1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Friday, September 28, 2007
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4
v
O
d0
~'
Q
9-28-07
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
September 28, 2007
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
adopt the position schedule, step and grade
schedule, and general provisions for FY 2007-08
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
authorize publication of an RFP for preparation
of the 2006-2007 audit
1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
adopt the proposed salary increases, expenses
and allowances for elected officials of Kerr
County, Texas, in accordance with the public
notice published in the Kerrville Daily Times
1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
adopt FY 2007-08 Kerr County budget
1.5 Consider/discuss, adopt the proposed FY 2007-08
tax rate for Kerr County
--- Adjourned
PAGE
3
40
41
48
83
87
9-28-07
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Friday, September 28, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., a special
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in
the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,
Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in
open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let me call to order this
special meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court which
is scheduled and posted for this time and date, Friday,
September 28, 2007, at 9 a.m. It is just a bit past that
time now. The first item on the agenda is to consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to adopt the position
schedule, step and grade schedule, and general provisions for
the FY 2007-08 budget. This, of course, is a matter that, at
least in part, was a holdover from the previous meeting.
Let's -- why don't we go ahead and talk about the position
and step and grade schedule. Ms. Hyde, have you got those
all in final form, and are they the ones that are
incorporated in the latest bound copies of the budget that
have been provided to the Court?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And they're in proper order?
They've been checked and double-checked and so forth?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And properly conformed to our
9-28-07
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
manning -- manning rosters, and also the requirements for
compensation under the --
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- schedules that we've adopted?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. There's one change from the
last one that you got. Other than updating for law
enforcement, in the County Clerk's office, there was an
additional $2,570 for six months for an increase for an
employee to be the acting chief deputy.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HYDE: But other than that, everything is in
your files. Step and grade and position schedules are both
correct and accurate at this time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a definite blanket
statement. We haven't heard that in a long time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. That's exactly
right. Nor have we seen one that's stood all the tests,
either.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, let's talk about the general
provisions. There was some discussion about those items at
the prior meeting, and it was rolled to this meeting. And
we, I think, have the latest draft before us at this time.
Do you want to give us a quick rundown of -- of what the
proposed changes are? I suspect it's probably -- I think
9-28-07
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
Ms. Hyde was more involved in this, the general -- the
general provisions?
MS. HYDE: I don't have the latest. I don't -- oh,
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's pretty much as it was last
time, except for the -- under the budget issue -- or line
item transfer issue, which is -- it's not much changed, as I
saw it, other than Human Resources Department was designated
as the contact.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, in the loop. The break in
service, I think, was previously one year, wasn't it?
MS. HYDE: 365 days.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's entirely too long. 90 days
may be too long; 30 days may be closer.
MS. HYDE: We did 90 days because we thought we'd
check that one first and see what happens.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HYDE: Make sure it's nominal.
JUDGE TINLEY: The other major change that I see is
that on -- on comp time, --
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- you got to roll that off within
30 days.
25 ~ MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
9-28-07
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: And it had previously been 90 days,
I believe.
MS. HYDE: This year everyone has pretty much been
conforming to the 30 days so they could get used to it, so
they're living within their budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, that's pretty much been
in practice, then, and everybody's comfortable with it?
MS. HYDE: For the most part.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under Capital Outlay, is that a
change? I mean, I thought this was a policy that -- I
thought that we -- I thought that was what it was, you know.
But it -- it's highlighted as if that's something new.
MS. HYDE: The financial ones --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't know?
MS. HYDE: No, sir. The Auditor -- I thought that
Tommy would be here to talk any questions through.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a question on it.
That, to me, is what I thought we were already doing. Maybe
it just wasn't in here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, probably wasn't
there, and it needs to be in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, needs to be in there.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think what had been in there
previously was -- it was a reference to a schedule that was
attached on prior occasions. And I think the change here
9-28-07
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
made it generically -- if you're going to make capital
expenditures, they must be approved by the Court. Which, of
course, is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- is the case anyway. So, as it
stands, it just generically fits into capital outlays or
expenditures must be approved by the Court. I think that's
been a policy from day one.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't remember anything any
different than that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under Item 8, which is complete
time and attendance records, there's also a -- appears to be
new language here. Is this different than we were doing,
really? Or wasn't -- I mean, is this -- I thought we were
doing this also.
MS. HYDE: What had -- what it had, I think,
modified into was more or less a letter saying, "Don't pay
someone this," or, "If there's overtime, pay them that." And
so as far as the timesheets themselves, for the most part, we
got them anywhere from 30 to 45 days after we paid.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. HYDE: So, what I'm trying to make sure is
that, other than law enforcement, who keep all their files
totally separate, we get the timesheets within three working
days after payroll, after you get your check. And that way
9-28-07
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we've got a record of it in case the auditors come in. We do
i have a record; this is what we paid, and this is why we paid
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right, good. And
are we still in -- I guess going towards getting -- keeping
track of this on the computer, full-time or completely, as
opposed to --
MS. HYDE: We're working together. We're trying to
make sure that we don't get something that we can't live
with.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Is that a goal, to have
that done by this year?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
(Momentary power outage.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Talk about something else.
(Laughter.)
MR. TROLINGER: Now that power's blanked it out,
it'll probably be back to paper, but we've got two different
projects. One is on the financial, the Incode side that we
already own. The other is with a new vendor of ours, the
Incode -- or with eDoc.
MS. HYDE: eDoc.
MR. TROLINGER: With eDoc Tech. We're going to
look at both and see who's got the best, because what we want
do is have the whole county participate, not just the
9-28-07
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
courthouse. And in order to get the Sheriff to participate,
we've got to do some things, customize it for law
enforcement. So, it's going to cost a little bit of money to
do this automation over and above what I'd planned. But I
feel it's -- it's the best way to go, to automate.
MS. HYDE: Because the automation -- because most
of the automation that the people have are for typical
businesses; it is not for law enforcement. So, there's going
to have to be some modifications to whatever we try to
purchase and use. And it's got to pass his -- his test,
because we got to follow their -- you know, the rules for
them.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And it's not my rules.
MS. HYDE: No.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's law enforcement; it is a
totally different animal when it comes to overtime.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do -- I mean, I'm assuming
that it's going -- you get in error when you assume things,
but certainly larger cities are computerized, like Houston,
San Antonio, Dallas. I mean, they're certainly not doing it
manually.
MS. HYDE: But they have I.T. folks that have
written special programs just for that. They have I.T.
programmers. John, help me out here. And a lot of theirs
are linked in ways that it may not work exactly with their
9-28-07
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
payroll, but they link it, and then it's entered.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And one other example that I
will give you, especially when it comes to law enforcement,
is -- at least for the Sheriff's Office, okay? My overtime
budget runs -- what is it, Judge, about $20,000, $25,000 for
deputies a year? City of Kerrville's overtime budget for law
enforcement's about $100,000. The difference is, law
enforcement officers working over 160, from 161 to 171, all
right, do not have to be paid anything other than their
regular salary. They can be paid straight time, or they can
be paid time and a half, which would be appropriate as, you
know, any normal employee working over 40 hours a week, which
would be the 160. Okay. What we have always done to keep
our overtime down is, our law enforcement receives straight
time for those hours from 161 to 171. Then after 171, the
law requires that they be paid time and a half. So, they
don't get time and a half for that first 11 hours, you know,
that most would normally get it. They only get it after that
11, and so it does create a unique animal in the way we
govern overtime. And, plus, we do swapping, and this is
where the hours -- and she can get in -- and what I mean by
that is, F.L.S.A. says only for hours actually worked, okay?
And that's a big difference. Because what happens is, say
one of my guys takes a week's vacation. That's 40 hours that
he's not working, so his actual number of hours he worked in
9-28-07
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that 28-day pay period is going to be minus the 40. And if
he worked 20 hours of overtime during that, okay, he doesn't
get paid for that overtime, because he didn't actually work
the 160. But what we do do -- and this is where it's hard to
keep our vacation hours down to 160 -- is where he would have
lost	two weeks --	or a week,	you know,	20 hours	of --	would
have	gotten paid	20 hours of	overtime,	but he's	not.	We
don't deduct 20 hours of vacation from his vacation pool, all
right? So, in other words, he took 40 hours off, but he
worked 20 hours of overtime. He's not getting paid for the
overtime, so all he lost out of his vacation was 20 hours.
And that's why our time records are very detailed, very
involved out there, to keep that going so we don't have a
$100,000 overtime budget. But it does make it very, very
hard to keep those vacation hours down to 160 a year,
especially if you got somebody that's got 20 years service
in, okay? And	it's	already getting -	- it gets	-- law
enforcement is	very	different. And -	- and it	could be easily
done on their computer system if you want to pay them time
and a half overtime after 160 hours, which they -- then
you're going quadruple on overtime budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: You think we're going to be in a
position relatively soon to have something in place where we
can do this thing all electronically under some sort of a
program?
9-28-07
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There were -- and they brought
out one vendor that showed us one that I don't think any of
us wanted to go to; that it could work, and would have
probably worked, but I think their program was 50,000 to
start out, and 5,000 a year maintenance fees. So, you know,
it's not feasible to do it that way. Eva did have one the
other day that looked like it may, and what she's had --
Trolinger and her been working on, I just haven't seen it to
be able to sit down with it and kind of play with it to see
if it would do it that way. Otherwise -- you know, 'cause if
it doesn't, it just jumps -- I can make anything work, but it
really jumps our overtime up if we don't -- if we're not
careful on our recordkeeping.
