20-07 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
31
departments; law enforcement, administrative and so forth.
And I thought we'd got everything pretty much where we wanted
to, and it flowed up and down and diagonally and so forth.
Anything we need to do with it this year?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- at this point, no,
i but during the year -- I mean, I think our step and grade is
I! excessively cumbersome and lengthy for an entity like this
county is. I think there are lots of -- you know, and that's
just something Ms. Hyde -- sometime she might want to look at
it, 'cause I think it's -- we have how many different steps
now? If we count --
MS. HYDE: We have a lot, 38.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 38. Does that include all the
MS. HYDE: No. No, it's 38 plus your halves. And
so one of the things I wanted to talk about as we get going is
to look at a min-max type as well. So, I've requested from
everyone job descriptions -- you know, current job
descriptions. I think the last job descriptions were updated
in 2000, and that's been a little bit slow going, 'cause it's
budget time; a lot of things are going on. But what we'd like
to do is set things up like I've done with Commissioner
Oehler. When you're looking at folks, especially -- 'cause
you want to train if possible from within to help employees be
successful, then you look at maybe the grades. You have a
7-20-07 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
25
min -- you know, minimum, a midpoint, and then a max, so that
you know where you stand within that grade and what those jobs
can be. Because a lot of folks feel like if they learn
something new or they add something to their job, then they
deserve a raise. And what we're trying to do is make sure
that when they're trained, they understand that here's where
you start and this is where we need you to finish for this
grade, which is not the most popular discussion at times.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, at this point, I
I
~I, don't have anything to add, but I think we need to look at it
during the year.
li COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All the changes we made have
worked successfully during the year? All the changes that
I were made?
MS. HYDE: So far.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not necessarily? Not
MS. HYDE: Sort of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sort of.
MS. HYDE: There's less confusion. We've posted the
step and grade so people know. We've posted the position
schedule so they know where they're supposed to be, and that's
helped a lot. A lot of people didn't know how much money they
were supposed to make, period, so that's helped with a lot of
the confusion.
7-20-07 bwk
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with Commissioner
Letz; we need to simplify it if at all possible.
MS. HYDE: We've talked about the time --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the very reason you just
MS. HYDE: We've talked about the timekeeping, and
the County Attorney is looking at the contracts before we can
put it on the agenda to present so that we have a timekeeping
file, 'cause currently that's not available. Everything is
paper. It's very cumbersome, but that would be during the
Commissioners meetings that we can present and show you what
we're looking at.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hyde, do you -- with our existing
compensation structure, what we're actually paying our people
and all the way across the scab, do you see a way that we can
feasibly not reinvent the wheel or upset the apple cart and
simplify that step and grade schedule?
MS. HYDE: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. That's all I
needed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have an H.R. software
package that's unique for H.R.?
MS. HYDE: There's several out there, but we haven't
7-20-07 bwk
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they just authorized the director of AACOG to purchase one,
and she reviewed many of them. You know, I'll give you that
information, because it looked like it's very inclusive, very
comprehensive, and it ties everything together all the way
through accounting, payroll, the whole bit. I have that; I'll
give it to you.
MS. HYDE: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we through with that one?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, one more.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One more step. When you talk
', about adjusting the step and grade during the year, you're
talking about the budget year that we're in? I mean, if we're
going -- in my mind, if we're going to do -- make any changes
to that, we need to do it before the new budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you do it -- make it
effective the first of next budget year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. That's what you're
talking about, --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- "during the year"?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: During the year. You figure it
out during the year, and then you make it effective the
following year. 'Cause, yeah, you do it during the budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Between now and October 1?
7-20-07 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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you make it --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- October 1, '09?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be effective --
hopefully, a new system effective October 1, '08.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
', JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that it? Let's move on to
Nondepartmental. You're going to come in under Tab 2. You
should, I believe. The Auditor has provided us with some
figures that I've asked for to -- a lot of them are insurance
items, and I appreciate you getting -- y'all getting this
together for me.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, we used to have a
category called Water Development.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's in there someplace; I
saw it this morning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought it was in here, too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May be under Commissioners
Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's under Commissioners
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wasn't too much in it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, County Water Rights.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, there it is.
7-20-07 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
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a different item.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That item is the -- I believe is
Road and Bridge's -- or Parks that we pump out the water.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we had a different one
for -- actually, I think it was Water Development, whatever we
called it. We didn't fund it, I don't think, the last two
years, so it may have dropped off. Tommy, do you recall the
water development? Was it under Nondepartmental? We had it
for a couple years.
MR. TOMLINSON: Region J?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's where it was used in the
past. But we didn't fund it, I don't think, the last two
years, so it may have just dropped off.
MR. TOMLINSON: What may have happened, this -- this
printout may have omitted a line item that we haven't used.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's not an active item. We have
to look in the system to see if it's still there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: It's called Water Development?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Water Development, I think, is
what we used to call it. And it was done to cover the
7-20-07 bwk
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
administrative costs of Region J. We funded it; the City of
I Kerrville funded it. But the -- the thought is -- I visited
Point, you know, sewer project type issue, and also the
memorandum of understanding that the County has with Guadalupe
Blanco River Authority, I spent quite a bit of time last year,
early in the year, working in a lot of meetings with Bill West
with G.B.R.A. trying to firm up that MOU. And what -- and
U.G.R.A. participated in a lot of those meetings. And what we
found was -- what I found was you need an attorney on your
side in those discussions, and it may be the same one that
U.G.R.A. uses. I dealt with them, and I think we ought to put
some money here, probably $2,500, $3,000, so we can really try
to firm that up. I'm very worried about Bill West retiring
and that MOU not being fulfilled. And also, a recent article
I've read that -- that water pool that we're -- that we're --
our MOU comes out of, there's only about 3,000 to 4,000
acre-feet that's not committed. The cities around the north
side of San Antonio especially have been clamoring to come up
and buy that Canyon Lake water, and I want to make sure that
that water is -- is firmed up for Kerr County, the 3,000
22 I acre-feet.
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. And
there's a corollary issue that we talked about, and that has
to do with whether or not U.G.R.A. develops a water component
7-20-07 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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And how that might tie in
with Kendall County's need, and them -- and U.G.R.A. treating
water, for example, in Center Point and piping it down. That
would be an upstream diversion, based on what they can do down
there. But there are legal issues; we need to help sort those
out. We need to sort them out as it applies to us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And -- anyway, I just --
I've learned a lot, so I think -- I don't think it's a huge
amount of money. Tony Corbett is who U.G.R.A. uses. He's
very good, but there's a lot of very good water attorneys.
There may be someone else U.G.R.A. is using. But I think that
it's a -- a goal of mine is to -- to is to get that memorandum
of understanding converted to something firmer than it
currently is, and I think it will take some expertise on the
legal side to get that done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ed McCarthy's another good
~ one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ed McCarthy's another good one.
There's quite a few very good ones, most of them in Austin.
The guy who's chairman of one of the regions is excellent. I
can't think of his name. Anyway, there's several.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be under
25 I Commissioners Court?
7-20-07 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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Nondepartmental is where
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not here any more. I think
it got probably dropped out 'cause it wasn't funded the last
two years because Region J, when it originally was put in
there, didn't need it. We don't spend much money on
administrative costs. We still have about 13,000 in the
budget, which is enough to get us through the next two-year
cycle. So, I don't think --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, you have a line here,
County Water Rights.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That -- that, I believe, goes to
Road and Bridge and Parks, water that comes out of the
Guadalupe River.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, it does. You're right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: We can create a 406 or 408 or
something right under there and put in Water Development,
or --
MR. TOMLINSON: We have a note on it. We might find
it, or it may be in the system already. It just didn't print
on this -- on this printout.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- okay.
7-20-07 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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's a good idea.
JUDGE TINLEY: And Water Development --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $3,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under Nondepartmental?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. TROLINGER: Sorry, was that all on
Nondepartmental, Judge Tinley?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. TROLINGER: Was that the end of Nondepartmental?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, no, no. We're --
MR. TROLINGER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're just now getting --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was the first thing on
Nondepartmental.
MR. TROLINGER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't leave, though. You could
miss it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, under Commissioners
Court, I saw a line, I think -- yeah, the Professional
Services. Somewhere. I thought I did.
JUDGE TINLEY: 486.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. It could come out of
I that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was going to say, that used
7-20-07 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
to be all, you know, legal fees, engineering fees,
professional services.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Might be a better way to do it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have to figure out a way
to earmark it to make sure it stays there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we remember during the
year. I mean, that way, if it ended up being $3,010 or -- you
know, you don't have to do a budget amendment. Or if it comes
in less -- you know, that's probably a better spot to put it.
I would agree with that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I actually increased that a little
bit because of increased costs that we're going to have in
Professional Services. So, do you want to just take it out of
the Nondepartmental?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Want to add another three
onto that number that the Judge wrote?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know what --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's not the Judge's
handwriting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Somebody's handwriting.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's mine.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We spent 19,8 this year,
year-to-date?
7-20-07 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
42
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. And, I've increased that to
25. Do we need to increase it some more?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you increased it for
reasons that you thought about before we started talking about
water development.
JUDGE TINLEY: I just increased it generally because
of the continuing need for professional services that -- that
we have, and I thought that was an appropriate increase to put
on there.
JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't have the water thing
specifically in mind. Let's put 28 there. We can always come
back to change that later. All right, got 'er done. Okay.
Anything else in Nondepartmental that --
MR. TROLINGER: Judge Tinley, I do have a line item.
564 where you've indicated mainframe maintenance to move to
the I.T. budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. TROLINGER: That can actually be zeroed, and no
-- no money needs to be transferred to I.T. We now have a
five-year maintenance, basically, that's paid for as part of
the Odyssey/Incode/Orion project.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
25 ~ MR. TROLINGER: So zero dollars need to be budgeted.
7-20-07 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
43
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll just draw a line there.
MR. TROLINGER: But I have a contingency, and the
contingency is because of the situation with voter
registration software. We need to have a contingency to
replace that server at $16,500. I have not put it in any
budget line item, but I -- I don't believe we'll have a
decision -- or we won't know the status of the state system
until after October. It'll be closer to January before we
know whether or not the state system will be adequate, and if
it is not, we may have to continue --
JUDGE TINLEY: We're speaking of the new and
improved and highly touted state system? Is that the one
we're speaking of?
