1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Budget Workshop
Monday, August 31, 2009
10:00 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

O
M
ao

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
I N D E X
August 31, 2009
PAGE
Review and discuss FY 2009-10 Budgets and fiscal,
capital expenditure and personnel matters related
thereto for various County Departments 3
--- Adjourned 80
25
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 Monday, August 31, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., a budget
workshop 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
li JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Let me call to order this Kerr County Commissioners Court
workshop scheduled and posted for this date and time, Monday,
August 31, 2009 at 10 a.m. It is that time now. The agenda
item calls for a review and discussion of fiscal year 2009-10
budgets and fiscal capital expenditure and personnel matters
related thereto for various county departments. Stated
another way, that gives us the option to discuss literally
anything that relates to budgetary issues. As I recall,
Commissioner Baldwin, you wanted to revisit the 198th
District Attorney budget?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do. As a matter of fact,
I have several things I'd like to visit.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Why don't we start with the
198th D.A., if that's okay?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm pretty shy about
it now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here it is. Took me a
8-31-09 bwk
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We had -- he had -- he had
requested a budget, and then he comes in here and takes some
of it out, and I can't remember the number.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's in there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's in this thing here?
Takes some of it out, and then it appears to me -- then -- so
~I! we all left here thinking that we're dealing with a number,
~I
and then we get this letter here, and it appears to me that
he now is requesting that we put that -- put the money back
in, the -- the amount that he had taken out before. And I'm
kind of -- well, I'm not confused about it, but I'm -- I
wonder about it, just wonder about exactly what number are we
working off of and what are we dealing with? Do you know,
Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, let me give you my best
understanding, Commissioner. We -- of course, we had the
sticker shock number.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And then shortly before he appeared
here, we got a revised budget overview.
8-31-09 bwk
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: He did not classify it as a revised
budget request. And that had us paying 245,500, plus. And
while he was here with us, he said there were a couple of
items that he could modify, one of which was contract fees
dealing with appeals, which was a total of 10,000. He had
some others, total reductions of 26,700. And, based upon our
pro rata part of the budget, those reductions would bring our
portion to 230,511, which is exactly what is plugged into the
Administration Recommended --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He wants to go back to 245.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And in his letter, then, on
-- and, see, I agree with you, I think that's probably where
we're supposed to be. And his letter says, "I respectfully
submit that the proper thing for this Court to do is to fund
the 198th D.A.'s office adequately. $245,526.91 is a
reasonable and prudent expenditure that will yield returns to
the community and county perhaps greater than any other
investment you men could make." So, that sounds like to me
that we want -- he wants to go back to the 245.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure sounds to me like that.
25 I COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Back on there.
8-31-09 bwk
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: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I was just -- I was
concerned about that. Now, do we -- what do we do? Do we go
back to the 245? Or -- I mean, it's his request. It's a
requested budget. Of course, you have the authority to whack
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so do we.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure I've even seen that
letter. What's the date of that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've not -- I don't recall having
seen this letter before.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's have Jody make
copies. He brought that letter in a few days after our court
meeting, and he came in to see me, essentially because he
wanted to correct my statistics, and he brought that letter.
I thought he delivered a copy to every member of the Court.
If not, we can certainly make copies of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He gave me one as well. Of
course, everybody's always trying to correct me. So, I guess
the same thing, that he -- Bill and I were probably more
vocal than anybody, so he was -- wanted to correct us. Do
you want to -- want us to get copies of it?
JUDGE TINLEY: She's be going to be making some
8-31-09 bwk
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
copies here. Bruce, why don't you let Jody make some copies
right quick so we've got those that we can look at?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I apologize. I thought
everybody had gotten that and knew what I was talking about.
So --
JUDGE TINLEY: I thought we were at the 230 as a
result of some of the modifications that he made when he was
at the podium that day in here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what the budget
shows.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you're exactly right.
Apparently, he's asking to revisit and go back to that
so-called revised overview, which would be 245,500, plus.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, my proposal today is
the same as it was the other day, and that's going exactly
the opposite direction that he's going. And the only way I
could see how to -- to do his particular budget is to take a
look at the history of it, and what I mean by that is, like,
I have taken the last five years of the budget and looked at
how -- the increases of it, and averaged that out. Took five
years of the budget, the increases of it, and averaged them
out, and I come out with a little over 8 percent increase.