MS. HYDE: I changed the timesheets for this year,
because in the past there's been a lot of confusion. I think
there's been six or seven versions of the time sheet out
there that people use, and how you use it, so I just made one
myself. Now, if y'all want to pay me $25,000 for that
spreadsheet, I -- you know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Put it in next year's
budget.
MR. TROLINGER: Eva's got a good point. There's
really nothing technical-wise that's stopping us from
electronic timekeeping. It's really the Sheriff going along
with whatever we decide on. And right now --
9-28-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Before we institute that
county-wide, we need to have his nailed down, too.
MS. HYDE: Absolutely.
JUDGE TINLEY: In an efficient manner.
MR. TROLINGER: That's the most difficult part.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But his part, it sounds to me
like we end up losing 50,000 a year if we just use a generic
system.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right. If we don't
make it fit -- if we don't write it to fit how we can legally
do law enforcement, then, yes, it shows my guys are working
overtime and getting paid for it, even though they didn't
actually work over the 160, 'cause they had vacation. So --
MR. TROLINGER: I think what you're hearing more is
a fear of automation than it is any technical hurdle.
MS. HYDE: I've also got the worksheet about
halfway done for him to look at and see, make sure that I'm
on -- online. If I can make a spreadsheet do it, then the
software folks should be able to take my spreadsheet and do
the same darn thing. So, it -- you know, it shouldn't be
that difficult, especially if they have a template. Do you
agree, John?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
MS. HYDE: So that's -- that's kind of it in a
nutshell.
9-28-07
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we get the Sheriff's
considerations satisfied, --
MS. HYDE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- get the software to his
satisfaction, then we're ready to go?
MS. HYDE: Well, if I can make the spreadsheet
match what he wants, then they should be able to write some
software to match what he wants.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And everybody else is ready
to go online, waiting on the Sheriff?
MS. HYDE: They'll be able to go -- well, the rest
of the folks are going to go ahead and use the new timesheets
starting next week, and that's what we're going to use for
payment. It's also going to help with the supervisors --
MR. STANTON: We're not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Kevin Stanton is -- he's got kind of
a --
MS. HYDE: He's law enforcement.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He's got the same thing I do.
MS. HYDE: He's law enforcement, and they're going
to turn in their timesheets within three days after the
payday instead of trying to do this five days before. It
makes no sense; it's redundant. We're doing two and three
sets of paperwork for nothing. Our people are working.
Let's turn them in. Here they are; here's one.
9-28-07
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, a couple questions I have
on this that Eva doesn't -- is Number 8 right now going to
apply to law enforcement, and are you talking a complete
time, or just their monthly timesheets?
MS. HYDE: No --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Their complete records or
what?
MS. HYDE: Law enforcement is not -- you guys keep
-- you keep your stuff on-site so that you're in compliance
with TCLEOSE or T.J.P.C. or -- they keep their -- their files
totally separate.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
MS. HYDE: And the other file separation was for
Road and Bridge, 'cause they have their own file system
there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And --
MS. HYDE: No-kill injuries.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is Number 2 where you --
Number 2, under Overtime.
MS. HYDE: Mm-hmm.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Where it says that comp time
must be taken within one month, okay? My officers do not
earn any comp time. We pay for the -- for the actual comp
time they work, which is the 160, or we try and get them to
9-28-07
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2`
take it back off. The one thing they do build up, just
because we would be really hurting if we had to pay it, is
holidays, okay? When they work holidays, I just add another
day into a bank, kind of like their vacation, but we add it
into -- into a bank, keep it separated so that we're not
paying for those. They can just take those off later at any
time they wish. So, they build up -- two types of time that
they actually build up; one is holiday, and one is vacation.
The end of the month. Otherwise, they don't build that up.
Everything else is paid, but those two they do build up.
And, you know, if you want me to pay them for those holidays
when they work it, we'll just pay it straight out. But that,
again, jumps that overtime way up above what I budget for
each year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It sounds like -- I mean, both
under 8 and then under this one -- especially under 8, you're
telling me that -- I mean, it says here that you're keeping
track of it. And then you just said that except for the
Sheriff and Road and Bridge. Well, we need to exclude them
if they're different.
MS. HYDE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It says -- 'cause it says, you
know, will be maintained by Human Resources Department.
Now -- or you could add language, "or its designee," maybe,
or something like that. I mean --
9-28-07
17
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, but it would actually
be Rusty and Road and Bridge and --
JUDGE TINLEY: And Juvenile Detention.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- Juvenile Probation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sum it up as law
enforcement and Road and Bridge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if we say, "or H.R.
designee," that way it's kind of -- covers it, rather than
trying to list departments. And also, I think that's easier
for the long-term, of trying to get everyone in --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Makes sense.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the same basket.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Those were the only ones I had
concerns about.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. On your holiday, that's hour
for hour?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We just put, you know, that
same --
JUDGE TINLEY: If they have an 8-hour shift on a
holiday?
MS. HYDE: Twelve.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, it's 12. But -- and
that's a hard situation when you work 12-hour shifts, okay?
9-28-07
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
Because if your shift starts at 6 p.m. tonight, today's a
holiday, and you don't get off till 6 a.m. in the morning,
all right? Are you -- do you deserve 12 hours holiday? Or
just from 6:00 to midnight? Or --
MS. HYDE: Well, they start work --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If the other shift works
6 a.m. today and gets off at 6 p.m. today, they're getting 12
hours of holiday, where the other one may only be getting 8
hours. So that's why -- you know, I also -- what I like to
see, and how we try and do it is not holidays by day, 'cause
courthouse looks at it as an 8-hour day. We look at holidays
as hours.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, holiday starts at
12:01 a.m. and ends at midnight the next night.
MS. HYDE: Well, one other way that some folks can
do it, or we can -- we could do it is if you work -- if you
start work on the holiday, and that means your start work
time is on that holiday, not the day before or the day after.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Day after doesn't matter, but
if you start at 6 a.m. --
MS. HYDE: You start at 6:00.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- on a holiday, you get 12
hours holiday.
MS. HYDE: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If you start at 6 p.m. --
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
MS. HYDE: You still get the 12, 'cause you're
working the holiday. I mean, that makes it real clean,
versus trying to figure out --
JUDGE TINLEY: How have you been handling it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Twelve.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
~I SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because I just feel there's
nothing else they can do. They can't go do anything on that
holiday; they're coming to work at 6 p.m., and so we do give
them the 12. If they're a 12-hour employee, you know, if
they're one of the deputies or jailers. If they're clerical,
they're off on the holiday. And dispatchers are just what
their shifts are. Those aren't bad, because they're 3:00 to
11:00.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see it the same way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, y'all are in
agreement.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, that's -- all those things
go into her timesheets when the computer has to figure out
hours and all that. That's why it's a problem.
MR. STANTON: We've been doing it just the opposite
of the Sheriff's Department. I mean, is this going to be a
policy that the County's setting that we need to change the
way we do our holidays?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think everybody needs to be on the
9-28-07
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
same page. You know, what's good for the goose is good for
the gander.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hey, hey, hey, don't be
calling people names.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HYDE: I like being called a gander.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you?
MS. HYDE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Talk to you later when we
get through here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going back to Number 8, I just
thought -- but the ultimate records, do they get to your
department ever? Or do they stay completely in these other
sites?
MS. HYDE: They'll stay in the other sites, but
it's our responsibility to make sure that they've got them.
So, we'll check them once a quarter, and that will go in
under the Auditor's auditing process; we'll check to make
sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And just to let you know, mine
are -- all of our time records are secured in a locked closet
in files, to where only certain people have access to any of
that, anyhow.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. I'll make a motion
9-28-07
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
before we do this?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
MS. PIEPER: Sorry. On the budget amendment, this
section I do not believe has changed from the previous
general provisions. It's just that the way we have done it
does not conform with this. So, are we literally going to go
by this section in each office? Put in an agenda request for
budget amendments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think yes. I think the
controls from the auditing standpoint, we need to follow
state law, and if there's not money in your line item, you
can't spend it.
MS. PIEPER: No, I understand that. I don't have
any problem with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that means -- how I see this
is that if a line item is getting low, and you know
expenditures need to be made this year, that money's got to
be found somewhere else in your budget and come before it
goes negative.
MS. PIEPER: Right, and we have been doing that.
But we have been giving the Auditor's office the budget
amendment form, and actually, they have been -- we normally
would call them up and say, you know, "I need more money in
9-28-07
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this line item. Can we take it out of this line item?" And
they would literally type up the form.
JUDGE TINLEY: But you're initiating the request.
That's the point here.
MS. PIEPER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: You know, the fact that they
physically put it together and put it in a package for budget
amendments, that's a ministerial thing. You're initiating
the request by maintaining oversight of your budget and what
your needs are.
MS. PIEPER: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: And whether do you the actual
document or whether you have the Auditor do it, --
MS. PIEPER: But according to this --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- I think it's ultimately your
responsibility to see that it's done.
MS. PIEPER: Right. No, I do that. But according
to this, it says that we have to do an agenda request?
MS. HYDE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It says elected official
must appear before the Commissioners Court and the agenda
request, blab, blab, blab. I agree with you; that's a good
question.
MR. TROLINGER: During pay bills -- the agenda,
"Pay Bills," is that not the agenda?
9-28-07
1
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
JUDGE TINLEY: That's an agenda item. Budget
amendments, sure.