MR. TROLINGER: The TEAM, the state-provided voter
registration.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The one that doesn't work right
now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Everybody in the state says
it doesn't work, so --
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: It doesn't work for those that have
Odyssey, I think is the problem. Isn't that the issue?
MR. TROLINGER: It's not related to Odyssey at all.
It's a separate -- the state was going to provide a
replacement for our Legacy, which is what we're calling the
7-20-07 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
44
mainframe, and right now we continue to do voter registration
I and jury on that. All the users will be off of the mainframe
as of the end of this fiscal year, with the exception of voter
and jury. So, if we need to continue -- if we need to
continue to support those products, we will need to replace
that server next year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be in your budget
or the Nondepartmental?
MR. TROLINGER: Well, that's why I'm bringing it up
for Nondepartmental. In the past, that contingency had been
placed in Nondepartmental, and I just wanted to make sure we
didn't overlook that before we moved on. I don't believe it
needs to be in Nondepartmental.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd rather see all --
personally, I'd rather see all I.T.-related matters
consolidated into the I.T. budget. You can put an identifier
on them, but that's -- that's where they belong, to my view.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we -- some of these
contingency funds we put in this budget so that the Court had,
you know, I guess, --
JUDGE TINLEY: Control.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- control over this department.
And rather than have every department put contingencies in, we
did it one time, knowing that every department is going to
25 I need it.
7-20-07 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
MR. TROLINGER: Well, let me give you a percentage
chance. There's a 50-50 shot that we'll have to replace that
machine at $16,500.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's because the State's -- the
state system is a flop, huh?
MR. TROLINGER: Essentially, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Kind of like the Hertz commercial.
Not exactly, huh?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would --
MR. TROLINGER: It's not the entire reason, but it's
the majority of the reason for retaining -- for replacing the
server. But if that does not come to fruition, we'll have a
large amount of money in the I.T. budget, which I don't -- I
don't know if that would be fair. I don't know if it would be
-- if it would be more conducive to keep it in
Nondepartmental. That way, if it becomes free -- if we make a
decision in April 2008, then that money's freed up for
~ Nondepartmental use.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather keep one contingency
under Nondepartmental. Then we can put it into whatever
department needs it, as needed. I think that number may be
low, thinking -- or knowing we have one single 16,000 hit that
we need to budget for. Increase it to --
JUDGE TINLEY: 50?
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: Increase -- basically, you
7-20-07 bwk
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
increased it 10 already. Go up to 40? That would be --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, again, back on the same
issue that we just came off of, Bill was saying you had
something in your mind when you added the 10.
', JUDGE TINLEY: Here's what I had in mind. We
i
budgeted about 25. We've already spent that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: And more. So, obviously, 25 wasn't
~ enough.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: So that's why I increased it
generally to 35.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you're going to have to
almost tack on the 16.
JUDGE TINLEY: Run it to 50.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go to 50.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, let me ask you a
question. What are the little asterisks?
JUDGE TINLEY: Those are the numbers that I need
from the Auditor's office.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
JUDGE TINLEY: Primarily on the insurance items,
they're coded there at the tail end.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
7-20-07 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
JUDGE TINLEY: And we got those numbers. Did you
get a copy of this sheet?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Today, wasn't it?
JUDGE TINLEY: It was probably right next to the
I D.A.'s.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Looks kind of like it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I looked at that one and said forget
it. Okay, anything else on the Nondepartmental?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Hyde has her hand up.
MS. HYDE: Would Nondepartmental also include, like,'
for the I.T. portion, for -- if we decided, yes, we wanted an
H.R.I.S. system as well?
JUDGE TINLEY: Wanted an H.R. --
MS. HYDE: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Human Resources information
system unique to that department's needs?
MS. HYDE: Or would that go into --
JUDGE TINLEY: That would be in yours.
MS. HYDE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably go in your budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that would be specifically --
MS. HYDE: Even though it's utilized for every
single county employee?
7-20-07 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
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, but it's utilized through your
department.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Everything you do is for
every --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's unique, only for your
department. It's designed for your department.
MS. HYDE: Right. I just wanted to make sure -- the
Sheriff was concerned that we would allocate out, and so
that's -- I just wanted to make sure that I understood it
right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Ready to go --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we done talking about
the sheet here that you just looked up? The one we got that
had some of these numbers on it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All of the numbers that you
see there that are not highlighted were ones that were already
plugged into the Nondepartmental.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question of the
Auditor. Jeannie, you developed this sheet, I think?
MS. HARGIS: Yeah. This is just a balancing sheet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is 497, Statement of
Facts? What is that? Under -- $25,000 item. What is that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's under Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Says it's under
Commissioners Court.
7-20-07 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
JUDGE TINLEY: That's going to relate to one of the
court issues. We don't have a 497 under Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't think so. That's
why I questioned it.
JUDGE TINLEY: We don't have a 497 under
Nondepartmental.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: County Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, we do have it in County Court
budget. We have it in the various District Court budgets and
the County Court at Law budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: But, you know, that's that 25 out of
I there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it needs to be in a
different column, then.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh?
MS. HARGIS: Just a second. It was under County
Court, Statement of Facts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Needs to go over a column.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, but not 25,000.
MS. HARGIS: No, it was --
JUDGE TINLEY: A hundred bucks.
MS. HARGIS: -- a hundred bucks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a big difference
7-20-07 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
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. That's my budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Y'all let me have the
I difference?
MS. HARGIS: I think I must have that on the wrong
line item. Hang on a second.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a big increase, too. Haven't
used anything this past year. Okay. We're at Commissioners
Court now. When you fish out the red herring, you'll note on
out there in the left margin, on telephones, I mentioned cell
phones. We've talked about this thing for a while, about --
we've got a number of different department budgets that --
that have cell phones, and they're handled in different ways.
We need to put -- put that issue to bed, and we need to come _
up with a policy and determine who has a need, and what that
allowance is going to be. And my thinking is, we just make a.
flat dollar monthly allowance and be done with it. I don't
know. You got any other ideas?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's -- I think
that's a good approach to it. And then, of course, you have
to find who that flat amount goes to and for what reasons.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the flat amount's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Per month for cell phone
7-20-07 bwk
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do you have?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm showing 40. I think that's
pretty much the base charge --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- under most plans that I've seen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a little bit high.
I mean, I think that there are very few departments that have
to have cell phones. I think they're used by a lot, and
probably make productivity a little better. I'd be one to go:
in that category, but I don't have to use it. I certainly do
~, use it a lot.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the one that keeps
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I think they probably have
a need, because they get called out. But, I mean, I like
having a policy. I think we just need to, you know, do two
steps. I think 40 is probably not way out of line; 30, 40,
somewhere in there. I'd probably say 30, but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think the basic
service plan is, what, 39.95 or something like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a basic service plan.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Through Five Star.
7-20-07 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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, 40, that's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think most of them -- now, you got
some of these new players that are coming in that are cheaper
maybe, but your -- your major providers, I think --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When you give an allowance,
MS. HYDE: Y'all had asked me a while back to look
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MS. HYDE: And I've talked to the new Auditor about
it as well, because currently we don't -- currently we don't
have a line item for cell phones. It all goes into
Communications. So, she says we can put a sub-line so that we
can see the cell phones. But I also checked the plans, 'cause
we've got several different folks on different plans. The
Sheriff's Department is all under one plan, and he receives
one bill, so he knows what all his people have done and how
much it is. It's a really good plan. I wouldn't want to
touch his plan, because it works real well for them, and I
think that y'all agree that they need those. On the other
employees, I've been trying to talk to Five Star about, can we
consolidate all the other plans similar to what the Sheriff
has? So that we have one bill; it gives us, by department,
the bill, and then we can see how much it is, and it's
7-20-07 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
basically $199 for the first phone, 9.95 for every additional
phone. So, how many cell phones do we actually have?
Somewhere between, depending on who you talk to, 50 and 100,
other than the Sheriff's Department. Because what -- then
some of them are personal phones where people are just getting
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's part of what
we need to take a look at.
MS. HYDE: And there's no way to track that; at
least I haven't been able to find the information or get the
information.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't like the personal phone
MS. HYDE: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You either give an allowance or
you get a county phone.
MS. HYDE: I think that they ought to -- yeah,
absolutely. .
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it better be used for county
purposes, and keep track.
MS. HYDE: If they go over -- the policy also states
that if you go over, then you pay for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not just on the going over part
of it, but if it's being used for county purposes and you go
25 ~ over, that's -- you know, that could happen, and I understand
7-20-07 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
MS. HYDE: Right, that's what we're talking about.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the simpler way to go --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Allowance is certainly easier.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- is an allowance, because
otherwise, if you're going to issue somebody a county phone,
they're packing around two different phones. I know what I'd
do; I'd leave the county phone sitting on the dresser most of
the time, probably. I don't want to pack but one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's -- you know, if
it's important enough to use to get reimbursed for their
phone, they'll pack a county phone. Those that don't, won't.
And I would agree with you, I wouldn't pack a county phone.
I'd just absorb it into the way I'm a Commissioner; it comes
out of my salary. If I don't want to do it that way, I can
get a county phone.
JUDGE TINLEY: Just like we do now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just like I do now; I don't get
reimbursed for	it. I	don't	ever get	-- put in	a reimbursement
for any reason.	That'	s part	of my --	I figure	that's -- part
of my salary pays for that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree, and I'm with you.
7-20-07 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
My question is, you said that there's a possibility of 100
phones out there outside the Sheriff's Office?
MS. HYDE: Mm-hmm. Because you've got
reimbursements, you've got people that use private cells. I
don't charge the county for my cell phone use. I don't think
John charges the county for his cell phone use.
MR. TROLINGER: No, I don't.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nether do I. Neither does
anybody else.
MS. HYDE: So that's our choice. We feel like we're
compensated.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's counting part of the
MS. HYDE: Well, yeah, because if you turn around --
and some people are going to turn around and say, "Fine, I
want a phone."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I see what you're
saying.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I'd rather almost go
with a -- if you want to get reimbursed, you get a county
phone and just use it for county purposes only. If you don't,
it comes out of your salary. No more cell phone reimbursement
is what I'm saying. Here's your option. You can get -- if
J.P.'s want it, and they're probably the ones that need it
'cause of when they're on call, they get a county phone. They
7-20-07 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
can carry two phones. If they don't want to do that, they can
absorb it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. I'd rather
give them an allowance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're going to spend a
bunch more money if we do allowances. I'm not in favor of
spending more money.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it's going to cost. Sure will.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Everyone -- if we do an
allowance, well, then, all five of us are going to sign up for
it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, the Court's going to
decide who you're going to give the allowance to.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Seems to me it'd be a
nightmare to try to keep up with who has what, who gets
reimbursement and all that. You know, I -- I just don't
believe we need to give them anything, actually. I mean, cell
phone service is not that expensive.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they're getting reimbursed
now, different -- all different rates, different things, and
some of them -- some of the J.P.'s, their bills are 150, 160 a
month that we're reimbursing them.