So, in my mind, that's a safe place; that's a -- a nice offer
from this Commissioners Court, to -- to offer him, as opposed
to a 30 or 40 percent -- I don't remember what it was now,
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
but it was a large amount, what he's asking for. I just
don't get it, why we would want to spend all of our money in
that one department.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, Commissioner, what are
the numbers again? Can you give me just --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which ones?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The average -- five-year
average, or a year's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, the average is an
annual increase of 8.37 percent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Over five --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Over five years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 8.3.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 8.3.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And last year, it was?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Last year, it was
significant. It was double digits last year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 30. 30 percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But what was the total amount?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What was budgeted last year?
JUDGE TINLEY: 193,662.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 193,662?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. The current year's budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Went from 112 to 193.
JUDGE TINLEY: That would bring it to 209,150,
8-31-09 bwk
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
roughly, an increase of 8 percent. Was it 8 percent even, or
was it 8 percent --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, 8 and a few nickels.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, your recommendation is to
go 8 percent over 193? The 193 -- 193,000 last year, an
8 percent increase to keep it in line?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, just stay -- stay in
line with what's been happening for five years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would that be, Judge?
You got your calculator?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if it was 8 percent plus a
little bit, it's 209,150. Just round that to 210.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. And I just think
that that's a fair way to do it, and give him that amount of
money and don't get into the new D.A. here and the new
Chevrolet Suburban there and yellow pencils over there. Just
give him his money, let him run his department like everybody
else does. That's my proposal. And I don't know of any more
fair way to do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 210. That would be down
from 230; that's another 20.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I guess a related
question. I mean, I think we -- we all know it; I guess most
of the public knows, that the reason for his -- in the past,
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
he's used his seizure fund to fund a good part -- or that
office, not just this particular D.A. -- the seizure fund to
do various things above and beyond, that were outside the
county budget. Did the 216th use the seizure fund for
anything similar to this at all?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not that I'm aware of.
MS. HARGIS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did they just not have a
seizure fund? Or --
JUDGE TINLEY: Pretty small. They do have one, but
it's fairly small.
MS. HARGIS: Fairly small.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe 60,000, tops.
MS. HARGIS: Oh, I think at one point it was, like,
150, and he paid some retirement out of there once, but in
the -- Tommy said the whole time he was here, he never used
it. It went dormant, in fact; we had to call the bank. So,
he's never used any of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bruce's fund went dormant.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I basically agree with
Commissioner -- your proposal. I think that the -- the
reason this inequity developed was because he started -- his
seizure fund ran out, or is running out, and now he wants the
county taxpayers or his overall district to pick up the
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
difference between what he was doing with the seizure fund
and what we're funding with the tax dollars. And I think
it's -- he ought to be able to run his office like any other
department. And I think the -- I do appreciate the fact that
he's trying to get rid of these swings, but he's getting rid
of the swings on the lower side rather than the higher side.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's really at
the base of it. I don't have a problem with the
Commissioner's formula.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I certainly don't.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on that,
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, that was all I had
on that one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you want me to just keep
JUDGE TINLEY: If you got another issue, throw it
out there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then I can just -- I'll
get through with mine and go back to sleep, and y'all can
do... I want to talk about the jail attorney that we -- that
we have that works for, basically, us. I understand that his
salary went from 25,000 to 50,000, and I'm a little bit
unclear whether -- is that his salary doubling, or is that --
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
that extra 25 for another attorney? I hear out on the street
that the 216th D.A. had asked for another attorney, and that
may be part of that. I'm not real, real clear about that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not aware that he's asked for
I another attorney.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, this must be salary.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think when we funded it, we funded
for just half a year.
MS. HARGIS: Well, we started in February, and so
we didn't fund for the whole year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The 25,000? Is that what
we're referring to? And then --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Eight months. Eight
months?