MS. PIEPER: Okay. So, what I'm asking, is that
process going to change?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The change, as I see it, is
that you -- it's done before the expenditure rather than
after. Now, as -- as has happened under the current process,
if we have a question, we may not do it until we get the
elected official in here.
MS. PIEPER: Right. I understand that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think that -- I mean, if
they're pretty generic or we don't have questions, then
usually -- I mean, so I don't think every elected official
needs to be here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's what the
language says. That's why she's raising the question.
MS. PIEPER: The way I understand it is, on the
agenda, it would have l.l, County Clerk, consider and discuss
my budget amendment.
MR. TROLINGER: No.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
MS. PIEPER: 1.2 is the Treasurer.
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
MS. PIEPER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's see what Mindy's got here.
9-28-07
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
MS. WILLIAMS: I think the confusion is where it
says that the elected official or department head must
appear. That tells me I've got to be here. If I've got a
budget amendment, I have to sit here through court, wait
until the budget amendments are done.
MS. PIEPER: Right.
MS. WILLIAMS: And a lot of times, we've got a lot
of things going where we need to be in the office working.
The reason -- I think the reason that we were doing it the
way we were, the elected official or department head would
contact the Auditor's office and say, "I need to do a budget
amendment. I want to move from it here to here." They
prepare the form. The elected official normally, if they're
available, will sign off on it, and then the Auditor, as a
courtesy, was presenting it to the Court to keep the elected
officials and department heads from having to be tied up here
during that time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a way to simplify
it. "If the elected official or department head's,"
apostrophe S. Take out "must appear before Commissioners
Court." That would make it read, "the elected official or
department head's agenda request must be supported by
sufficient documentation to support the transfer."
MS. WILLIAMS: That sounds better. And then if
there are questions that the Court has, at that point you can
9-28-07
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
contact that elected official and say, "Hey, we need you down
here. You have to explain a little bit more as to what
you're wanting."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The whole idea is for this
to take place before --
MS. WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- the budget amendment
request, so that we're not paying -- oops.
MS. WILLIAMS: Right. In other words, get the
budget amendment done before you actually expend that -- that
moneys, before you ever order that item.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If it's going to go over that
amount of money you have in that budget line.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
MS. PIEPER: And then I have another suggestion on
this same line item. When we do budget amendments, can we
try to do it in, like, one order? To where if we have ten
budget amendments, you go down and hear all 10 of them, and
then at the very end, somebody make a motion to approve it?
Perhaps with the exception of Item Number 3.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what we've been
doing the last month or two.
JUDGE TINLEY: The Auditor has modified that
9-28-07
~h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
process. She provides us with a summary, and we're doing it
with one motion, unless a member of the Court wants to pull
out or exclude --
MS. PIEPER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- one of those items for separate
consideration.
MS. PIEPER: Right. I don't want that to change,
'cause then it makes it -- when you have to do a billion
orders after court, it makes it much harder.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's helped you immensely, hasn't
it, Cheryl?
MS. THOMPSON: Yes, it has.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cuts down on the paperwork.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, cuts down on a lot of time
that we have to spend going through the drill here also. Any
other questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two --
MS. GAULDEN: I just have one thing to ask you
about on the budget amendments, again. I know that you're
well aware of our situation with the Court-appointed
attorneys on C.P.S. cases, and a lot of times we don't know
about those expenditures until we actually get the invoice
from the court upstairs. So, is that going to cause a
problem for us there?
JUDGE TINLEY: What I would encourage you to do
9-28-07
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
there, as you see those dwindling down, your line item, --
MS. GAULDEN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- you come to the Court, file a
budget amendment request ahead of time.
MS. GAULDEN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: With the justification being that
this is happening, and we're getting close to exhausting
those funds; we need to replenish this line item.
MS. GAULDEN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: The other option is, under this
language, we're going to hold up paying those lawyers until
the money's there. This whole thing was prompted by a
concern that we were -- maybe our bills were not being paid
in a timely manner. If there's funds in the budget account,
there's no reason for the payment of those bills to be held
up, except for approval by the department head or elected
official, and that shouldn't take too long. And if the funds
are in the line item, however, then it goes right on through.
The holdup is when you have to come in, move funds into the
account line item, because debts have been incurred for which
there weren't available funds in that budget line item.
MS. GAULDEN: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, keep an eye on it. That's what
it's intended to do, is to cause you to do that and to be
proactive and get out ahead of it.
9-28-07
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. GAULDEN: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Another thing I think that
the -- you know, I look at it as the -- the judges need to
keep a little bit of an idea as to what their budget's --
what's going on with it. I mean, they know what they're
doing. They know what trials they're working on and
handling. If they know that they have a huge expenditure
coming from, you know, a -- in any one of those
Court-appointed services that they are over, they need to,
you know, make these changes before the money gets spent.
MS. GAULDEN: Well, the only thing there is,
though, we have judges upstairs, like in C.P.S. and A.G.
cases, that are appointing attorneys, and we don't know about
them until we get the bill for that attorney. They -- the
judge up there will send us an invoice, or the attorney will
send us an invoice, and that's when we first find out that
they've been appointed on a case up there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
MS. GAULDEN: They send it down here for Judge
Brown to approve if it's filed in the County Court at Law.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Tn hPr Cit>>at~nn cho~c __
she's really caught in the middle, because they come out of
Judge Brown's budget, but he has no control over authorizing
expenditures --
MS. GAULDEN: Right.
9-28-07
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: -- in the cases upstairs. For a
couple of years now, he says, "For goodness sake, give those
people their own budget and take me out of it." And he's got
a good point. But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He does.
JUDGE TINLEY: But we can't get those folks to be
accountable; they're state people. So, we got to pour
through our budgets -- one of our budgets, and she's caught
in the middle. But --
MS. GAULDEN: I mean, we keep an eye on the budget,
you know. You know, we do the best we can on that. And if
we need to have money transferred, you know, we request it.
But we don't really have any control over who's being
appointed and when.
JUDGE TINLEY: And how much they're being paid.
Right, I understand.
MS. GAULDEN: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: You might also get with
Ms. Henderson upstairs to bring her up to speed on this, to
monitor these things and be proactive about them as we see
those things happening. 'Cause I know, on behalf of the
District Judges, she's going to be the one that's filing for
the budget requests. Actually, probably most all the work is
done by the Auditor's office, but she's going to be the one
monitoring those, I'm sure.
9-28-07
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. GAULDEN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You made a comment, Judge,
that's kind of interesting about how much they're being paid.
Are attorneys who are Court-appointed and selected by either
the judges upstairs or Judge Brown or by you, perhaps, are
they reimbursed at their billing rate or a court rate set --
JUDGE TINLEY: They're -- they're by rates that
have been established and published for Court-appointed
attorneys for those particular types of cases.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got a rate for my juveniles,
for example, a specific rate. I have a specific rate for my
mental health attorneys. I have a rate for my mental health
masters. The -- occasionally, I'll do one in probate court,
because of -- it's cost-exempt. But also the judges
upstairs, and Judge Brown, they have schedules that they go
by, and they follow those schedules. The lawyers are well
aware of them, and they know what's being done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll just say that I believe
that if they incur a bill and there's no money in the line
item, they may have to wait a couple weeks to get paid until
they have time to do that budget amendment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You mean a lawyer?
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
9-28-07
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think anybody in
this room would get heartburn about a lawyer getting paid
late.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Except
he's the only lawyer in here, I think.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Doesn't
it's a lawyer or anybody else, but I do
heartburn thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hyde, you
comments?
for maybe the Judge;
Whoop-dee-doo.
really matter whether
agree with the
zad some more
MS. HYDE: Well, because Ms. Hargis isn't here, on
that -- on the budget amendments, the reason why she wanted
people to be here, it's their budget, and she wants people to
be here to be able to explain why, instead of the Auditor
attempting to explain why, especially as we get farther along
in the year and people start maxing out on their line items.
So, she asked me if it went this way, just to make sure that
that got out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand that logic, and I
think there may be cases where, if it's a large item, some
explanation may be needed. But I don't think it's efficient
use of our elected -- elected officials to have them sitting
in court all day.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree.
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On normal bills, okay, that's
what -- that's why we have a problem with them getting paid
on time, is your normal billing. And this doesn't address
normal bills. Not anything out of budget; it's in budget.