MS. HYDE: And some of our --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's questionable, in my mind.
MS. HYDE: Some of our service folks -- some of our
7-20-07 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
service folks' personal cell phones, especially recently, have
just been astronomical. Where, you know, it was never an
issue before, but here lately, evidently the phone number got
out. Everyone uses that phone number, so it's gone over their
minutes, which they typically didn't do, so you got $300 and
$400 cell phone bills. Which -- you know, because typically a
300-minute plan was fine. I'm using Animal Control, you know.
Animal Control gets lots of calls on the weekends and nights,
so when it went over, you're totally surprised. There's not a
way to, you know, look at your minutes, especially for
incoming, so she got popped with a huge bill. So, she turned
that cell phone off so that she can now use it as a county
only, and that's what it should have been, you know, before.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, personally, I think we
ought to go to one -- do like the Sheriff has done for the
rest of the county. You get a county phone. If you want --
want it, then you get -- and it's going to only be used for
county purposes. And someone like myself, I won't sign up for
that phone, 'cause I don't want to carry two. But someone
like Maintenance, you know, if I was them, I would sign up.
I'd carry it, you know, 'cause --
MS. HYDE: They've got a phone now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know they have one now.
JUDGE TINLEY:	Okay.	Well,	what else we got on --
COMMISSIONER	OEHLER:	I don'	t want one.
7-20-07 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
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Commissioners Court budget?
MS. HARGIS: Judge, can we go back to the 25,000?
That 25,000 was for professional fees. I left out a line
item, so that you need to leave that in.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
MS. HARGIS: The 25,000 that you had under
Commissioners Court is for professional fees.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. We just increased that to 28,
though. We rolled the water development professional fees
into that.
MS. HARGIS: Okay, but that's what that 25,000 is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why it was --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was mistitled. It's not
Statement of Facts.
MS. HARGIS: I just left out the Professional line
item it's supposed to be.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. But I show that as 28,000 for
Professional.
MS. HARGIS: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what do you want to do with
cell phones?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you're on the right
track. If you need a county phone, get a county phone. I
7-20-07 bwk
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mean, I'm with Bruce. I don't want one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Neither do I.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If they call me, I tell them
to call Bill.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know you do. That's
what's running my numbers up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to go under one
plan, and that means people are going to have to change. Some
of the J.P.'s will have to get -- they'll be issued a new
phone that's for county business, and -- you know, if they
want it. If they don't, they can not use it. But I think
it's ridiculous for us to be reimbursing in the neighborhood
of $150, $160 a month for cell phone use, because there's not
-- you know, that's just not -- not right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I use my personal cell phone
for county business.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So do I.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And it's also posted on --
I've got it on my voicemail. If people call in, they get my
cell number and my home number, so I use it constantly for
county business, but I don't ask for reimbursement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Part of your choice and the way
you want to do business.
7-20-07 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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Like me and the rest of us up
here, I think. But I don't -- I mean, I don't -- I don't have
a problem with giving employees or other elected officials the
option of getting a county phone. If they choose not to, that
way -- I mean, I think the J.P.'s need to have cell phones.
They need to be accessible, especially their one weekend a
month when they're the ones on call. And if they want to use
a county phone, I have no problem issuing a county phone, but
there's no more -- there's just one centralized -- one bill,
one plan, and it's to be used for county business only.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That may be -- that may be the
easiest.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rather than give everybody an
allowance that's just going to cost, you know, money.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it costs money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I only have one
other --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- possible here under
ers Court. We talk about out-of-county mileage.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're at the six months
7-20-07 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
marker here, and we've already spent 9 of the 12. I see
you upped it to 15, but the question is, is that going to
j get us --
JUDGE TINLEY: Whether that's going to be adequate?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, based on fuel costs and
so forth. 18 might be closer.
MS. HARGIS: What line item were you on?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 475.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- with 401 under
Commissioners Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: 475.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 475.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill takes all that money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: He's not going to get it all.
I'm -- I'll do one.
JUDGE TINLEY: The Judge gets some.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: He does get the bulk of it, I
I think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But he also has to put up with
AACOG to get it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two trips to San Antonio
every month.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's okay, keep doing it.
7-20-07 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
62
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You keep doing it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of what I thin k
about Environmental Health and you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did you want to increase
it to?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 18. From 15 to 18.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bill, all I can say is, "Toyota: You
asked for it; you got it."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on that
particular line?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anything else?
MS. HYDE: Why do we use the -- why do we use the
web site for mileage reimbursement?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why do we what?
MS. HYDE: Use the web site for mileage
reimbursement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We do.
JUDGE TINLEY: State Comptroller, sure. That's the
benchmark.
MS. HYDE: What about if you have to go across town
back and forth to continue the business?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is for out-of-county,
I this line.
MS. HYDE: San Antone.
7-20-07 bwk
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or Austin.
MS. HYDE: Or Austin, or Dallas or wherever you're
going. But if you have to go back and forth -- I mean, y'all
do it too. I'm just asking so I kind of understand, 'cause I
get asked too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Used to be, a long time ago,
almost every elected official had an allowance for mileage,
and we just rolled it in the salary, because it was part of
salary anyway. It was just -- so it was just -- the way I
think the Court looks at it now is that it's in your salary.
And we made an adjustment several years ago, because of the
increased driving costs, to salaries. I think it was about
two years ago, we increased it a little bit or something.
MS. HYDE: Okay. So, we increased salaries on some
officials or all officials for mileage?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
18
19 Court.
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HYDE: Or department heads?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The ones under Commissioners
MS. HYDE: If the Court feels that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's only elected
officials that really rolled it into their salaries. And we
might look at that and say, because fuel costs have gone up,
maybe it's appropriate this year to increase all elected
officials' salary the COLA plus $300 for the mileage
7-20-07 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
component. I mean, that's how it would be done or has been
done in the past.
MS. HYDE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But we have -- if you're
going to a conference, for example, in Dallas, and the
conference line item is part of your budget, that travel
expense would go to that line item for that conference.
MS. HYDE: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Her request goes, I think, to -- if
you take the Comptroller's mileage from here to Austin and
back, it's going to give you "X" number of miles. What about
if you do 35 miles running around all over Austin as part of
that?
MS. UECKER: You lose it.
JUDGE TINLEY: So sorry, yeah.
MS. HYDE: Yeah, because the reason why I was asking
is that we've had some training for people to go get
certified, so they went to Dallas -- went to Grapevine. Okay,
so they go to Grapevine, and then they have to travel 40 miles
one way to go to the conference, because we put them out there
'cause it's $60 cheaper on the hotels. So, really, it ends up
being a wash, unless you take your personal vehicle. So, you
know, 40 times five, 200 extra miles.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see what you're saying.
25 ~ MS. HYDE: So, I just wondered, and that was a
7-20-07 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
question that was asked to me, and I was like, "No, what from
what I understand, we use the state Comptroller's from here to
there and back, that's it."
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you know, if you're going from
-- if there's a component going to Grapevine to Dallas, you
might want to do a round-trip to that every day while they're
there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: To add on top of it. But you go to
MS. HYDE: Okay. So, they can do that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. Sure.
MS. HYDE: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: But if they're within the same city,
you eat it.
MS. HYDE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's the way it's done
with state employees, everybody.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think so, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One thing you might add to your
list, Ms. Hyde, a year or so ago, we looked at and then we
never did anything about the issue of employees using --
running around town, or Kerr County primarily, using personal
vehicles for county business, and the insurance component of
that.
7-20-07 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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How it relates. We never really
did anything.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, we did.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, we did.
JUDGE TINLEY: Nondepartmental, 220.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you've got certain --
you've got to put in an invoice for that amount of insurance.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It applies -- basically, it
applied more to you and me, because we run around in our
trucks. Mine is, like, 220 a year or something to add that
cost of liability for using my truck almost exclusively for
county business.
JUDGE TINLEY: 220, I think, mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or the County Clerk going to
the bank every day, or the Treasurer going to the bank every
day.
MS. HYDE: So, they're supposed to be on the county.
car insurance?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that Commissioners Court
or is that Nondepartmental?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, that's Nondepartmental.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nondepartmental.
7-20-07 bwk
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Auto insurance. Well, that 600
probably isn't enough. If it's being used -- I mean, it
probably needs to be used. Because, as I understand it, if --
you know, if I'm on county business and I don't let my
insurance company know that, and I'm using my personal truck
and have an accident, there's an issue as to whether it's
covered, because my personal vehicle is not used for -- well,
mine is, but most people's is not. The policies aren't
written for business use. It's written for --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- to and from work.
JUDGE TINLEY: What this does is allows you to
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A rider.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- put an endorsement on your policy,
your personal policy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: And for --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then the County reimburses that
premium.
doing it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way I've been
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think we need to probably
educate the employees more, then, 'cause that needs to be
done.
7-20-07 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
MS. HYDE: 'Cause no one is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah -- well, he is. That's why
it was $280 this year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
MS. HYDE: Where does that come out of payroll,
I then?
MR. TOMLINSON: Doesn't come out of payroll.
MS. HYDE: Do it out of A.P.?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's a reimbursement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Reimbursement. It's up to the
employee to adjust their policy and then bring the cost back
and get reimbursed.
MR. TOMLINSON: Commissioner, there is an issue -- I
mean, from a personnel standpoint, in this training you're
talking about, it might be of some value to inform people that
use their personal vehicle for county business that if -- if
you don't tell your underwriter that you're using your vehicle
for personal -- for business use, then you might have an issue
if you ever had an accident.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right.
MR. TOMLINSON: Because -- because the premium
difference is -- I mean, they arrive at the premium difference
because it is used partially for -- for county business.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. That's why we
established this line item.
7-20-07 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
69
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. But I don't -- maybe --
maybe a lot of people don't know that, and so they may -- they
may be telling their underwriter one thing, and in reality
they're doing something else.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if they end up in an
accident on county business, then -- in that vehicle, they're
going to really have a problem.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because they're not going to
be covered.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's exactly what I'm talking
MS. HYDE: We have a lot. We have a lot of
employees that do, and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause we looked at the option.