MS. HARGIS: About.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, you'd have to --
I've been going out there on Fridays and watching the jail
docket and the judge, you know, run them through and how
they're doing all that, and it's kind of interesting. It's
kind of fun. I'm wondering -- I had visited with a couple
attorneys about this, and both have said, "Well, if you
give -- if you raise his salary to 50 grand, and he basically
works that couple of hours on Friday, I want some of it too."
We'll -- I want your jail attorney job, 'cause that's a
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
pretty good salary for three or four hours. I don't know how
long. I'm sure he does some front-end work, you know,
preparing for the Friday morning. But out -- while he's at
the jail, he's not out there but a couple hours. Oh, the
Sheriff's never here when we need him.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I'm here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There you are. How long is
the attorney out there actually?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, first off, I thought
that that total budget for his salary and the defense
attorneys that are doing it and the judge and the court
reporter was the 50,000; that wasn't just his salary. Second
is, he does get -- spend a lot more than just those two
hours. He goes behind the scenes, getting reports so he can
make his offer to do whatever, and there's a lot of time
spent before that two or three hours in the courtroom.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. Thank you, Rusty.
JUDGE TINLEY: The way I read it, Commissioner,
it's 50,000 for the prosecutor. And the time that's spent
there on Friday that you've observed, I'm -- I feel
comfortable that that's not the only time he spends.
Obviously, --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, me too.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- there's discussions during the
week with -- with the -- with the defense lawyers that are
8-31-09 bwk
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
handling those cases, be they the ones that are designated on
a rotation basis or the ones that are -- are maybe retained,
possibly, I don't know, or even individually appointed,
because they're handling other cases -- they're appointed on
other cases for that same defendant. My -- my impression of
the 25,000 earlier was that that was just a portion of the
year. The -- the monthly is broken out at -- does that
include -- will that include roll-ups?
MS. HARGIS: He's not an employee.
JUDGE TINLEY: He's contract?
MS. HARGIS: He's contract.
JUDGE TINLEY: Contract.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that under 216th, what
we're talking about?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is right now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's moving into that
separate -- into Commissioners Court, some separate fund.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a little over 4,100 -- 41 --
a little over 4,150 a month. That's pretty decent income,
you're right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know the number of hours
And I know he spends
8-31-09 bwk
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
more than just what I see; I'm sure I understand that. I
think he deals with some pleas; he visits with those guys out
there and works through some issues. But it appears that --
that we're doubling the salary, and I don't -- really don't
think you can say that he's doubled his work. Maybe some. I
don't know.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, based on a pro rata
appropriation, basically, if he got 25 for 8 months, you can
-- you may say 36 for 12 months.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And that's --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I mean, is that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's kind of the
ballpark that my mind goes to.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But that -- but as Rusty
pointed out, you've got the expense of the Judge, and the --
you've got the expense of the court reporter as well.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, they're both -- they're
separate.
JUDGE TINLEY: Those are separate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Those are separate line
items.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Those are separate. You got
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So that's just salary for
8-31-09 bwk
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The way it's presented on my
~ budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you know, I don't
necessarily have a specific number to put in, but it just
seems kind of -- seems --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, it's an experimental
type deal to see how -- we kind of did that in the middle of
the year, hoping it'd do what it's done.
JUDGE TINLEY: What is the monthly contract fee
we're paying?
MS. HARGIS: I think we're paying him 2,500 a month
right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 2,500? Is that what she
JUDGE TINLEY: That would be $30,000 a year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we have a contract with
I him?
MS. HARGIS: We do have a contract with him.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Has he requested an increase?
MS. HARGIS: He requested an increase.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The footnote shows 50,000
8-31-09 bwk
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARGIS: Yeah, that's what he requested. So,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there any justification?
MS. HARGIS: You know, I'm --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Other than he wants 50,000?
MS. HARGIS: I think you need to talk to Bruce
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Give me 50. Why Bruce?
MS. HARGIS: Because he reports to Bruce, because
the contract's with Bruce's office.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, seems like it ought to
be 30. I mean, I don't know -- unless there's something
that's changed from when we started the program, I don't know
why you'd change it substantially. I mean, you know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you change it because
there's more months, but I don't think the actual workload is
increased any.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, the monthly --
monthly rate --
MS. HARGIS: I think workload's greater than he
', anticipated when he took the job on.