You're just paying your normal bills each month. Is there a
way, or is it going to change -- it's not written in here --
that, like, I get a bill in today. You know, it's coded. I
initial it for payment. It comes over. What normally
happens is, it's the following Commissioners Court, if it's
submitted to her before the deadline, or it's the one after
that if it's the day after the deadline. And that's where
the county has the biggest problem --
MS. HYDE: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- with bills being paid late.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've shortened that period of
the lead time you need to get it to -- I believe. Didn't we
shorten it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That will not solve the
What the problem is, if it's in the
understood what Buster was saying the other day, last
hearing, was that he wants to make sure somebody has control
over that. If your department head or elected official
doesn	't	have control over it,	there's --	there's	a problem
that	y'	all need to deal with.	But once	I initial	that bill
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
for payment and I send it over, why can't it be paid at that
time? And then when it comes back, y'all get to view the
bills. If you have a question over that bill, then rake me
over the coals; question me about the bill, that you don't
think it was -- you know, should have been spent, even though
it was within the line items and that. And, you know, if you
have to, and worse came to worse, cut my line item by that
amount if you didn't think it should have ever been done.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, I think the simple answer
to that question is, if I'm not mistaken, the law requires
that the Commissioners Court authorize every single
expenditure of county funds. Now, you say, "Well, you can
ratify it." Well, the expenditure's been made.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, how do --
JUDGE TINLEY: I just don't see a way around it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. I just don't
understand, then, how all -- a lot of other counties don't --
bills aren't being paid late, but ours are, and that's where
I have an issue, 'cause we get calls all the time over, "When
are we going to get our check?" I said, "Well, we got on it
this day; we sent it over on this day. It was the day after
the cutoff that we got it, so now it's going to be, you know,
three weeks before it ever even goes to" --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's where the problem
occurs, when they come in at the tail end of a particular
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
l6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
period and they're held over for the two weeks. That's where
the problem is.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that's not unusual,
because a lot of times where your last Commissioners Court on
that month, you know, falls and that, or the first one, and
it creates that problem, with the way the courts fall in the
calendar. It's not anything anybody's doing intentional, but
they're -- but saying you only have five days to get them in
or three days to get them in will not solve this problem,
because a lot of them are weeks overdue.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the solution, as I see it, to
that, Sheriff, would be to periodically hold, in this gap
period, special Commissioners Court meetings --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- for the purpose of authorizing
the payment of bills. But beyond that, I don't see any way,
if the law is as I believe it to be, that we should allow
bills to be paid that we've not approved to be paid. 'Cause
I don't want -- frankly, I don't want to get in that trap.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I can understand that.
But maybe there needs -- you know, because we have an amount
of money in our budgeted line item.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have a certain amount for
food or whatever for the jail, okay. As long as I don't go
9-28-07
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
over that and I've initialed that bill to be approved to be
paid, okay -- I'd just like a little bit of research, maybe.
Can that bill go ahead and be paid, then? And then, if y'all
have a question, that says you still get to review them. But
I'm not sure that it can't be paid at that time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe the County Attorney
did that after the last meeting. I know he looked at -- the
language that was submitted by the Auditor was not legal.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, that was on the budget
amendment she was talking about, and that I can understand.
If it goes outside what y'all agreed in the budget, then yes,
I can definitely --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just have to have another
meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. The answer to your
question is no, we're not going to do it. But --
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Williams?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But we can fix it by having
another meeting.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I think a lot of
yours -- I know we have the largest budget, so we do go
through a lot. And one thing is, we get bills every day of
the week, so it would just about mean every month, you're
going to add another meeting in to keep those bills from
being paid late.
9-28-07
3h
1
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: So be it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Williams, you had some comments?
MS. WILLIAMS: I just wanted to clarify for Rusty
and for everybody. You know, working in the Auditor's office
as long as I did, even after the cutoff date, when the bills
would come in, we would go through and we would pick out the
ones that we knew needed to be paid, were time-sensitive, and
those girls will really put those things in, even, like, two
days after the cutoff. But it takes a lot of time to get
them set up and entered in order to get the reports to the
Court before the court meeting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that practice still
continuing?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. A lot of the
bottleneck -- and this is my opinion only -- is because we
pay by statement. If we paid by invoice, we could probably
process them a lot quicker. But the County has always, in
the past, wanted to wait until you got the statement. You
turn it in, we pay it. Statements don't usually go out till
the end of the month. Okay, you're not going to get it for
four or five days. By the time they check it, they approve
it, they code it, they get it to us, we've missed the first
court date. It goes to the second one. If they don't have
the money in the budget, it's going to go to the next time.
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
So, yeah, we are a little bit late. But if we changed that,
you know, instead of paying by statement, start paying by
invoice. As you get them in, you okay them, you process
them, you send them in; it's a constant flow. And it may be
that we do need to set up another meeting date to pay bills
during the month.
JUDGE TINLEY: This would entail the folks in the
all of that being prepared one additional time for each
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mindy, if we go towards the
purchasing order system that Ms. Hargis wants to, that will
also solve a lot of this, 'cause the information will already
be in the computer, so when the invoice comes in, all the
data's there. It's just a matter of reconciling it and
sending it on through.
MS. WILLIAMS: Correct. From what I understand, if
we do the purchase orders, when the purchase order is issued,
it will automatically take that money out of that line item
and put it in a holding area. So, when you look at your
budget -- say you purchased -- or you ordered something for
$500 out of office supplies. You had a $2,000 budget.
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
That's 500 out here. You only got 1,500 left to spend. It
gives you a better control over what you actually have in
that line item.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That --
MS. WILLIAMS: I think it would cut down a lot on
the other spending.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That would be good on your
overspending, because what happens now is all our budgets --
you know, when I pull mine up online, I really am running
about a month behind, so I have to go to the secretary, see
what we've sent over for the last month, because that amount
in there is not going to be deducted out of that. And that
system would help that a whole, whole lot, so that you're
doing better. We get bills every day and send them over
right when we get them, and we still get calls that they're
being paid late, and that's what bothers me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Trolinger, how far away
from implementing that --
MR. TROLINGER: It's up to the Auditor to enforce
it, issuing of purchase orders. Because it's already in the
software.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's --
MR. TROLINGER: She's familiar with Incode; it's
going to be a good system. It's going to really -- it's
going to be used the way it's intended to be.
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
COMMISSIONER LETZ: She is getting everything else,
I think, in a row before she starts going in that -- I think
it'll be a gradual -- by department, as I understand it from
talking to her.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: How do we do that on inmate
prescriptions? We have to get a purchase order before we
order that medicine? 'Cause we do that, you know, beaucoup
times.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're beyond general
provisions, I think.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, Rex would say we're past
that. So -- okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ms. Hyde, did you get those
modifications to the general provisions that we discussed?
MS. HYDE: Except law enforcement -- except law
enforcement, and the -- or the H.R. stays with me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the change of that sentence
in budget amendments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Budget amendment.
MS. HYDE: Just checking. I took --
JUDGE TINLEY: I'll give you this one; it's got
I them.
MS. HYDE: They must be there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
40
adopt the position schedule, step and grade schedule, and
general provisions as modified today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We spent more time on general
provisions than we've ever spent, probably.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is good -- a good thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: If they're going to be effective,
they need to be something that you follow. That's been the
problem before, being approved prior. Any further question
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 2; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
authorize publication of an RFP for preparation of the
2006-07 audit. The -- the Auditor is at a conference and
left with us a proposed Request for Proposal for auditing
services. It's pretty detailed, pretty long, pretty
comprehensive.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, what kind of
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
I2
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41
conference is the Auditor at right now? Do you know?
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you recall exactly, Ms. Hyde?
The conference that the Auditor is attending today?
MS. HYDE: It is the leadership conference for the
I Chamber.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. It's Leadership Kerr
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is what it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Just kind of a
strange time for an auditor to be out of the --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: When we're dealing with their
job.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we
authorize the Auditor to publish the RFP for preparation of
the 2006-2007 audit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Further question or discussion? All in favor of
the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Next item
is Item 3; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
adopt the proposed salary increases, expenses, and allowances
for elected officials of Kerr County, Texas, in accordance
with the public notice as published in the Kerrville Daily
Times. As most of you recall, there was a publication as
required under applicable state law dealing -- the statute
actually says "increases," so not all -- all of those
officials were listed. I think County Court at Law Judge was
not listed, because there was no increase. But with respect
to others in which there were any increases, they were listed
and published in the local newspaper, as required by law.
And that's what we're looking at with regard to Agenda Item
Number 3.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I still don't agree with the
extra 3 and a half percent on the Commissioners Court. I
brought that up once before and I was outvoted, but I still
want to express my displeasure with us taking a higher
increase than what we're giving our employees, and I don't
care whether it's to realign us with other counties or
whatever the reason. I think it's wrong, and I just want to
9-28-07
1
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
express that -- that view on that issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only comment, I guess --
several years, we have gone to great length -- probably the
last five years, to really increase, almost department by
department, all of our employees, and eliminated the bottom
two pay grades completely, I believe, county-wide. During
that period, there was no increases for, certainly,
Commissioners, and probably most other elected officials. If
-- how do you increase the elected official and Commissioners
if you don't do it at one time? I mean, do you do it -- you
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, you can't, but I guess
my point is that over -- I've been gone for eight years, and
the salary's doubled since I've been gone, so somewhere along
the way there had been some increases. I mean, it couldn't
be where it is now compared to where it was if there hadn't
been. And I do agree that those things periodically do need
to be -- to be raised, but getting 3 and a half percent in
COLA this year is an increase. I mean, we're going to get
the same thing everybody else gets, but then when you add
another 3 and a half percent on top of that, which makes it
7, and we chastised the City of Kerrville as well as the
Appraisal District for doing the same thing, and we didn't
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
approve the budget for that reason. I don't think I can
support it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I -- just an observation or
two. First of all, Commissioner, I came on the Court when
you went off.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The salary has not doubled
in the interim eight years. It has increased, but it hasn't
doubled, 'cause I know what I got when I came on, which is
what you got when you went off.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: $24,300.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was 28. And it hasn't
doubled since that time. But be that as it may, I read with
interest, and I know that Judge Tinley has read the same
thing I read with respect to analysis of where salaries are
in Kerr County. And while we are government, and that's a
little separate, the fact of the matter is, we have a large
employee group, and employee groups consists of elected
officials as well as our employees. We're all employees. We
all shop in this marketplace. We all purchase in this
marketplace. When you take a look and you realize that the
average wage in Kerr County is 30 percent below the state
average, think about it. We need not to be holding things
down. We need not to be so ultra-generous that it does
reflect negatively, but by the same token, there is something
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
to be said about helping to improve that situation in Kerr
County. And it starts right here.
crews, and that is a very big issue. And I think we're well
compensated for what we do, and it's just -- it's a principle
thing with me. And I just -- I just think that we take the
same thing we're willing to give the employees, and I fully
support the employees and getting what they deserve, and I do
believe in time they will need to be raised up even more.