The other option was to get a county -- a pool of County-owned
vehicles that people could use, and that was just not a
realistic option. I mean, this was a much better option for
everybody.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
MS. UECKER: So, I need to then talk to my insurance
person, 'cause in reality, I use my vehicle more for county
business than I do personal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think almost every elected
official and some employees use their -- you know, some of the
7-20-07 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
70
MS. DECKER: Well, I try do that, you know, for that
reason, so they're not putting the mileage on their vehicles.
But I use mine more for county business than I do personal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So your insurance agents know,
and that differential, the County will reimburse you.
MS. HYDE: A hundred percent? Or up to a certain --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The amount of liability,
additional liability.
JUDGE TINLEY: Tommy, we -- we solved one of these
problems of having a whole bunch of multiple bonds and
multiple policies by getting -- by getting that one single
coverage, loss coverage on all county employees here recently.
Did we investigate getting a rider on our liability policy --
on our county vehicle liability policy that would cover
non-owned automobiles; i.e., various employee-owned
automobiles, while --
', MR. TOMLINSON: I think we did, but we got a "no"
answer, I think. But I'm -- I don't --
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we confirm that? Because,
obviously, the simplest way to do it would be to get one
endorsement on our liability -- our vehicle liability policy
7-20-07 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
71
that would cover not only our own vehicles, but non-owned
vehicles when operated by employees on county business.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think it covers -- it covers
non-owned vehicles, but it has to be for -- I think it's for
leased vehicles.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For what?
MR. TOMLINSON: For leased vehicles. I mean, there
is a rider that covers non-owned equipment or vehicles.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, lease and owned are pretty much
the same, so I can understand why that would be a part of it.
But let's confirm whether or not we can get an endorsement on
our vehicle liability coverage that will cover non-owned
vehicles when driven by employees on county business.
MS. HARGIS: But there's a -- $600 won't cover
everybody.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I understand that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have to increase that number
either way, 'cause that's going to need to be flagged and get
an idea as to maybe -- I don't know. Bill -- let's use
whatever Bill's is, since he's the one doing it, get an idea
of how much that is, figure out how many employees, and come
up with an estimate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that number that you
25 I JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
7-20-07 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 WILLIAMS: $287 last year additional,
on top of -- of all other coverages that I pay for personally.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's an important issue, because
insurance companies are a lot pickier now when it comes to
filing on the claims. I mean, they ask these questions, where
in the past --
MS. UECKER: That's not the word I would use, but...
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can only imagine the word you
would use, Linda.
MS. UECKER: Yes, you can.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't want to know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You got an idea what that
number should go to?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if yours is 287 -- I can't
even read it -- you figure that --
MS. HYDE: Figure times 30 people.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At least, yeah, 30 people.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $6,000.
MS. HYDE: At least. And then if you -- the 30
people, you multiply that times two for all their deputies,
or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe it also -- part of that
comes in, you need to, you know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $9,000.
7-20-07 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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, maybe 9,000 ought to be
that number.
MS. HARGIS: It's 84 now, 280 times 30. So, make it
I nine?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make it 9,000. Then we can look
at it again, but that's probably -- that's certainly a lot
closer than 600.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
MS. UECKER: On the other side of that, I'm
thinking, okay, if I have an accident in my vehicle while on
county business, why would I tell anybody? Why?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why would you tell anybody?
What if you killed somebody?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It depends -- it depends a
little bit on --
MS. UECKER: Unless I had case files laying all over
me, how would they know? You know?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, it may just be
part of your discussion. "What were you doing?" "Well, I was
going to the bank to make a deposit for the county." Oh.
MS. UECKER: Just leave that "for the county" part
I off.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I know, but I think you're
-- I think we certainly need to give the employees this option
to get that reimbursement. Because Jody's --
7-20-07 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
74
MS. HYDE: I look at John. I mean, John goes --
with I.T., he's got to go to the Sheriff's Department, he goes
to Ingram, he goes out, you know, to the Ag Barn. So, if he's
doing any of that and he's involved in an accident --
MR. TROLINGER: But I do got that coverage on my
insurance for business use, so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See? John's already being
covered.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You've got it.
MR. TROLINGER: Personally, I've already got that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This gives you the ability
I to seek reimbursement.
JUDGE TINLEY: The alternative to that would be
18 that?
19
20
21
22
23 Commi
24 and t
25
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Have we --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Break?
JUDGE TINLEY: Have we thrashed out the
(A recess was taken from 10:32 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.)
following Mrs. Uecker's suggestion, and include as part of our
employee training program that we teach our employees to be
deceptive. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, the District Clerk said
7-20-07 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
75
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order.
Unless somebody's got something additional on Commissioners
Court budget, we'll go to I.T.
MS. HYDE: Where's John?
JUDGE TINLEY: Uh-oh.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Uh-oh, he left.
MS. HENDERSON: Just skip him.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What tab is I.T.?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 4.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, okay. There he is. By way of
general information, Mr. Trolinger has done a survey of the
equipment in all departments, and he has broken out for each
department what he sees as the current budget year equipment
needs for that department. In turn, each of those
departments, as best I can tell, has incorporated their
respective equipment need figures into their own individual
budgets.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we have that, Judge?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
MS. HYDE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it's in here, all these
backups.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, there's a series of worksheets
that he has that are attached. Should be right behind --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll keep going ahead.
7-20-07 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
76
JUDGE TINLEY: Should be right -- look right behind
the budget item itself. Got them? Okay. So, that's how he's
approached each individual department. Then he's got his own
individual budget for -- for his particular needs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I ask a question -- general
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure, mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see notes on some of these,
and one of the -- you know, Road and Bridge, it says, "Sent.
Response, disregarding I.T. again."
MR. TROLINGER: The unofficial copy for Judge Tinley
~ has my notes on it.
MS. HYDE: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the only copy you gave me.
MS. HYDE: Are you --
JUDGE TINLEY: Always remember, Mr. Trolinger, we're
under the Open Records Act.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. Well, it's really -- it's
the third year in a row, and I do have some frustration over
there. I want to bring Road and Bridge under the county
network so they can enjoy the services that the County can
provide them, and for the third year, I'm basically -- you
know, as I wrote, it's not going to happen.
7-20-07 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
77
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's deal with it.
MR. TROLINGER: And by presenting the -- the budget
to you in this -- in this way, I feel that -- I felt that I
had a better chance to get it in Road and Bridge's budget this
year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And what it says, like, under --
so the "sent" for each one of them, that just shows that you
sent the request to them, and then your comments or --
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. "Sent" means that I
actually -- you know, I either e-mailed it or presented it in
person to the department.
JUDGE TINLEY: As to the needs for that particular
department, in your estimation?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, it -- on all of them
that I've gone through before one-on-one with the elected
officials and department heads, what I have found is that they
are incorporating -- so far, at least -- those figures into
their particular budgets.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- the Road and Bridge
issue, I think, is pretty simple. We zero out everything that
they request until they do it this way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That will get their
7-20-07 bwk
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
attention.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the debate? You're
', offering what? And they don't want it because? And --
because they have what?
MR. TROLINGER: Essentially, they're a stand-alone
entity. They're not connected to the County network in any
respect. They've purchased computers on their own, for
instance, as, you know, one of the things they're doing
independently. I'd like to help out with that so that we can
get their system tied into the county system. In particular,
this year the County Clerk has a new software package being
installed this week, finish -- finishing this week, and that
allows or would allow viewing the plats, the land records.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would allow for Road and
Bridge to view --
MR. TROLINGER: At their office.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- information?
MR. TROLINGER: You know, they say that they still
need to come to the courthouse for that official document, but
at some point a year or two from now, if they're on the county
network, we can install that software on their computer and
they can connect and look at the plats, the land records,
without having to drive over or make a phone call. And that's
just one -- that's one example.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the other area that they're
7-20-07 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
about to have is budget. They're about to -- I mean, I firmly
agree with, from talking to Ms. Hargis, where she wants to go
or how she wants to go on some of this budget stuff, and
they're about to be on the county budget system, not on their
own like they have been. You know, and I just think that
it's -- they have -- they have resisted for a long time
conforming in this one area, and I think it's time they have
to start conforming with the rest of the county.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Telephone communication is
another area.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I agree with you 100
percent, but I want to know -- I'd like to know why they're --
I mean, there's got to be a reason for them to resist.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they originally -- my
feeling is, I think we need to get -- obviously, bring this up
with Road and Bridge, but I think they were probably ahead of
the County for quite -- initially, before we had an I.T.
department, and they were doing things -- they were much more
computerized than any other departments, before we
computerized the rest of the county. And they did that
internally, but they did it on their -- their system. And now
the County's probably passed them up, and they don't want to
change their system.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's probably
fair.
7-20-07 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
80
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's, I think, what happened.
But I'm -- you know --
MR. TROLINGER: And I'm not asking them to change
their system. I'm just asking that they be a part of the
county network so they can enjoy those services. And if I
could do things like back up their computers, which I don't
believe they have a, you know, program to do just basic things
like that, that that would be another benefit to them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think a good area where they
-- they keep very accurate time records on their employees,
but it's not done through the computer -- the county -- the
Odyssey system, and it could be. You know, but we -- but they
were probably the first department that implemented that very
accurate recordkeeping.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're shaking your head.
Can't be or shouldn't be?
MS. HYDE: The timekeeping within Odyssey-slash
Incode-slash whatever -- Tyler Technology, that is -- that
does not -- that is not a time -- doesn't have timekeeping.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is why they aren't using
I the county system.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, in that regard, yeah.
MS. HYDE: But they had it. They have -- they've
taken and basically took the spreadsheet that we have folks --
folks are supposed to be filling out, and they have a
7-20-07 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
spreadsheet and they keep it, but they've got it online to
keep up with it online.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could they keep that if they
went on the county system?
MR. TROLINGER: It would be easier to copy files
back and forth, but yes, they could continue if they wish to
use that system. We do have plans for --
MS. HYDE: We wouldn't want them to if we're going
to get an H.R.I.S. system and we have to get a timekeeping
system. We'd want them to use our timekeeping.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think one of the problems with
the -- we have found through the whole -- going back through,
you know, Sheriff's Department and the step and grade and all
this stuff is that we have people all the time getting paid
wrong, and it's our system is the problem. It's not really
any of our individuals that are doing things wrong; it's just
that we need that -- need to be much more computerized so
people get accurate paychecks. 'Cause with the overtime and
all, that all has to be done manually, or too much of it has
to be done manually. There's too much room for error, plus
it's wasting a lot of time. And if we can get a system that
works, I think it needs to be implemented county-wide.