I~, COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I could say that about
~, this, too. (Laughter.)
MS. HARGIS: Well, but it's -- it is a new program.
8-31-09 bwk
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I mean, I -- I don't have the justification, so I can't --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, does -- I'm --
I would tend to leave it where it is, or go with, you know,
30,000, something like that, rather than the 50.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the 25 -- the
original was 25,000 appropriation, right?
MS. HARGIS: Right, last year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Last year for eight months.
And from that 25 came the attorney's salary, came the
district -- the judge and the court reporter?
MS. HARGIS: No. Just --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much were the add-ons
then?
MS. HARGIS: There weren't any add-ons. The 25,000
was just for the prosecutor.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then where is the expense
noted for the judge and the court reporter?
JUDGE TINLEY: Those are in the other budgets.
MS. HARGIS: We absorbed them in our regular line
items last year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, 25 just for the
prosecutor attorney.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And he's requesting 50. So,
8-31-09 bwk
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
right?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- four months --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thirty-seven and a half for
a full year? 37,5?
MS. HARGIS: 2,500 is 30,000. I mean, I -- it's up
to the Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: If we were to increase him from
$2,500 a month, if the workload's increased, increase him to
3,000, that would run us up to 36,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: 3,000 a month, roughly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I guess it's fair. I mean,
I --
JUDGE TINLEY: If the workload is -- is more than
he anticipated -- I don't know what he was anticipating,
though. I mean, it would be nice if we had Mr. Curry here,
who apparently submitted the request.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Well, I can -- I can
-- yeah, you're exactly right. Because I think 99 percent of
the work that he does there is for 216th. He does very, very
little for 198th.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, I just -- I can't see
8-31-09 bwk
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
how this workload thing has increased. I just don't see it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Rex is going to call.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Judge, can I just run
through these other things real quick? I mean, you can say
yes or no to these, and I'm -- and then --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, why does he get to say
yes or no?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Huh?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The fence at the Sheriff's
Office, did we -- did we put that thing in or out?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think it was going to go in
the capital stuff.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: First Responders. Did we
kick that up some? We had talked about doing it.
MS. HARGIS: Yes, we did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We did?
MS. HARGIS: Yes. Eric brought in the numbers that
he wanted. Those are the numbers I got from Eric.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. And then the
age-old argument of a situation -- like, I remember a couple
years ago we had these big fires, and this bulldozer came
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
from Uvalde, and then asked us to help with some of their
expenses. And we offered somebody -- I can't remember how
all that worked, but we offered several people some help in
that. And I just -- I think that we need to address it and
to make it a budgeted item if we're going to do that. The
bulldozer came up from Uvalde to help us fight fire, and we
should at least pay for the fuel or something. You know,
there's always tires --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, we had some local
contractors that got involved, and we -- and the Sheriff had
requested them to come help, and that's whenever they
submitted some bills, and we paid them for the -- some of
their expenses. And I do agree, that can happen at any time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can happen at any time, and
it needs to be a budgeted item.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, it needs to be --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As opposed to --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- someplace to pull from in
case it does happen. We hope it doesn't, but --
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't recall where that got
charged. Did it come out of contingency, nondepartmental?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have any idea.
MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't know. We took it out
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
MS. HARGIS: Yes, it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's where it came from?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you remember the amount,
I Jeannie?
MS. HARGIS: No. No, I sure don't, because I think
there were three contractors involved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Close to $11,000, if I
remember right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I remember -- was it
Reichenau's in court?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It was Reichenau and Hawkins,
and -- I think there were three contractors.
MS. HARGIS: There were three.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Can't remember the third one,
but it --
MS. HARGIS: There was three. I remember that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- it came from
nondepartmental. Why don't we put something in
nondepartmental for it?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know there were three. My
best recollection is around $11,000, is what we paid them.
JUDGE TINLEY: If we increase contingency,
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
nondepartmental $10,000 to $15,000, do you think that would
resolve that issue, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, I do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But how do you earmark that
10,000, 15,000?