But that's just my thought. It's just me personally. What I
-- what we're paid, I think we're paid very well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- you know, certainly,
I mean, I've -- I put out a proposal that Commissioners
didn't get raised either, but I'm also seeing the other
departments that I thought shouldn't have gotten raises, so
the only thing -- singling out Commissioners every time we
give pay raises doesn't make sense to me. But, you know --
and the other thing you mentioned, I don't recall chastising
City of Kerrville this year. Not on this issue, anyway.
(Laughter.) But on the Appraisal District, the problem out
of the Appraisal District, you have to look beyond -- on
salaries, beyond one year. My recollection is for the last
9-28-07
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
three years, and probably longer, they give a blanket
7 percent every year, and that's a lot different than going
in and -- and making adjustments every once in a while. And
that's a little bit different way of doing it. I would, you
know, be voting with you, and I'm real close anyway, but if
we were giving a 7 percent raise every year to department
heads, that's a lot different than singling out. But I
understand your --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I mean, that's just the
way I'm thinking. The other thing is -- there's one other
thing, and then I'll leave it alone; you beat me up enough.
I But on the COLA increases for -- for employees or department
heads prior to having at least six months of service seems
unfair to me. And I believe that it was proposed that the
Auditor get the 3.5 plus a 3.5, and she just came on board in
July. Why do we give her a COLA? She hasn't been here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm with you 100 percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with you on that one.
I think it gets --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just don't think -- I mean,
it's not fair to the rest of the employees that have been
here.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's not an elected official.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know.
25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: It's not covered by this item.
9-28-07
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay, I'm sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, that salary is subject to
being established by the District Judges, who hire and
approve the compensation within the limits set by --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll leave that alone till we
get on the next thing. Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On your -- on that topic,
though -- and I think maybe it's difficult to go back in, and
where do you draw the line? But on anyone who is salaried
and we make a salary adjustment, I tend to agree that a COLA
on top of a salary adjustment doesn't make a lot of sense.
But the other side of it is, it causes a bookkeeping problem
if you don't give across the board, 'cause you say, okay,
well, you know, Employee X has been here, you know, four
months, and someone's been here eight months. Well, does
that mean that you get a one-third or a two-thirds of a COLA?
You know, it starts getting --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No. We'll get to that in a
I minute.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion
on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz voted in
favor of the motion.)
9-28-07
48
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm opposed.
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 4; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
adopt the FY 2007-08 Kerr County budget. The budget has been
provided to you, the latest version. Based upon discussions
and various issues that have come before us, I think we've
only heard of one today dealing with an interim chief deputy
for the County Clerk because of a special situation there.
But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- as far as I know, everything is
in what's before you now with that exception. Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to make a motion
that we adopt this budget, but I have a couple of things that
I want to discuss before we get down to actual voting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second.
Question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. There are a
couple of things that I want to bring back up. One is the
Sheriff's Office vehicles.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What page are we on?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have any idea what
page it's on.
9-28-07
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let's go to the
Sheriff's Department.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sheriff's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I commented that I felt like
that the public demands law enforcement, good law
enforcement, and I will not back away from that. That's a
true statement. But I have visited with a couple of friends
of mine in the last week. This has been kind of bothering me
a little bit, so I visited with a couple of friends that are
wise men, and I've changed my mind on the way I want to vote.
I want to vote that the Sheriff receive four Fords and one
I' Tahoe. And I don't know how you go -- how we go about doing
that. I'd be happy to make a motion right this moment, or do
we want to wait to the end? Or is this the time to change
the budget? Or are you going to throw something at me for
wanting to change it at all?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir, not at all. That's your
prerogative, Commissioner. I -- and I'm thinking out loud.
Number one, before I -- before I forget it, because of our --
of our tax structure, there is some language that we need to
add to the very front of the budget. There's some language
required by House Bill 3195 that's statutorily mandated, and
it's not with the budget. If you wouldn't mind first
amending your motion to include the required language as
required by House Bill 3195, we'll be past that hump.
9-28-07
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that acceptable?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is that language?
JUDGE TINLEY: It deals with -- that this budget
generates -- the tax rate which funds this budget generates
additional funds, all of this so-called consumerism that the
Legislature has mandated. And the House Bill 3195 says you
put that on the front page of your budget if your budget is
not based upon either, one, the effective tax rate, or
something lower than that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here it is, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. You want all this language?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. But that's essentially --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You, as the County Judge,
see that that's what we should do?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the House Bill 3195 requires
that it be on any budget you adopt.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which is based upon anything higher
than the effective tax rate, which this is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, would you -- would you amend
your motion to approve -- your base motion to approve the
budget to include the language as required by 3195?
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, I will.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Now, let me think out loud as
to your second issue. It occurs to me that you may want to
offer an amendment to the motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: To the extent that it authorizes --
I don't know whether -- did it authorize four or five Tahoes?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Four.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Four Tahoes, one Crown
Victoria. And I want to reverse that, and I think I'm
amending the proposed budget, is what I'm -- what I'm doing.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure you're amending the
actual dollars, but you're amending what the expenditures
were authorized for. 'Cause my recollection is that instead
of -- the annual expenditure is the same; it's just four
years instead of three.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: So I don't think there's a dollar
amount change.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: But I think for purposes of policy,
you're certainly authorized to do that, and are you offering
that as an amendment?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. And, see, I think
9-28-07
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
it would be -- I think it would be very important to be
having this discussion with the County Auditor at this time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, can I --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems to me that the budget
is -- I mean, I think I'm kind of in line with you. Just
kind of a little bit added to what you just said. The budget
dollars are fixed; what we're doing really is changing the
expenditures by line item, which will have an impact on the
reserves, basically. Or, you know, if all expenditures are
paid. But because we're not changing the total budget, the
tax rate or nothing, total dollars are going to be the same,
so it's an adjustment. It really seems to me what we're
doing is adopting the budget, and then a series of
amendments, or maybe one amendment to that budget that
changes certain line items.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In this instance -- in this
instance, the reality is, all we're doing is contracting
differently. The dollars are the same, and we're contracting
for a different component -- different lineup of vehicles,
which shortens the length of the contracts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure the dollars are
exactly the same.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, they're --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, they're close, but if
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
you're a penny off, it's different.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're not going to be
greater than; they're going to be less than.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. If anything, it'll be
less. And I agree with you; I think it is going to be -- the
dollars are going to change some.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It could be greater if you go
to the three-year with still the five vehicles.
JUDGE TINLEY: But I think the Commissioner's point
is well-made. Even if there's no change in the amount of
funding from this one-year budget, the current guidance from
the Court with regard to which vehicles are going to be
purchased -- they're going to be purchased during this budget
year, and that's going to set the mold for what's paid for
and how long it's paid for.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: So I think it's very appropriate,
even if there's no change in the amount of expenditure for
this year's budget, the direction needs to be given as to
what you're authorizing to be purchased.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. So, it seems to me what
we're doing -- but -- and I am thinking out loud here. We
adopt the budget subject to specified amendments.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, no, not -- not
9-28-07
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
necessarily. I think that we want to, by my motion, amend
this budget right now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think -- what I'm
saying is, I don't think we have to run a whole new run.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause we don't know this
number, and we're not going to know until we run a whole new
computer run. If you change it one penny -- what I'm trying
to say, is if we adopt the budget, then subject to budget
amendments, it's just changing the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That might be a cleaner way.
Too bad we don't have an auditor to kind of direct us through
that .
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If we go to that point -- and
I would like to have my say first, but if we do go to that
point, why don't you leave that same dollar amount in there,
and then on the next Commissioners Court agenda or something,
just give me a court order ordering me to buy four Crown Vics
and one Tahoe, and that's done. Because this is just a
dollar amount. And that's what -- then that's what I would
have to purchase.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Frankly, that's probably a
good approach. We just --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- issue a court order
9-28-07
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
instructing you -- for your auto purchases to be four of one
and one of the other.
~I COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think we have other ones
probably that are going to come out, and I think that -- that
system doesn't work as well as amending -- I mean, passing
~I the budget, then doing some amendments right now that go
along with it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Well, this particular
item, though, I think that that would probably be the
appropriate way to do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I'm not -- my motion
doesn't have anything to do with adopting the budget right
now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are you satisfied with the
procedure --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- that's been offered by the
Sheriff?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: You wish to withdraw that amendment?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But what about the House
Bill?
9-28-07
56
1
2 anyway.
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, no, that needs to stay there
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, th
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
I have one more -- one more item.
Okay. Is that in my motion?
at's in your base motion.
Yes, it was.
My base motion.
We through with that one? I
JUDGE TINLEY: Another issue that you want to
raise? Throw it out here.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Does this mean that on this
item, okay, as far as justifying and giving my explanation,
does that need to wait until the next Commissioner Court deal
before you issue the other --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or the other way you can do it,
just pull it off the capital expenditure list. Then they
can't do it anyway. We can do that today, pull all his cars
off of it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I -- you know,
Commissioners Court's not that far away. I'm not going to do
that. But I would like to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're not going to be on
vacation again next time?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. I don't know when your
9-28-07
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
next court date is, but -- but I would like to have the
opportunity to address the Court on this issue before it's
adopted.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you should have that
opportunity; I agree, Sheriff. Now, you had another issue
you wanted to throw out?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, the merit raise
issue. I am -- I have turned to page something -- Page 22.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which tab?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's the District Clerk,
because that's the one I remember talking about merit raises.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which tab are you on, the
District Clerk?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, District Clerk.