MS. HYDE: It's kind of like what you were saying,
Commissioner Baldwin, earlier about the budget sheets, that
they're different. Not all of them are the same, so it's hard
7-20-07 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
82
to understand what some folks are wanting out of those
budgets. Same thing with timekeeping. You know, some people
call comp time one thing, and they mean another. Some people
call it overtime. Some people forget to tell us that someone
isn't working here any more. So, those type of things. You
know, its tough.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think it all comes down to
the controls are very weak in the county, and in a lot of
areas, and they need to be tightened up.
MR. TROLINGER: And just clarifying the time
recording, time card versus timekeeping, what we found out is
that the financial software we got kind of thrown in is the
time card, ability to keep your time to fill in 8 hours and,
you know, one hour of comp time taken, that type. And what
H.R. really needs is a timekeeping system that -- that punches
people in and out on the computer.
MS. HYDE: Mm-hmm, basically.
MR. TROLINGER: And we are looking at doing this as
a separate project. And Road and Bridge would benefit from
that also. And Mr. Odom did express an interest in that to
me, that he'd like to do that, to have that timekeeping --
MS. HYDE: Right.
MR. TROLINGER: -- ability.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I mean, I
25 I don't -- that may be a little bit of not wanting to
7-20-07 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
83
participate in the system, but I think Road and Bridge -- I
think it's more education, probably, as much as anything with
a lot of these things.
MS. HYDE: I think they were very far ahead,
computerized for a long time, and they were able -- they were
very recordkeeping conscious. So, I think you hit the nail on
the head, based on the conversations that I've had with them.
They were so far ahead that, you know, they -- their system
worked. It was good. It was solid. Why change it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'll tell where you I'm
at, John. I -- personally, I would like to hear their reasons
for not changing. And it appears to me that they're not real
good reasons so far, just what I'm hearing in this room. And
if they don't have good reasons, we'll -- I don't know about
zeroing out a budget, but I think we'll tell them to change.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't mean the whole budget.
I meant I.T. type stuff. I want to fix roads still.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think we have to go
that far. I think we simply say you're changing. You know,
change them.
MR. TROLINGER: And, simply, that's all I'm asking
for, is to put this in their computer hardware line item so we
can get the project moving.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we ought to go ahead
7-20-07 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
84
MR. TROLINGER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which will be next week,
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which will probably be next
week. We don't know if it's Wednesday or Friday, but --
JUDGE TINLEY: Want to talk about that now?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Stanton --
JUDGE TINLEY: We might forget it otherwise.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Stanton has his hand up.
MR. STANTON: I was going to ask John or ask the
Court if you knew what the status was. We've been trying to
get the Juvenile Detention Facility connected to the network
also. And I got your -- your deal, and it was about $16,000
or something, in that neighborhood, I believe.
MR. TROLINGER: 12,800.
MR. STANTON: 20,000? More than I thought, 20,800.
MR. TROLINGER: 12,000.
MR. STANTON: Oh, I'm sorry, 12,000. I think the
biggest problem with that is that we don't have internet -- or
high enough quality internet service out there, right?
MR. TROLINGER: Essentially, and trying to get Time
Warner to build their system down the road. You know, the
deal that I made a year and a half ago is basically off the
table now. They want to charge us the going rate to run their
cable another half mile. But I think the -- besides the
7-20-07 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
85
broadband, the -- you know, just organizing the computers up
for you a little bit better now that you're digitizing and
scanning and whatnot. I had a concern to make sure we got
backups and a good system in place, since you're going to rely
on the computers more and more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, where are we on I.T. budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: We're there.
MR. TROLINGER: Well, I'd like to point out the --
the Sheriff's Office, because that's the largest, Sheriff's
Office and jail. I broke them out into two separate line
items, just to -- just to make sure that the Sheriff could
budget for it properly. I put the line items, but you'll see
that the single largest, as expected, cost for capital outlay
this year -- and I wanted to do this last year to a smaller
degree, but we did not budget -- or I don't know how to say
it; the Sheriff did not budget for it, and now we're even
deeper in the hole as far as desktop replacements. So, it is
a large number, but there's no fluff in this number. It's --
we've got to do this. I'm not asking for twice as much and
hoping to get half. I'm asking for exactly what they need.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you're talking about 27,000
for the Sheriff and 14,000 for the jail? Those are the two?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Those need to be -- those are not
incorporated in the Sheriff's budget at this point?
7-20-07 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
86
MR. TROLINGER: As -- correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or has he done something on his own?
MR. TROLINGER: It's a lower -- a lower number.
Substantially, I believe.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: These are, or his?
MR. TROLINGER: His are.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why?
MR. TROLINGER: He's not here. I don't want to
speak for him, but the -- the way that, you know, he looks --
he's looking at his big budget picture, he wants to -- he's
going to present it to come in at a certain number. That's
the best I know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That'll do for now.
MR. TROLINGER: But every person working there,
nearly, has to use the computer, and if they've got old and
slow computers, then it affects the operation. I'd also like
to note the County Attorney, Judge Tinley has adjusted his
budget upwards, and that's 475 -- 10-475. He's extended it
upward by $3,000. There's a -- there's apparently a
requirement for being able to read and copy --
JUDGE TINLEY: DVD's.
MR. TROLINGER: -- DVD's from the police department.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This ties to the memo we
just got from the County Attorney?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes. And it's -- it's a difficult
7-20-07 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
situation, but we've got to throw hardware and money at it in
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, his goes to 7,365?
MR. TROLINGER: I believe so.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Seven thousand what, John?
MR. TROLINGER: I received a phone message that it
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, 3,000 additional.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, 7,365.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 2.
MR. TROLINGER: The -- we discussed it earlier. In
Human Resources, we're looking at software for various things,
but primarily for timekeeping, and in the neighborhood of
$50,000 is the cost. Now, is that the up-front cost, Eva?
MS. HYDE: That was the eDoc. Not -- what we've got
is -- the County Attorney's looking at it right now. There's
two different ways that we could pay for it. One is, like,
25,000 and "X" amount per year to include the annual
maintenance fees, with a reduction on annual maintenance fees
if we're able to help them secure additional business, which
would wipe out our annuals up to a certain point. But on the
flip side, when we're looking at H.R.I.S., 50,000, we should ,
be able to get a total system for less than that. I mean,
we're throwing the number out there, though.
7-20-07 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: Do you know what AACOG spent on
their system, Bill?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just gave it to Eva. The
low bid was --
MS. HYDE: The low -- the low is 89, right?
$89, 346.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
MS. HYDE: With an annual recurring fee of 11,371.
And the high was 157,000 with an annual recurring fee of
43,000. So, we wouldn't want to do --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, 89 to 150 was the range.
MS. HYDE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which tells you 89,000,
which had all the components that she wanted -- which she
needs.
MR. TROLINGER: So, the total H.R. software that's
available from our financial vendor right now, and from
others, broad range of costs, but for timekeeping, we're most
of the way into the project, ready to present it at likely
$50,000 total cost. It's just a question right now of
first-year costs being 25,000 -- or somewhere between 25,000
and 50,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does it do everything that
needs to be done?
MS. HYDE: This is straight timekeeping.
7-20-07 bwk
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just straight timekeeping?
MS. HYDE: Just straight timekeeping, where you can
also put in your comp, your vacation hours, stuff like that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May not be cost-effective,
based on what components of this one are.
MS. HYDE: Right.
MR. TROLINGER: But that system that AACOG has, is
that timekeeping? Or time --
MS. HYDE: It depends.
MR. TROLINGER: -- recording?
MS. HYDE: It says that it's time --
MR. TROLINGER: Time cards.
MS. HYDE: Says timesheets.
MR. TROLINGER: Timesheets. There's a substantial
difference. Like, I found out that the Incode software that
we have now has timesheets, versus timekeeping.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's another substantial
difference in how it links into the accounting system. That
one links.
MR. TROLINGER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions about the
individual departments? Any more of the individual
departments that we need to talk about from your standpoint,
John?
25 I MR. TROLINGER: Those are the largest and the ones I
7-20-07 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
90
wanted to bring your attention to, with -- with one more,
Judge, and that's video teleconferencing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. TROLINGER: I've had some discussions with other
counties recently, and the price range that we've got plugged
in there, the consensus is it's a little bit low. But -- and
specifically for courthouse-to-jail teleconferencing. Because
there's some recording equipment -- apparently there's a
statute thrown in there that says you've got to record certain
events, and others cannot be. That may increase the cost.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the purpose of this?
JUDGE TINLEY: It's the first step in a video
teleconferencing project that I want to get initiated. I'm
hopeful of plugging it into our District Courts district-wide.
I think it'll increase our courts' efficiency significantly
once we get to that point, but we're having to get seven or
eight counties on board. Initially, we were talking about
putting it in just courthouse-to-jail to show its benefit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this is --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yesterday, for example, I don't .know
how many ferries of prisoners were made and how many jailers
and deputies were being utilized to transfer all these jail
prisoners back and forth for pretrial hearings. Under the
Code of Criminal Procedure, you can use video teleconferencing
25 ~ for arraignments, pretrials, and a lot of other purposes
7-20-07 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
91
taking place. You got a District Judge, for example, down in
Montgomery County that the defendant never sets foot in the
courtroom unless there's a jury trial, for jail prisoners. It
solves a lot of security issues. It solves a lot of personnel
issues with having to move people around.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, this is -- I think that's --
I thought that's what it was. I just wanted to make sure.
This is, like, to set up a -- a Kerr County test case to show,
maybe for other counties around here, the 216th and 198th,
that it saves a whole bunch of time and money, and time is
money. If you can -- basically, so Steve can handle all these
pretrial things for Kendall County, Kerr County, whatever, in
his office. Or -- okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You don't have to move
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, initially, just the
courthouse-to-jail thing, the big savings are going to be --
well, number one, you're not waiting on them if they're not
there yet. You got a direct hookup. You don't have the
personnel involved, the security issues involved, the
transport costs involved. You got the people at the jail
bringing them into where the -- where the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Holding area.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- teleconferencing setup is.