MS. HARGIS: We can put a note in there that the
15,000 goes to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, yeah, that makes me
happy. I just think it needs to be done.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you're right, we need to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we don't use it, okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Hopefully, we won't -- we won't have
the kind of fires that necessitate that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's it. Thank you.
Thank you for your time.
JUDGE TINLEY: You run out of rope there?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I did.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, good. Anybody else want to
jump in at this point?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, one -- 'cause I know
someone's in the audience; I see the Airport Board president
back there. Steve, do we have a closer -- a better idea on
the capital items at the airport?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't want you to have to stay
8-31-09 bwk
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
here all day.
MR. KING: No, I appreciate that. I have other
things to do. Jonathan, we -- you know, you came to our
meeting two weeks ago or two and a half weeks ago and
requested we kind of come up with a big capital -- a C.I.P.
number that we could give you guys. The water line, I think
we pretty much know the number on that. I believe it's -- I
didn't bring it with me -- seven --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 700-something.
MR. KING: 700-something. I think that's a pretty
firm number, and I think that's -- obviously, that's a
project that's number one on our priorities. It's going to
have to be funded. I think that's actually moved up in our
C.I.P. now, isn't it? I believe it is, and it's -- that's a
project that we anticipate moving on as soon as there is
funding. The other -- the other projects we looked at,
obviously, it's hard for us to look at it as a group when
we're not in a meeting, since we -- since we're in violation
of laws, but Bruce has looked at it and then contacted us
individually and visited with us individually about it. The
T-hangar project seems to be the only project that we can
really come up with at this time. And -- because the other
projects are going to require an engineer and TexDOT's
approval, and we just run into a ton of issues on -- on who's
going to pay for that, if they're going to pay for any of it,
8-31-09 bwk
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
if it's even -- if some of those are even proper, whether we
can even -- some of them violate some rules as far as
grading, going up hills and stuff, and we're not even sure
how we're going to get around that.
So, we -- we pretty much -- to try to come up with
something, we focused on the T-hangar project, because I had
Bruce look at the T-hangar project and confirm with all the
people on the waiting list if they were really, really on the
waiting list still. All 18 -- we had 18 people that
confirmed that they would rent tomorrow a T-hangar. There
was approximately three or four others that indicated they
don't want to get on the T-hangar list because they don't
think anything's ever going to happen, but they would like
to. They would be interested in getting a hangar, but
they're really not interested in putting their name on
something that's not -- that other people have been on there
for four or five years. And so we went forward, and I told
Bruce -- I rode around with Bruce at the airport for about 45
minutes one day and we looked at the whole airport, and we
decided that the property on the other side of Mooney, on the
other side of the runway, there's an area over there that we
', -- during the first phase of the drainage project, we filled
in a bunch of land there, and we -- we graded some land, some
-- filled some fill and did some flattening some of that
land.
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
We looked at the rest of that land, and we decided
that's probably an excellent place to build these T-hangars,
because there is access through the Peterson Farm Road that
goes around by Mooney, a great access there. We determined
that those people are not really involved -- if you -- when
build those T-hangars, it doesn't require terminal access.
We've talked about they never come over to the terminal, the
ones -- the 16 we already have. So, we've kind of decided --
or we proposed, or let's say we planned. I hate to say
proposed, 'cause when I say "proposed," I get in trouble. We
planned to possibly use that land for T-hangars. And Bruce
and I looked at the possibility of building 24, 27 hangars
over there.
We -- in the meantime, I had another board member
go over there and look at it. He -- his -- and this is why
I'm really not able to give you guys a number right now,
because we still have some -- there's a lot of stuff still
floating around here. One of our other members has
proposed -- or planned to talk to the Phase II contractor,
whoever gets the bid, about moving this fill dirt that
they're going to move out of the -- moving the dirt out of
the Phase II project, move some of that fill dirt over to
that side of the airport, and using that fill dirt to level a
huge area over there that is sloped off in the back, and
basically building a pad site for a lot -- a lot of
8-31-09 bwk
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
T-hangars. A lot of hangars -- or T-hangars, up to 96 or
100, possibly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you talking about the
east side of the north-south runway, or the west side?