Oh, I see the page number. Well, I still think the page is
22.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And I don't see -- I
don't see merit raises in here, number one. Where would I --
where would I find a merit raise?
JUDGE TINLEY: Those raises -- and, Ms. Hyde,
correct me if this is not correct. As a result of -- of some
discussions earlier, and from some guidance from the Court,
there were some specific matters with regard to the District
Clerk, the County Clerk, --
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
MS. HYDE: Tax Assessor.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Tax Assessor dealing with
specified positions there, and those numbers are incorporated
in that last column that you see. They're already there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In part-time salaries, or --
JUDGE TINLEY: Or deputy clerk salaries, right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or deputy clerk salaries.
JUDGE TINLEY: They're already there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it would be advances
in step and grade to take care of that. Is that the way
we're doing it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In certain instances.
MS. HYDE: We're also putting it in the position
schedule so we can keep up with it, 'cause in the past there
wasn't any real documentation, so we -- you know, so we're
keeping it in the position schedule as well so that we know
someone got a job classification or a reclassification or
promotion, --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MS. HYDE: -- et cetera.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, really, my point is --
and I'm glad you pointed that out for me, let me know that it
is in the budget, and I'm glad it's there. I'm a merit raise
fan. But I think the way that we -- we go about it may be a
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
little bit flawed. If we -- I just believe that it needs to
you an example. If one was given where it's -- it came out
from under the definition of merit raise, and an elected
official chose to just give it to their little friend -- and
someone got upset about it, well, that person that was upset
about it is not going to be upset at the elected official.
That person is going to come to -- here to this Court. So,
duty. In years past, it seems like the elected officials
have given a merit for a person that was basically doing
their job, you know, that they're committed and they're
dedicated to the County. Well, that's your job. That's what
we pay you -- that's what the taxpayers pay you to do.
That's not a merit. So I think, just for accountability
purposes, make things clean, that the elected official would
bring it back to the Commissioners Court and address it, kind
of like we do in the capital outlay thing and general
provisions, that the merit raises for each department shall
only be authorized and directed by Commissioners Court,
something like that. I just -- I think it's cleaner that way
if you -- if it was brought in here. I'm not -- I don't know
the employees; I don't know what kind of work they do, but to
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
make sure that it's a merit raise. That's my whole point.
MR. TROLINGER: Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
though it may be built in, as it
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
implemented, the department head
come and justify the reason why
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
Your point is that even
was explained, --
Mm-hmm.
-- before it's given or
or elected official should
Before they do it.
To make sure that it's a
merit raise.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think to solve that, I --
they get lost, in my mind, when we're going through this
whole process. We talk about them; they kind of disappear.
I think what would be helpful in future years is if we just
had a spreadsheet that would list them for -- whether it's an
elected -- I mean, a department head or an employee, and we
keep track of them. Then there's one page that says these
are the merit raises that we're doing, and make it part of
this final process, that we adopt one sheet that has them all
listed on it. I'm -- that might be a good idea.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It may be a good idea.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That kind of lists that, and
keep track of where they're going and who's getting them and
kind of why. And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: H.R. could provide that for
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
us.
MR. TROLINGER: And, Commissioner Baldwin, I
recall, in the District Clerk, that there was a discussion in
court -- since the District Clerk's not here, I thought I'd
speak up for her. She did have a discussion and presented to
y'all the reasoning behind the merit increase for her chief,
because she had gone above and beyond.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I do recall the
conversation. I don't recall what that "above and beyond"
was. It was maybe working a little overtime and that kind of
thing.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Additional duties.
MR. TROLINGER: Before and after hours, working
weekends, more responsibility.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Additional duties above and
I beyond.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Much like our County
Treasurer has gone for years and years and years. It was
her -- she comes in on -- when she was in the Auditor's
office, and now in the Treasurer's office, she comes in on
weekends, spends weekends in here, leaves here after -- way
after dark to get the job done. That's what she's paid for,
so to me, that is -- that's not a -- I'm sorry I'm picking on
you, Mindy. But that's my whole point. That's what the
taxpayers pay you for, is to get the job done. And because
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
you stay in here 80 hours a week, goofy as you are for doing
that, you're getting the job done, and that's what's they pay
you for. I mean, I don't see that that's above and beyond
the call of duty. It's part of the job. Rusty spends more
than 40 hours on his job.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Williams says I'm on vacation
all the time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I just asked -- I just
asked the question.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One thing I would try and
refresh your memory about in the merit rises, especially with
most of the departments in the county, back when we went
through all the mess with pay scales and pay schedules and
all that, and because law enforcement and Road and Bridge, I
think, get the educational raises, you know, I don't give
merit raises at all. Because the way we did that, and the
way it was really meant to work -- and I'll take David for an
example. And what Buster is saying now, David made a case
for us one time that was in a lot of ways above and beyond,
okay, and ended up on Oprah on it, or whatever you want to
say, for David. But David was on duty that morning; he took
a call, and that's the way it went. If he wouldn't have been
on duty that morning, another deputy would take that call. I
would hope that they would have been well enough trained to
do the same thing. He handled it perfectly. But the way
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63
everything was set up, and why you had 12 steps in your pay
scale was that if law enforcement got all the educational
give any one of their employees up to four steps or four
merit raises in a 20-year period. That way, at the end of a
20-year career with this county, every employee had the same
ability to end up at that Step 12 in that schedule, so that
nobody really, you know, could be allowed more than the other
one, depending on what position they were in. And that's the
way that was adopted, so that regardless of what it was, in
the 20-year period, each person could get four merit raises.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I tend to agree with
-- to me, an employee that's doing -- going above and beyond
what's required of their job should get moved on to a higher
-- should get promoted, basically, to a new job where there's
more pay and more responsibility, and that tends to be what
happens. And I think most of the -- what we call merit
raises that we've given in recent years, or probably the last
two years anyway, are really related more to increase in job
responsibilities, as opposed to leaving someone the same,
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
just giving them a merit raise 'cause they did -- they've
been -- you know, it's been a change in responsibility that's
usually been the basis of most of the responsibility.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I like that whenever
somebody's responsibilities are increased, you don't call
that a merit; you call that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's exactly the way it
ought to be, because merit is the most subjective of all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I don't -- I don't
favor the subjectiveness of that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I really don't think we've done
many merit raises, if any, in the past couple of years. I
think we've pretty much --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I think there's just
two that we discussed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But even -- there was different
responsibilities added for --
MS. HYDE: There's seven total.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, there's seven?
MS. HYDE: There were seven total that we all
discussed, and they're all job responsibility changes. And
~I
!, the good news is that they're documented, so these people are
going to be held accountable for those job descriptions. So
9-28-07
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
it can't be that, you know, every -- every year we turn in --
you know, somebody else has just done this or they do this or
they work a little bit extra. And I think that these folks
are going to tell you that I'm not real fond of -- of merit,
because they are very subjective. If -- if you only have
three or four employees, how can you not be subjective when
you're asking, "Did you do a good job?" "Well, I came to
work every day."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MS. HYDE: You know? So -- but they are very hard
to be -- be non-subjective or non-biased. But if you're
looking at the true job description and you're adding
responsibility and not just fluff into a job description,
insuring that these people are cross-trained, and that's what
these guys are committed to, and made sure that it's
happening, then, yes, I think they deserve something for a
job responsibility change.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that.
MS. HYDE: But then we have to -- you know, like,
there's something to hold these people accountable when we do
that. If we don't, then all we're doing is just giving money
away, and I'm not for that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I'm not either. Well,
I'm not against -- I'm not against merit raises. You know,
in its purest form, I think it's a great idea --
9-28-07
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
13
14
I5
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HYDE: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- to reward someone for
that. And I don't want an elected official to take a ding
over something like that. If anybody's going to take a ding,
it should be these guys sitting at this table right here,
because we're going to get it anyway. So, we might --
accountability probably needs to be here, and we need to sign
off on it. That's my point. I'm trying -- not trying to
take anybody's power or control in any way.
MS. HYDE: One thing that we are going to try to do
this year, Commissioner, is we did listen to you, and you've
mentioned this before. What we found this year -- this is my
first year going through the whole budget. And what we're
looking at is -- is requesting, later on in the year and as
we go forward, that during the budget process, by July 31st,
the positions are locked and loaded. If you are looking to
promote, to change job descriptions, those things need to be
done prior to us starting these budget workshops, 'cause then
they tend to get slid in there and you don't even realize
what's going on. And that way, if we have it all up in --
before the budget period starts, then everybody knows, where
are we going? What are we looking at? And you guys will
9-28-07
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
have much more documentation so that it can be approved prior
to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Whatever.
JUDGE TINLEY: We won't be chasing the little
things and working internally on departments.
MS. HYDE: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's an excellent idea. I
really do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too.