7-20-07 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
~ __
is hooked up on all the counties that comprise the 198th and
216th Districts, and rather than having the Judge two hours on
the road one-way, where you got four hours of time down, you
can have that Judge hearing cases or -- or disposing of
matters, working cases. In addition, it's savings to
counties; they're not having to pay for a lot of travel time
for Court-appointed attorneys. The -- the rural counties to
the north will probably be the biggest beneficiaries of that,
because most of the lawyers come out of here. But it --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's some definite benefits to it,.
and we want to get it set up on a small scale here first,
let -- let the judges see the benefit of it, see what the
efficiencies are, and then we'll go from there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Will the J.P.'s be able to
~ magistrate?
JUDGE TINLEY: It could be used for magistration,
sure, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But --
JUDGE TINLEY: From right here in the courthouse.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- in this package, though,
does it include the system to be in the J.P.'s' office?
MR. TROLINGER: No, sir, it's fixed at the
courtroom, between the courtroom and the jail. It's
essentially the same as the audio system. It's fixed in one
7-20-07 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
MR. TROLINGER: Yes. Instead of going to the jail,
yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: The initial setup we're thinking
about putting up would be -- they have setups that are, quote,
portable. Just put it on a cart with a monitor and all of the
hookups, where all you need is a power supply and a place to
plug in the broadband, and you can work it from there. John's
initial thinking is, let's get a fixed one in place so that we
-- we know it's operable, and all you have to do is turn on
the switch and you're good to go.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's pretty groovy,
but what's really groovy is if you could do it district-wide
for the district people. What is the holdup? I mean, I can
see -- I can see 216th probably going with it, maybe. You
know, I could see that happening. But I don't see 198th out
there in the -- where there's three or four humans a day go
through the county.
JUDGE TINLEY: Menard's probably the most
sparsely --
MS. HENDERSON: Would you have a separate unit for
7-20-07 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
94
MR. TROLINGER: That's what we'll have to decide
District Courtroom is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
MS. HENDERSON: Yeah.
MR. TROLINGER: -- a much better place.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why isn't -- why isn't Menard
County jumping all over this?
MR. TROLINGER: Well, the problem really is
bandwidth and connectivity of the -- Brady, just for example,
has probably got the best Internet connection, and it's just
!, barely sufficient on its own to provide video
teleconferencing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, they're not -- the
county's not willing to spend -- their county's not willing to
spend the money to bring it up to the point to where we can
communicate?
MR. TROLINGER: Well, we're into a project now with
the Adult Probation that kind of ties hand-in-hand, because
we're going to expand the network that the Adult Probation
offices use to communicate. Initially, Gillespie and Bandera
County, but -- but the 198th will be involved, and that's to
-- to install the new software that Adult Probation's
purchasing. We need to network them together a little bit
7-20-07 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
95
better, and part of that we're going to increase the
bandwidth. So, we've got the first step in place as part of
that project to provide the backbone for video
teleconferencing. After that, it's up to Judge Tinley to do
the footwork to --
JUDGE TINLEY: I got to do the selling, see? And
that -- that's part of the problem, Commissioner. You --
initially, I had a very ambitious idea that we're going to
start with this seven- or eight-county hookup. And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Then we're going to start
11 I with one.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you're dealing with seven or
eight different counties, and they're having to do funding
components, and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- and my general reception from --
from the elected officials in the counties has been pretty
good, but I haven't had any of them tell me, "I've definitely
got you written in for what my cost is going to be as
thus-and-so." So, we're going to try small steps, and then
we're going to try and work it up from there, once they're
able to tangibly see the benefits this thing will derive.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe just add on one county?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, yeah, you could do that. -For
example, bring Brady on board, for example, and that's --
7-20-07 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
96
that's one of the furthest counties out. That's where most of
of times when the judges go to those counties, they'll maybe
have, oh, maybe half a dozen arraignments and some pretrial
hearings. It doesn't take them generally too long to attend
to those, but they've got to do them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, travel.
JUDGE TINLEY: If they don't have to drive two hours
up, two hours back, then they can dispose of these cases in 45
minutes or an hour and a half or whatever it may take. Look
how much time that they've saved to be able to -- plus the
expense they incur in driving back and forth.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a valuable tool.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would like for you to say
to us that they would save that time and be able to empty our
jail out while they're here.
JUDGE TINLEY: That --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would like to hear you say
that.
JUDGE TINLEY: That has -- that component is part of
it also. You have the ability to -- because you've got more
judicial time to be spent on handling cases, and less time on
the road, you're able to devote that time to attending to
those cases. Some of those people are, obviously, in jail.
We'll get there.
7-20-07 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
97
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I see as the
bright side of this thing, or the positive side of it. I like
the idea a lot, but what I really like about it is the -- the
Judge would have the ability to do other things that he
doesn't have time to get to now. And one of those is the jail
issue, the not being able to get to those people sitting in
there for over a year when they need to be in front of a judge
and something done with them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you're not going to -- those
cases where they're going to have jury trials, you're not
going to solve that problem.
~, COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand.
JUDGE TINLEY: But -- but you -- the more time that
you can give back to those judges that they don't have to
spend it on the road, you're -- you're giving them an
opportunity for a good deal more efficiency and being able to
handle the dockets. I think it's a good thing, and it'll
evolve. We'll get there. I just don't think I can get the
giant step this year, so we're going to take the first step.
That's the plan.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the -- is the figure
$26,600? Is that what we're talking about.
JUDGE TINLEY: John said we probably need to
increase that because of -- because of some recordkeeping
issues.
7-20-07 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
98
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What number, John?
MR. TROLINGER: $26,600 will establish the
connection between one courtroom and the county jail. The --
the issue that I touched on about recording and compliance,
I've just -- I just recently learned that there's a recording
requirement that we may or may not have to meet, so I don't
have a -- I don't have a solid idea if we need to increase
that -- if we need to increase this number.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, aside from that, what
is your bottom line, 251 that you're looking at? Are these
going to be in I.T. budget or spread throughout everybody
else's budgets?
MR. TROLINGER: These are spread out thr~ucrh
everyone's budgets.
JUDGE TINLEY: Except for -- except for the video
teleconferencing. That's not in anybody's right now, is it?
MR. TROLINGER: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Want to put it under County
Judge?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There you go.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's fine. I don't care.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This total expenditure that
we're talking about here with I.T. stuff, should that be put
on a -- on a payout of some kind over several years, or should
7-20-07 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
we try to eat that whole thing in one year?
MR. TROLINGER: I also looked at leasing for
desktops, and there's -- there's two ways to look at it. If
you want to have a desktop replacement system that goes every
three years, and then you own the computers through a lease,
maybe you can keep them for a couple more years. That's the
way a couple counties do it. But the majority of the
counties -- the counties our size, I'm hearing they purchase
directly and make a, you know, initial purchase.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm talking about not -- I'm
not talking about purchases; I'm talking about maybe -- maybe
doing -- maybe borrowing the money, and make it a three-year
payout or something like that, to where it doesn't impact this
budget all at one time this one year.
MR. TROLINGER: Now, the Odyssey, Orion, and Incode
are five-year lease-purchase.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What did we spend last year if
you totaled up all these same type items?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There you go. That's what I
want to know, really.
MR. TROLINGER: My numbers are at the bottom summary
of total costs.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 438,000?
MR. TROLINGER: Over the next five years. But for
2008, I requested 578,000.
7-20-07 bwk
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Almost 600,000, FY 2007.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In 2007, that includes the
Odyssey payment, those numbers?
MR. TROLINGER: It includes everything, all I.T. and
including each line item from each -- each entity.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're actually going down
this year, total, compared to last year.
MR. TROLINGER: Slightly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: With the 251 in there.
MR. TROLINGER: I believe the only item not in there
is where I discussed the server -- the mainframe server at
$16,500. That number is not in that total.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the 26,000 it is not in here
either, right?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: John, I'm just looking at
this summary. 251,000 on the bottom, but the reality is that
you're not -- for capital improvements, you're only looking at
95 plus 24; is that correct?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And maybe the 15 for
network. Because software's already built into other places,
is it not? And your I.T. budget is separate from this number;
is that correct?
MR. TROLINGER: The I.T. budget is.
JUDGE TINLEY: It would be separate.
7-20-07 bwk
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
many? Times how many?
MR. TROLINGER: I'd like to know that exact number.
180, approximately, for the court system. I've got the exact
number, but I cannot recall. It's approximately 200.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: If we did the video teleconferencing,:
if we rounded that up to 30, do you think that would cover the
recording?
MR. TROLINGER: And if we needed additional
features, it would make sense to do that. It would be prudent
to do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's do it.
MS. HYDE: Move it up to what?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 30.
JUDGE TINLEY: Question is, what budget do we put
I that in?
COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	John'	s.
JUDGE TINLEY:	Yeah,	that's	fine. We can put it in
I John's.
MR. TROLINGER: 10-408-570 is Capital Outlay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the 14,3 capital outlay
in your budget?
MR. TROLINGER: I broke it down right below, the
detail of I.T. capital outlay. You'll see the first item that
7-20-07 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
we've discussed, the Legacy server. Microwave link to the
Sheriff's Office; we need more bandwidth, basically. The DSL
cable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That's all right, I --
MR. TROLINGER: We discussed that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see it; that's fine.
MR. TROLINGER: Brad and myself have discussed doing
that. We're not certain if we're going to implement that.
There's a network switch. Some regular software licenses that
are recurring annual licenses. And that's the -- that adds up
to the sum of the capital outlay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Got it. Thank you.
MR. TROLINGER: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That will teach you to ask
him a question. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You aet the 7en~ vPr.~inn of
the answer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He'll actually answer it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on I.T.? Okay,:
let's go to Districts Courts. Those are going to be under 7.
Okay. Other than a few minor adjustments --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- okay, go ahead. I'm
~ sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the major issue here is
7-20-07 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
104
generally in the personnel area, what we're going to do there.
We've talked about creating a policy whereby all
County-compensated employees are treated equally in terms of
compensation. Unless, of course, there are particular issues
dealing with merit or -- or change in job descriptions because
of downsizing, redistribution of workloads and things of that
nature. The -- the adjustments I've made to the middle
portions of the budget in both the 198th and 216th, for the
most part, are very, very minor where I've made them, and
those have been in very few instances. I think probably the
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, yeah. Court-appointed
services, that's based upon projected year-end. I don't have
any backup to indicate --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, what's the difference
in Court-appointed services and Court-appointed attorneys?