MR. KING: West side. The part adjacent to Mooney,
MR. KING: We have water there, we have electricity
there, we have -- after the fire project is finished, we'll
have everything we need over there, and we have great access
there. The road is really nice.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kind of going north from
Mooney, up to the north.
MR. KING: Exactly. We have all this land to the
end of the runway there. And so, in the meantime, we talked
to B.W.R., our engineer/contractor for the Phase II project;
we put in a call to them after we talked to TexDOT. We
cleared it with TexDOT; we talked to TexDOT about it. They
are actually out at the airport. They looked at it, and they
said that looks fine. You could have some environmental
issues as far as drainage into Silver Creek or something.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Silver Creek?
MR. KING: Silver Creek. Into Silver Creek, so be
very careful about how far you go back and -- and fill in
there. So, we called B.W.R. -- B.W.R. engineering firm.
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
They sent a representative out of San Antonio up here last
week, and they looked at the thing and then wrote us a letter
back on it stating that this was a viable area and a -- and
would be a good use of the land. And there were some
environmental issues that they thought that we should look at
as far as filling that in. And then Fred Vogt, one of our
members, he wrote a letter saying that we had some -- we
should get a permit or something. We should possibly look at
that. So, we're going to move forward, I think, at our next
meeting with that.
Still, in answer to your question, if we build 24
T-hangars, I think we're looking at about 650 to $700,000.
Somewhere 650 to 700; it's an eight-year payout if you do a
rough R.O.I., 93 percent return on -- 93 percent occupancy,
which we -- we've maintained 100 percent occupancy in those
T-hangars for several years. So, I think it's -- I think --
I talked to the T-hangar people this morning out of Alabama
who just built 93 -- 92 of them over in Sugarland. Sugarland
just built 92 at one time. And I think what we're going to
do is fly over there, take a look at their project, and see
-- talk to their Airport Manager and find out what it costs,
get some costs off them. And they went a little -- theirs is
a little more upscale than ours would be, probably. But get
some exact -- some costs from them, 'cause they were all
built in the last 30 days, and this is the same T-hangar guy
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
we're talking to. So, hopefully, in answer to your question,
the water project will be about 700-something thousand. This
project here would be probably at a base of about 650,000 to
700,000, depending on -- my preference would be to build 24
or 27 T-hangars, and then have the property leveled and the
site work done so that if you had the need, you could
continue to build, and we wouldn't have to go through the
dirt work -- as much dirt work to get it done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then the other item is
150,000 for the update of the --
MR. KING: The master plan. Yeah, master plan.
We're -- I'm going to a meeting tomorrow over in Austin.
Bruce and Fred and I are going to go to Austin and meet with
TexDOT on that master plan, and they're going to go over a
bunch of that stuff. That's exactly what we need, what we're
really looking for.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Steve, do you actually see
the T-hangar being a viable project in this upcoming budget
year with everything you got on your plate out there?
MR. KING: You know, Bill, I don't -- or,
Commissioner, I don't know that -- I mean, the water -- the
water -- the water issue is holding us back, obviously.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. KING: Until we get the water issue solved.
And, I mean, obviously, if we can fund that this year and get
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
30
that started, we have -- you know, we have drawings --
drawings on that project, preliminary drawings. Now, we've
paid for the engineering, 75,000 in engineering on that
project. And so, you know, they're going to continue to -- I
think we made some changes last -- at the last meeting. I
think the last meeting, we went -- we told them what -- A, B,
or C, which way we wanted to go on the project, and I think
they're going to come back with some other stuff at our next
meeting. So, I don't know. I don't know if it would get
done. If it did, it would be at the end of the -- at the end
of the budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, I think the --
from our standpoint, we're looking at a two-year funding
mechanism.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're looking at two-year
funding. Then I'm --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. We're doing -- I mean,
if we don't do it -- fund it this year, it isn't happening
next year.
MR. KING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, that's okay. We're in
a two-year plan. That's okay.
~, JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, capital -- the capital
~ proposal.