JUDGE TINLEY: The way the agenda item is styled,
my thinking is that if there are any changes to be made to
the authorized expenditures in what's before us, that we
probably need to get those out on the table as part and
parcel of the process of adopting these budget -- this
particular budget, so I think it would be appropriate if
there's going to be any change in the expenditures that's
different from what's specified in here, we ought to throw
those out now as budget amendments to be considered as part
of the actual adoption.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. I
apologize for taking up the Court's time.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, that's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So --
JUDGE TINLEY: If there was going to be a change in
the amount of expenditure --
9-28-07
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, but --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- right off the top --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But there isn't, I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: But I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On this first one, then, that
should be a budget amendment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one? First one what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On cars.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I don't think the amount is
j going to change. I think the direction that the Sheriff is
going to get --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- as to what's he's authorized to
purchase, and I think he's on notice that that very well may
change.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only thing that I would
say is, the amount would definitely go down if we still stay
at four years; there's no ands, ifs, or buts. But when we
make those switches and drop a whole year off the payment, I
just have not checked to whether that amount would go up or
down. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The amount, to me, was -- the
amount you proposed in the budget process would be the same.
The only difference was it added an extra year when you did
9-28-07
1
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
the Tahoes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was my understanding.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I remember.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So --
JUDGE TINLEY: But the amount of difference is not
going to be much, if at all.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It shouldn't be much at all.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It won't be any different
this year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you this, though,
Rusty. Can you wait till the next meeting before you get
authorization?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If this Court tells me to
wait, I don't have much choice.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait, I'm trying to make a
point here. Or should we call one of our special meetings?
'Cause I wouldn't want any lawyer to go without getting a
salary -- or getting money.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only problem I have
waiting, and this is what we all face this time of year. In
years past, even before now, we would send those dealerships
that have the state bids a letter saying it is our
anticipation, you know, that this is what's going to happen.
We've done that all the years, so that they're going ahead
9-28-07
1
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
and preparing cars. Otherwise, you get D.P.S., you get
everybody in the state getting cars. I did not do that this
year, 'cause we felt maybe we could do it Monday. Now it's
going to be put off a little bit later. All right. And it's
just going to be where we fall in line with that -- with
-- yeah, it could hold them up as long as, you know, six,
eight months. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you're only eight
ed from getting a court order. You're not 14 days
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I mean, I'll do whatever -- I
budgets are -- are now in effect, you know, it can -- it can
put you in line for trying to get --
MR. TROLINGER: I've got another point for you,
Sheriff. Is this financing as originally planned? Or is the
Auditor going to change it to the capital financing?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The cars weren't going to
be -- because of the payments, they weren't in that. This
was financing as originally planned. Now, also, we've had --
Fed's dropped interest rates just a little bit. I don't know
if that will affect this, but you have to also remember, we
got these bids in July, so they could actually change, too,
9-28-07
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on our interest rate we get on the leasing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you have time to
perfect all that information before you come back.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sure that's what he intends to
do.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll give you a total outcome
when I come back. Now, can I make one comment on what could
make a budget change? Probably won't. I'm just going to put
it out there. In the jail budget this year, what happened
was you cut me one jail position and gave me a training
sergeant, 'cause that -- I had asked for a training sergeant.
So, the number of people did not change, but I did actually
get cut a jailer trying to get that training sergeant, get my
training back up. I would just throw it out there. Training
sergeant works every shift. It's a whole different --
because the hours and on-the-job training, and the training
program for one new jailer is 16 weeks long. I hate to lose
that other jail position. I can make it work if that's the
way the Court wishes, and it just really makes it hard to
keep with my -- my stuff. And I would ask one last time for
that position back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's 29,818. And I hate --
JUDGE TINLEY: I think this goes to the July 1
deadline issue that the H.R. Director was talking about.
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
72
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, this is -- no, this is
what y'all cut in the budget, what you did. It's not the
July l; it's what's been done in the budget process up
through the last budget year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Had this entire issue been discussed
both ways, based upon what was submitted as of July 1, I
think we would have been in a position to really sort through
this a little bit better, rather than doing it here at the
11th hour on the last day.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I agree. And it had been
discussed; it's just I was cut, and I'm coming back trying to
say please rethink it before we adopt it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Does any member of the Court
wish to offer any amendments to the motion which -- to
approve this budget as -- as is on the table now, which would
change any expenditure that's set forth in this particular
budget?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. What do you got?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Again, the library. I think
we need to increase the funding for the library back to what
it was last year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What was it last year?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 443.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry?
9-28-07
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 443,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's in the budget?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 400 is what's in there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to agree with you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That doesn't give them
exactly what they asked for. They wanted 453, I believe.
But being that the City has not given us too many
alternatives in the funding request on fire protection -- the
funding demand, I should say; it's not a request -- to
increase that by $50,000 this year, and we have reduced
Animal Control demand on them or request for funding by about
15,000 less than they paid last year, showing good faith on
our end to do what's right, --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- in my opinion. And I will
say that the library is a very important thing, and that we
did get documentation that was asked for. It's one of the
few things we're able to spend money on that is a positive,
that is not spent on criminals and trials and all kinds of
things, law enforcement. Which is not a bad thing; it's just
that we don't get to fund many things that are positive for
taxpayers, and I think this is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We should fund it at that
level this year. It's not at all what they wanted, but I
9-28-07
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think it's within reason.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you 100
percent. And the -- and another way to look at it is, we're
spending almost half a million dollars of taxpayers' money on
something that we don't own.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But we see the benefit of
it, and choose to go this route. Now, are we going to
increase next year, or are we going to stay -- get back on
our plan of decreasing a little bit every year, so the City
can start taking over their own property?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that we -- this will
be the last year of this level of funding. And I think that
we -- in acting, I believe, the way we should, we shouldn't
reduce it a tremendous amount in any one year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Like the City increased the
fire protection contract this year an enormous amount. You
know, I would say that something that would be reasonable
would be maybe 10,000 a year reduction rather than $40,000 or
$50,000 a year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I will support the
change. I don't disagree with you at all. But I think in
this whole debate, what goes unsaid is we're always -- we're
always greeted with the thought that the sky is falling if we
9-28-07
1
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
change the amount of money that we appropriate for the
library.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's not true, because
there is another option, and the other option is that
whatever the percentage is that we put up, the City can
increase its percentage accordingly. If we do 40, they can
do 60. If we do 45, they can do 55. That always goes
unsaid, and we end up being cast as the villain in this whole
process. I would like to see us, during the course of the
year, immediately after the budget, discuss this thing as
quickly as possible and determine what our position's going
to be moving forward. I know we can't lock it in for
budgetary purposes beyond one year, but we can say this is
our anticipated approach to this over the next five years,
and memorialize that in a letter to the City and say, "Be
prepared, this is what we're going to propose to do year
after year for the next five years." That way everybody's on
notice.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which is kind of what we did
last year.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Except nobody took notice.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think the -- the upcoming
~~, year is a chance to do just what you're saying, and also to
9-28-07
1
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
put them on notice of things that may be changing in the
policies that we adopt on fire protection as well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And also, if they want -- if
the City wants to base their amount they're charging us for
fire protection on per capita rather than on per call, then
we need to do the same thing with Animal Control. You know,
Animal Control is based on -- on an amount of -- amount of
percentage that -- you know, the animals that are -- that are
gathered in the city and in the county. But they don't want
to do that same thing for fire calls. They may only make one
or two calls a year, but they want to up our contribution to
them to do it, which to me is not justified.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with all that. I mean,
all said, I think that the -- I see Mr. Lipscomb in the
audience, as he frequently is, and I would encourage him to
let the -- our friends at the City, members of the City
Council, be aware that we're not reluctant to fund the
library, but we're not going to do it unless it's
participating -- you know, we're an equal partner and part of
it, the decision on it. I don't like the 50/50 split that we
have right now; I don't think that's right. I guess I was
the original one that came up with the idea of reducing it,
you know. I have no problem with funding it at the current
level this year, but I really think that I'd like to see kind
9-28-07
1
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
of what Commissioner Baldwin said, or Commissioner Williams
said, is a plan that we send over there that we can stand by.
And I think you're exactly right on the fire protection. If
they want to -- it needs to be -- you know, it's like --
based on their logic on fire protection, we should do Animal
Control based on, "Well, you may need, you know, two extra
officers this year; therefore, we're going to hire them and
bill them to you." And that's basically what they've done on
the fire protection side to us.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, your amendment, then,
is to -- to increase the expenditure that's presently in this
proposed budget of $400,000 to $443,667, same amount as last
year?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I have a second to that
amendment?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a second. Do we have other
amendments that we want to pitch out here?
MS. HYDE: Can you repeat that number, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: 443,667.
MS. HYDE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Last year's number --
current year's number.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further discussion on the
9-28-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
78
amendment that's proposed? We'll vote first on the
amendment. All in favor of the amendment relating to the
expenditure for the library being increased, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry, and that
amendment is approved. Now we're back to the base budget.
Any further question or discussion on that particular motion?
All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right
I hand .
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Why don't
we go ahead and take about a 15-minute break. That will give
our reporter an opportunity to... We'll be in recess.
(Recess taken from 10:34 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order. Any
further action that we need to consider in connection with
Item 4; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
adopt FY '07-'08 Kerr County budget?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. You may -- this may
9-28-07
1
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
solve a lot of things, gentlemen. If we go with one Tahoe
and four Crown Vics, it's not going to come in at 57,000. In
looking through what I did have, okay, the only way that we
can do it and stay at the 57,543.51 -- you know, that quote
was good through August the 31st, so I don't know what little
years. This is the only way that budget worked from what we
had gotten before. And if that's the consensus of what this
Court wants me to do, then we'll forget the Tahoes. I think
there's been some misunderstanding about the Tahoes. I think
people think we're just trying to get fancy vehicles. That's
farthest from it. You know, I told y'all, and y'all know, I
had a raccoon tear out a radiator, because the Crown Vics sit
very low to the ground.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, as I told you -- as I
told you in my office a while ago, that is the perception of
many people.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what -- I'm trying to
get good, reliable vehicles. Crown Vics get tore up real
easy by deer. They get -- they don't do water at all because
of the air intake. They sit too low to the ground. There's
a lot of roads that are not paved roads in this county that
we have to respond to, but going one Crown Vic for a
24-hour-a-day Sheriff's office will not solve our problem.