JUDGE TINLEY: Court-appointed services are going to
be, like, psychologists.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Okay, other
professionals.
JUDGE TINLEY: Other type of -- interpreters.
MS. HENDERSON: We're having to do lots of
competency examinations. It seems like, lately, we've had
lots of them, and that's where that's come in.
7-20-07 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
JUDGE TINLEY: What do you have in the pipeline for
next year that -- what we're going to have competency issues?
MS. HENDERSON: Well, we really don't know yet. I
mean, that's one of those unpredictable --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have any big trials that
are going to hit next year that we know of already?
MS. HENDERSON: Not really anything. We don't have
any capital out there. The only thing --
MS. UECKER: Unless we can find -- we got some we
can't find.
MS. HENDERSON: We got some we can't find.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Why can't you find them?
JUDGE TINLEY: They're in Mexico.
MS. HENDERSON: We've got Seard, you know, but he's
still incompetent, so as long as they find him incompetent,
I we're --
MS. UECKER: Smith.
MS. HENDERSON: Smith, we still have him, but
they're going to -- he's not going to go to trial. So,
really, right now I don't know of anything out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No big -- nothing worse than
usual?
MS. HENDERSON: Nothing they know of, unless
something happens between now and --
7-20-07 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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For either court?
MS. HENDERSON: Either court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, bottom line is, you know, if
they hit, they hit, and we got to bite the bullet, and that's
just the way it works. Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Basically, you've increased the
Court-appointed attorney, all those types of things, to what
the estimated actual is this year, more or less?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you know, I've got some
questions. In Court-appointed attorneys, both criminal and
civil, you'll note that -- that I've plugged in what they
requested. But still, in looking at the Auditor's projections
of what they're going to be for this year, I guess my question
is, have they requested enough? Because in -- in every single
one of those cases, the Auditor's projection of what will be
expended this year is greater than what they're requesting for
next year.
MS. HENDERSON: That's another one we don't know. I
MS. HENDERSON: Just no way of knowing. We did have
7-20-07 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
there. We're kind of hoping maybe there won't be that much
next year, but just no way to know. So, when do I this, I
I
', just take a guess.
~', COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: We call that a swag.
MS. HENDERSON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a scientific term.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, looks like we're
close to what we projected for this year, which isn't bad.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I tell you, I would rather
see us put more in there than -- than come back in January and
start amending the darn budget. That just makes me want to
throw up when we do that within a month and a half or two
months, start amending the thing. I know it's an unknown; we
can't see what's going to happen down there, but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Particularly 216th. 216th
is projected to go over what -- what they're asking for next
year. On 216th, I'd just as soon, on Court-appointed
attorney, go up to 175.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you, but I don't
think you're going to get three votes at the table.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not going to fight about
it.
7-20-07 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
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you know, it's one of those
things. If it hits, it hits, and we got to bite the bullet.
That's the bottom line.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you go back, 130, 140, 180,
150 -- or say 155 this year. So, --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we're probably right in the
middle of where we've been for the last -- on average, for the
last four years at 150. With costs going up, you may want to
increase it maybe to 160.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, this is probably the
dumb question of the day, but the year-to-date figure, that
includes the amendments that we've made and added to?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the year-to-date figure really
doesn't have much to do with the budget, but we have -- we
have made some amendments since this was printed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: But, I mean, it doesn't have any
effect on the item year-to-date.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the projected year-end,
then.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I just -- I did these
projections before Jeannie came. What I -- basically, the way
I approach that is I see where we are year-to-date, and then I
go back a couple years and look to see what -- what the
7-20-07 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
average is per month, and -- and then annualize that to get
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you remember why we
dropped, between '06 and current in the 216th, $75,000 on that
line?
MR. TOMLINSON: Which one?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Budgeted 75,000 less?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it was because we -- my
recollection is that probably was the Seard case. We had --
had it in there, maybe, and then we took it out because we
didn't think it --
MR. TOMLINSON: I think that's right.
MS. HENDERSON: We did have that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We had Seard in there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that the one --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We decided it wasn't going to --
MS. HENDERSON: We knew there was going to be a lot
of expense on that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, that's good.
MS. UECKER: I have a question about the special
trials. I see that it's at zero. Now, I've been sending some
bills down marked "Special Trials." Where's that -- where are
those going? Not a whole lot.
MR. TOMLINSON: It goes into the line item wherever
25 ~ it belongs. Like, if it's an attorney, it goes into the
7-20-07 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
110
MS. UECKER: No, it's not an attorney.
MR. TOMLINSON: Or if it's a witness fee or --
II MS. UECKER: So, where does it go for witness fee?
'~ MR. TOMLINSON: It goes into -- let me see that. It
goes into Court-Appointed Services.
JUDGE TINLEY: What kind of special trials have you
been having up there?
MS. UECKER: No, just some witness issues with hotel
rooms that have to be paid for witnesses that come in from
upstate or California or wherever. Those are eventually
reimbursed from the State, except they don't have any money
right now, but it still has to be paid out of something.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, that's where it's being paid
out of.
MS. UECKER: Okay. Let me write that down.
MS. HENDERSON: We decided last year during this
that on special trials, we'd leave it zeroed out, if you'll
remember, because we didn't know what it was going to be, and
if something happened, then we would just have to come up with
the money. But nothing so far has happened, except for
whatever Linda might have. But, I mean, as far as a large
special trial, so far we haven't had anything.
MR. TOMLINSON: Back three or four years ago,
when -- and I forget the number of the bill that was -- I
7-20-07 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
MS. UECKER: That's on capital cases.
MR. TOMLINSON: On capital cases. We have to -- we
have to file a report with the Office of Court Administration
every year, and the way that they require the reporting, you
have -- you have to give them a number of Court-appointed
attorneys	for each court, and you	have --	then there'	s a
column th	at you report any other	services	that are --	that are
provided	for indigent defendants.	So, I	set these --	these
account numbers up to be able to agree with that report, so
all I have to do when I do the report for the Office of Court
Administration is take it directly off the ledger, rather than
having to sit down and divide them up. So -- so, if you have
a special trial, which we've considered in the past, it
consists of several different things. It could be attorneys
or witnesses or expert witnesses. So, rather than have it
under Special Trials, I've divided those -- those costs into
two components, to where it makes it easier for us to file a
report.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we can eliminate Special
~I Trials as a line item?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's exactly what I've tried to
do, is -- is eliminate that altogether.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't really see that
7-20-07 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
MR. TOMLINSON: You know, we get -- the County gets
reimbursed for indigent defense based on what money's
available at the State, plus there's a formula that has to do
with our base year, and I think it was 2001 is the County's
base year. And as long as you expend for indigent defense
more than your base year, then they reimburse you based on,
first, the amount that's available, and then the difference
between your base year and what you spend in the current year.
So, I mean, we do get reimbursed. It's not a lot, but it's
worth filing the report.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we can -- why don't we just
delete that line item, if we're not using it?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's -- that was the --
MS. HARGIS: We just mark it inactive.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 10-435-102, entitled County
Supplement for 2550, what is that?
JUDGE TINLEY: 10-43 --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Top line.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh. That is the difference between
the absolute ceiling under the law that District Judges are
entitled to be paid -- or can be paid.
7-20-07 bwk
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Less the amount that they are
currently receiving under their current pay package.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It used to be titled Salary
Supplement. Now it's just called County Supplement.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, because that's the money we put
i in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I did characterize that correctly,
I didn't I?
MS. HENDERSON: What's that? I'm sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the county supplement for the
judicial salary?
MS. HENDERSON: Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: Is the difference between the
ceiling -- the cap on what they can be paid at a maximum and
where they are in terms of -- of what their compensation
package is now, and that just is the difference between them.
MS. HENDERSON: Right. It's divided between the
whole district, though.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So our portion is 2550?
MS. HENDERSON: Yes.
7-20-07 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
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Any more there?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to D.A.'s. Buster,
do you want to run with this one?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No, not enough time.
What number?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Next tab.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 8?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 8. Number 8.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I only have -- I only have
one, 216th's.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got this in our box. Is
this it?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is the one you couldn't
read earlier.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not even going to
consider that budget request, myself.
MS. HARGIS: I have the 198th. Do you have that
one?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? Is this it?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, that's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: For some reason, I think I got off
without a copy of that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which one?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jody, can you make the Judge
7-20-07 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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 198th?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jody will get it.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure I got a 216th, either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Here, Jody. Here's 216th.
JUDGE TINLEY: Jody? Thank you. That came in while
I was gone, so we're flying blind on this one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here, use these to get
started.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, Judge, on 216th D.A., it
shows the '06-'07 budget and the '07-'08 requested budget, and
I don't see anywhere where you have made a recommendation.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have not, because these -- these
just came in. The 198th came in this morning or late
yesterday. The 216th came in -- I was advised by phone when I
was up the country. I have not -- no, I've not reviewed
these.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And if we go to your new
plan, whatever that might be -- it's obviously between you and
Jon Letz. They -- will they will be presenting their request
on the same form as I will or anybody else will?
MS. HARGIS: It'll be on Incode, so once everybody
puts their budget in -- or as they're putting their budgets
in, you can go on Incode and see at any time.
7-20-07 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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: And we'll have a deadline we'll start,
and then we have a deadline to finish. But if you wanted to
check if theirs was on there, you could go on your computer
and you could -- anybody could.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like that a lot. And it's
the same format, everybody?
MS. HARGIS: The same format. Everybody will have
the same format.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I kind of understand this
216th one. I mean, I can actually read it. What are --
where's the increase? Secretary Salaries?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Assistant, secretary,
investigator.
JUDGE TINLEY: Investigator.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm.
MS. HARGIS: Apparently, there is an exception. The
198th is not on our accounting system; they're on Kimble's
accounting system, but we can ask them --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not going to get it anyway,
so it doesn't matter.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, they've put -- basically put
merit increases in there? Is that what I --
JUDGE TINLEY: Put something in there. Put 5,500 in
the first one and --
7-20-07 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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some-odd number in the second
i one.
JUDGE TINLEY: 9,250 in the second one, and three
grand in the third one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, just for clarification
here, are these folks County employees?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought so. Well, our
~ portion.
JUDGE TINLEY: What we pay is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We pay 41.2 percent of these
I salaries.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah, I see at the
bottom.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then we pay 51 percent of
the other one.
MR. TOMLINSON: Really --
JUDGE TINLEY: What were you going to say?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the only number that goes in
our budget is just our percentage.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. TOMLINSON: So that budget that you -- that you
have from both D.A.'s really does not go on our accounting
7-20-07 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
system anywhere, just -- just our share. So, that's the -- if
you want to compare one year to the next, you need to look and
see what was on our system for each court last year, not what
the total budget is.
I, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, our share on 216th is
I
172,000 out of a total of 452?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. We've got the gross figures
up at the top to be able to compare the number.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: The reason -- on the 216th, the
reason that it's kind of on a different format is that I
wanted to be able to show the Court what the District Attorney
receives from the state. They receive approximately $35,000
from the State for the operation of their office, so what I --
what I did, I wanted to show the reduction of our budget by
that 35,000. Then we allocated the difference between the
counties, and sometimes they may have a fund balance also,
', and -- and I think it's appropriate to use that fund balance
when they have one, just to -- just to not budget for a fund
balance, but to fund the budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: Tommy, the problem I'm having with
what's presented here with 216th, for example, I don't have
the benefit of your year-to-date expenditures. I don't have
25 ~ the benefit of projected -- for example, there's a significant
7-20-07 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
increase in reimbursed travel. I don't know what they're
doing there. All I've got is -- is what they were budgeted
last year, what they've budgeted this year. It may be that
they're way over budget for this current year, and maybe
that's appropriate. On the other hand, it may not be
appropriate, so it's really hard for me to tell what their
needs are. All I see is what was budgeted and -- and what the
requests are, and you've got the estimated in here, but I
don't -- that doesn't help me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess what I look at,
though -- I mean, to me, it doesn't make sense. The request
doesn't make sense. The estimated actual is 50,000 less than
their current budget, and yet they're asking for 25,000 more
than their current budget, so they're way under budget.
MR. TOMLINSON: They budgeted for last year for --
for a new attorney and a full-time investigator.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
MR. TOMLINSON: And those people didn't come on
board October 1. They took a long -- you know, took a while
for them to find, you know, the right person for -- for those
positions. So, that's part of the explanation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But on other -- I mean, I can
see that on	the top ones,	because -	- I mean,	the -- obviously,
they've had	-- there's an	increase	in their	salaries, which I
have a question on. But on books, publications -- or say
7-20-07 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
telephone. The budget's 8,000. Estimated actual is 4,200,
yet they're asking for 8,500. Well, I mean, --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Something's wrong.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that doesn't make sense. If
their estimated actual is 4,200, then maybe go to 4,500, but
you don't go to 8,500. It looks to me like they just
increased their line item for the sake of increasing line
items, and they're not even spending the money now. So, to
i me --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I mean, they're not going to
have a fund balance. I mean, they're going to -- at the end
of this year, I mean '06-'07. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but by the numbers that
are presented, they're not spending their budget.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not even close.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're going to have almost
50,000 -- over 50. Maybe about -- 26 --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 25 and 51.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: According to this, they're going
to have a fund balance of about $40,000. If the estimated
actual is accurate --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about 60,000? 60,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $60,000 fund balance.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ten months in the budget.
7-20-07 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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is estimated actual. This
is total of their estimate, so it's fairly close. It's -- I
mean, I understand that they're -- the reason that there's
that difference is because they're hiring some of their new
employees after the first of the year, but still, they've got
to have a fund balance.
~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In that same connection, the
numbers for health insurance and retirement, are those
predicated on the additional employees? Not necessarily what
we know to be the anticipated increase in premium cost?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think -- I think they adjusted for
the -- for an anticipated increase.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How would they know that?
I We don't know.
MR. TOMLINSON: I know it. I've told you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, they got two more
employees, health insurance -- okay, I see. Well, they're
going from 22 to 44. They're doubling.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right? Estimated actual
health insurance, 22,8 -- 23,000. They're asking for 44.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There is a problem when they
don't use the same form.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bingo.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Try again?
7-20-07 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 BALDWIN: I can't wait till we get to
the next one.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to let you lead us
through that one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I can't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think that just --
Judge, you need to send these back and say, "Put them in the
county form so we can understand what you're asking for,
because they don't make sense to us."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They don't. Some of them do
not make sense.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If you're going to add
employees, you need to write it down, what you're adding.
MR. TOMLINSON: They've already added employees.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Those were added by the
Court last year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they were here last year.
They wanted to add employees; they were here in force.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When they wanted more. But I do
also have a question on their -- I look at this as that
they're -- either they have calculated their own crystal ball
cost-of-living that we're going to give, or they've giving
merit increases, one or the other, and I don't see what that
is. If they're asking for merit increases, they need to
7-20-07 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
specifically ask for merit increases like other departments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The whole -- all of those
numbers, you take a look at estimated actual against what
they're asking for in '07-'08, they're kind of goofy.
i
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree with you, makes no
sense.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'll report to the District
Attorney's Office that it doesn't make sense and it's kind of
goofy, and ask them to resubmit.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Got those two terms?
MS. GRINSTEAD: Yeah.
MS. HYDE: Oh, lord.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now 198th?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Commissioner Baldwin, would
you lead us through 198th?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. I can read the
heading, and then I lose it there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Somebody's got to lead this
I discussion.
JUDGE TINLEY: The good news is -- the good news is
that there's significant decreases in a lot of these areas.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I want to point out one
thing that I figured out about this thing, is that this column
7-20-07 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
is expenditures and this is requests, budget. So, this column
that's -- this expenditure column is not '06-'07 budget; it's
just what they -- that's the best I can do, Judge, I'm sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Shouldn't have brought it up.
But you see the decreases; I don't think those are real
numbers you're dealing with.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's that last number down
there, expenditures less budgeted requests? It takes the 433
down to 251? Hello.
MR. TOMLINSON: Don't look this direction. We
didn't do it. (Laughter.) That was -- that's a Kimble County
product you're looking at.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Send it back to Kimble
County.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're exactly right. It appears
like there's some significant decreases, but when you get down
to the bottom, -- °
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- it shows '06-'07 budget, 112,3. °
'07-'08, 128,5, a decrease of over 14 percent. Just looking
at our portion. But, I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Increase.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, an increase.
7-20-07 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: Now, that's a caseload pro rata. I'd
be interested to know how they come up with that one, too.
Because, you see, the increase is not pro rata across the
board.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ours is the highest.
JUDGE TINLEY: As a matter of fact, you're right. I
don't know how they calculate the caseload, whether they use
O.C.A. numbers. I don't know how they get there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we have to come back
to that one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tell them to resubmit on our
form so we can follow what they're doing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Both of them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okey-dokey.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We'll provide the form if
they'll fill it out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the Judge probably did
provide the form already once.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, indeed. Number one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What tab are you?
JUDGE TINLEY: One.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You might know it; put yourself
up in the front.
7-20-07 bwk
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. One adjustment that may be
made is under 420. Reduce that down to 200.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one? 420?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Since we eliminated cell phone.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, the cell phone issue?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Cell phone issue, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Down to 200?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you going to make an
adjustment on out-of-county mileage? 'Cause you overspent
that one big time. ~,
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, with the Legislature not being
in session, I -- yeah, obviously, it went up, but to what it's
projected to be. And it's going to continue to get worse, but
I think it's going to be within there this time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're okay on it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks pretty much the same.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I added my portion of some new
equipment in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions on that one?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Go to County Court budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Number 2?
7-20-07 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
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I've reduced the mental health
because of the case load, pulled that down some.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why is that, Judge? What's
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's -- that's the
compensation that's paid to the J.P.'s that hear the probable
cause hearings, and they're paid on a per-case basis, and so
I've brought that down. It's probably a little -- a little
higher than what it actually will be if the current trends
continue, but I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, that kind of -- my
question is, is it coming downward?
JUDGE TINLEY: The number of hearings that we're
holding -- and that also comes into line with 426. See, that
one's coming down too. Both of those are coming down because
of the number of cases being held.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm, okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: But that relates -- both of those
items relate to the mental health cases. Court-appointed
attorneys, dropped it down a little bit. I think I'm okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fine with me. You're going in
the right direction, down.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, can't argue with that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not quibbling that, but I
have another question with respect to the --
7-20-07 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
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have we addressed the issues
that the Grimes boys and the other funeral directors were
bringing to our attention? Is that addressed here?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's in --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nondepartmental.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Nondepartmental, should be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the way to address it,
they were only telling half the story.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So they're not getting any more
~ money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, I'm cool with that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we budgeted constant there.
Actually, I reduced the pauper burial a little bit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pauper death dropping off?
JUDGE TINLEY: I've been making the folks -- the
families that have been requesting those pauper dispositions,
I've been making the family members submit sworn financial
statements. And when you impose that requirement, sometimes
they -- they abandon their request.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or they'll have two or three family
members submit, but there's two or three that don't, and I
7-20-07 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
tell them until I get the info on the remaining family
members, they've got an obligation to take care of their own,
in my way of thinking. And -- but I make them jump through
the hoops. And if -- you know, if it's -- if they qualify,
they qualify. If they -- so we've cut those down pretty good.
Anything else on those two? What about -- what about next
week? Wednesday or Friday?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wednesday's good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We had it down for the 25th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like Friday better, but
I'm okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Doesn't matter to me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't make any difference.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like the 25th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's that, Wednesday?
JUDGE TINLEY: Wednesday? Okey-doke, we'll leave it
at Wednesday. We'll just have to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 9:00.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- get it posted today. We don't
want to miss that boat again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's also the day that the
Dallas Cowboys open camp in San Antonio.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Are you going to be present
7-20-07 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
25
for that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Might be. I'm wanting to. I
don't know where I'd buy a ticket.
JUDGE TINLEY: You going to buy a ticket?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Are you kidding me?
You drive to the city limits of San Antonio, you sit there to
buy tickets --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or get a ticket.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To breathe air.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aren't you going?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not going to San Antone.
Just pulling your leg.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Going to watch it on TV?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am going later on to see
I them.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got -- we've got a pretty
wide-open posting for today. Is there anything else anybody
wants to throw out on the table under the posting? We'll --
we'll do another wide-open posting for Wednesday, then. We'll
stand adjourned.
(Budget Workshop was adjourned at 12:15 p.m.)
7-20-07 bwk
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR I
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 3rd day of
August, 2007.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: ---~ ---- ~~---------------
Kathy B k, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
7-20-07 bwk