By the time we finally get enough on each shift or
9-28-07
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
27
2~
2:
2~
2
something -- or one on each shift to really cover the
problem, the first ones are going to be wore out. So, if
this Court would rather me stay with Crown Vics instead of
Tahoes, then they're -- you know, we had to get one in and
out of a place on the -- on a flatbed wrecker a while back,
just 'cause you couldn't drive it in or out 'cause of water.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much would it cost for
four Crown Vics and one Tahoe?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I haven't gotten those
numbers, but it's going to be more than that, 'cause your
Crown Vic --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand it's more than
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't -- why don't --
aren't we going to do it at the next meeting?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I was just trying to keep
y'all from having to come back. If you want me to do five
Crown Vics, we'll do five Crown Vics at three years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're not coming back.
We're going to come back at a regular meeting on the 8th.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I meant the regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm in preference of going to
3 the Tahoes, but I don't think I have the votes to go with me.
1 I think the reason -- the problem is a perception issue, and
~ the problem is that people hear Tahoe, and think they're
9-28-07
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
27
2~
2:
2
2
fancy vehicles. They don't understand that a Tahoe is the
same as a Suburban. I mean, if you said four Suburbans, you
probably wouldn't have the problem. Four Jimmys. But the
issue --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Suburbans are bigger. I don't
want the big Suburbans.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know, but whatever the
comparable thing is, the Chevrolet model or the GMC model,
the reality is -- we just bought one -- the GMC's are cheaper
than the Chevrolet models like this.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I guess because of the
budgeting and because with the budget at 57,000, okay, and
not changing that much, in trying to cut it down to the three
years, that's why it is still a budget deal. Because the
other thing that that does not include is your grill guards,
where the other ones did it. It does not include a lot of
the other equipment that the Tahoes came with, so there would
be a budget impact of greater if you tried to stay with three
years instead of the four years.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're going to come back to us with
all of the relevant numbers, including the equipment numbers,
at our October 8 meeting?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can give you every bit of
} that, but it won't be within the same amount.
~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll have to do a budget
9-28-07
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
amendment. But my preference is, from your standpoint, I'd
either go with what we originally talked about, the four
Tahoes and a Crown Vic, or five Crown Vics. I see no point
in getting one Tahoe.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, it's -- we can
discuss that at the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good point.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Give me that back.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- on Item 4 dealing with the
'07-'08 budget?
MR. STANTON: I just had a question, and I talked
to Mr. Trolinger about it during the break. But is there an
expected time period that we have to look for as far as for
the capital outlay items, before they can be purchased? If
they do the financing issue? You know, how long that period
would last, or how long it would take?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know what the timeline is on
that, Mr. Stanton. I know the Auditor's looking at trying to
package those things up, but I'm -- I haven't heard any
estimate of timeline of when. You're talking about the --
the extended financing on those outside-the-budget capital
outlay items?
MR. STANTON: Yes, slr.
9-28-07
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. No, I don't have a timeline.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But she had mentioned one time
it would be around January -- first of the year, January time
frame.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I thought.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't recall that, but it's good.
MR. TROLINGER: And I spoke with the Auditor
Wednesday about this, and essentially got the same answer.
Three months. And I wanted to give y'all a -- I don't know,
advance notice that some of the items are critical, and have
been moved to the general fund, such as the County Attorney's
laptop for DVD's. But there are other items that we'll want
to move forward with, and the Auditor mentioned something
along the lines of a court order that would allow us to
expend in advance some of the funding for capital outlay
items for planning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tell the Auditor to put it on
the next agenda.
MR. TROLINGER: And it will need to be on the next
agenda.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. Anything else on
Item 4? Let's move to Item 5; consider, discuss, and adopt
the proposed FY 2007-08 tax rate for Kerr County. It's been
suggested that -- that the tax rate be adopted by separate
motions for each of the elements of the tax rate, that being
9-28-07
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
debt service rate, M & 0 rate, Road and Bridge rate, and
then, of course, the total tax rate, which is an accumulation
of all of those. In addition, the suggestion was made that
there be individual roll call votes on each of those. I
think each of the members of the Court has a copy of -- of
that information ahead of them -- in front of them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that the
debt service rate be set at .0438 per hundred.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that the
debt service rate for Kerr County for FY '07 be set for -- at
.0438. Any question or discussion on the motion? All right,
we'll take a roll call vote on the motion. Commissioner 1?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 2?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 3?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 4?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Chair votes aye. We have any
further motions?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move that the M & 0 tax
rate for Kerr County be set at .3154 per $100 assessed value.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
9-28-07
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second that
the Kerr County tax M & O tax rate for 2007 be set at .3154
per 100. Any question or discussion on the motion? We'll
take a roll call vote on the motion. Commissioner 1?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 2?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 3?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 4?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Chair votes aye. Further motions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion we set the
Road and Bridge tax rate at .0304.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second that
the Road and Bridge tax rate for 2007 in Kerr County be set
at .0304. Any question or discussion on that motion? All in
favor of the motion -- I'm going to go by roll call.
Commissioner 1?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 2?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 3?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aye.
9-28-07
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 4?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Chair votes aye. All those motions
passing unanimously. It is somewhat -- somewhat elementary,
I suppose, that the total tax rate for 2007 in Kerr County is
.3896. Do I hear a motion to that effect?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second for
the total 2007 tax rate in Kerr County to be .3896 per 100
valuation. Any question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. What was that
number, the present year?
JUDGE TINLEY: The current year, it was that same
number. The total rate was that same number.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we are not raising the
tax rate.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In any way.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir, we are not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion
on that motion? Take a roll call vote. Commissioner 1?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 2?
9-28-07
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 3?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 4?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Chair votes aye. Any further
business to come before us this morning, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is Buzzie's open?
MS. HYDE: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Not yet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No?
MS. HYDE: Not yet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Keep praying, men. Keep
praying.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further business? We'll stand
adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 11:07 a.m.)
9-28-07
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
STATE OF TEXAS I
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 2nd day of October,
2007.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y : ___ _ _ ~ ~__- ________ ___
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
9-28-07
ORDER NO. 30546
POSITION SCHEDULE, STEP AND GRADE SCHEDULE AND GENERAL
PROVISIONS FOR FY 2007-08
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Adopt the Position Schedule, Step and Grade Schedule and General Provisions as
modified today.
ORDER NO. 30547
PUBLICATION OF RFP FOR PREPARATION OF THE 2006-07 AUDIT
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize the Auditor to publish for RFP's for preparation of the 2006-07 Audit.
ORDER NO. 30548
SALARY INCREASES, EXPENSES AND ALLOWANCES FOR ELECTED
OFFICIALS OF KERR COUNTY, TEXAS
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin. The Court approved
by vote of 3-1-0 to:
Adopt the proposed salary increases, expenses and allowances for Elected Officials
of Kerr County, Texas, in accordance with the Public Notice as published in the
Kerrville Daily Times.
ORDER NO. 30549
FY 2007-08 KERR COUNTY BUDGET
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve a budget amendment to increase the expenditure that is presently in this
proposed budget for the library budget from $400,000 to $443,667, the same
amount as last year.
ORDER NO. 30550
FY 2007-08 KERB COUNTY BUDGET
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Adopt the budget to include the required language as required by HB 3195 dealing
with the tax rate which funds this budget and generates additional funds.
ORDER NO.30551
FY 2007-08 TAX RATE FOR KERB COUNTY
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 5-0-0 to:
Set the Debt Service Rate for FY 2007-08 at .0438 per hundred.
Vote by Roll call -Commissioner Precinct 1 -yea
Commissioner Precinct 2 -yea
Commissioner Precinct 3 -yea
Commissioner Precinct 4 -yea
Chair -yea
ORDER NO. 30552
FY 2007-08 TAX RATE FOR KERB COUNTY
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 5-0-0 to:
Set the M&O tax rate for 2007 at .3154 per hundred.
Vote by Roll call -Commissioner Precinct 1 -yea
Commissioner Precinct 2 -yea
Commissioner Precinct 3 -yea
Commissioner Precinct 4 -yea
Chair -yea
ORDER NO. 30553
FY 2007-08 TAX RATE FOR KERB COUNTY
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 5-0-0 to:
Set the Road & Bridge tax rate for 2007 in Kerr County at .0304.
Vote by Roll call -Commissioner Precinct 1 -yea
Commissioner Precinct 2 -yea
Commissioner Precinct 3 -yea
Commissioner Precinct 4 -yea
Chair -yea
ORDER NO. 30554
FY 2007-08 TAX RATE FOR KERB COUNTY
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 5-0-0 to:
Set the Total tax rate for 2007 in Kerr County at .3896 per 100 valuation.
Vote by Roll call -Commissioner Precinct 1 -yea
Commissioner Precinct 2 -yea
Commissioner Precinct 3 -yea
Commissioner Precinct 4 -yea
Chair -yea