25 ~ MR. KING: I think what it comes down to, they're
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
just going to get a little more time to get some exact
numbers on this thing. Unless you want to just throw -- I
mean, I was really reluctant to throw out a -- to throw out a
number. I mean, I've already done that today, thrown out a
seven --
850,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks like we had plugged in
MR. KING: For the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For the airport.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Capital projects, our
MR. KING: Your share.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's our share. And it's --
it appears to me that it's not real far off. It's probably
down to 800,000.
MR. KING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 700,000 for T-hangars, 75,000
for the -- or 150,000 for the master plan, and then 750,000
for the water line.
MR. KING: Probably not far off, I would say.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cut those in half, and you come
up with 800,000. And we plugged in 850, so we can either
leave it 850 to give a little cushion room, or --
MR. KING: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We just don't know how some of
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
those projects are going to pan out.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Why would it be -- why
wouldn't it be a better deal to go ahead and get the
T-hangars if you knew you were going to get funding? Get
your planning done, and is there any rule that says you can't
be building on them while you're upgrading --
MR. KING: No, we can.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- at the same time?
MR. KING: No. Commissioner, I don't --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You know, it just seems to me
like this -- this whole thing out here is just -- it's taking
too much time --
MR. KING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- to get it done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, a lot's going to
depend on moving that dirt from the project over there.
MR. KING: Right. And what they're doing now is --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There ought to be a credit.
MR. KING: What the recommendation is, is to let
the bidding on the second -- in fact, the other -- we're
getting ready to let -- we had a bid meeting, already had the
bid meeting, and those bids will be let in the very near
future. And as soon as the contractor is picked, then what
TexDOT and B.W.R. wants to do is they want to get with that
contractor and let them know what is going to be happening
8-31-09 bwk
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
i
with that -- some of that fill dirt. It's going to have to
be moved across there; then they're going to make, I believe,
it a line item. They're going to do a line item increase in
his bid to pay for moving that dirt over to the project.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'd negotiate that down to
where that would be a wash, because they're going to have to
get rid of it somewhere.
MR. KING: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And this is right there.
They'll be able to --
MR. KING: So I --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- dispose of it at no cost
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But their main -- they were
going to pile it up; it was going to be disposed of on-site
either way, but in a big pile, as opposed to --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Really no time to haul it.
MR. KING: They've been really helpful on this
project in getting -- we're getting ready to concrete that
area on the taxiway there. That's a hundred -- $100,000,
just getting ready to be concreted. That's coming out of the
original project. Now, that's all -- nobody's coming up with
that money except TexDOT, so they've been very helpful with
this in finding ways to make -- they've rolled it into --
they always want to roll it into it. And I think what it is,
8-31-09 bwk
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they have excess at the end. There's excess money at the
end, and they just tack it on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I agree with
Commissioner Oehler that, you know, assuming the City can
come up with their half of this these projects, do them all
I
', at once. I mean, I don't see any reason, if it's -- once
', it's funded from our standpoint and their standpoint.
MR. KING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would do them both
simultaneously, 'cause that'll just accelerate the revenue.
MR. KING: And that is our plan, is to move --
we're going to continue to move forward with the T-hangar
project, and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. KING: -- try to get this fill dirt. We're
trying to cut the cost down on it so it's economical. That's
the main thing. It's not economical -- it's a -- boy, it's
just a stretch to get to it be, you know, within a good
return on investment for the City and the County to do. You
can imagine what it's like for an individual to do with
paying taxes and stuff. And so it's -- we're trying to get
the costs down as low as we can and get the most bang for our
buck and still serve the tenants.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. King, would it be a requirement
that the fire flow lines are in place and operational before
8-31-09 bwk
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I mean, I'm not -- I
don't know.
'~~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a little bit different.
That side, there's a 12-inch line over to Mooney.
MR. KING: We do have a 12-inch line.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So there will be a minor
extension of that line, well below the -- the total cost of
it.
MR. KING: Right. That's good, 'cause we do have a
12-inch line over there. And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is another reason to do
it where it is; we already got water there.
~,
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
MR. KING: I'm hopeful -- I agree with Commissioner
Oehler. You know, if we can -- if we can get the City to
come up with their share of the funding on these projects,
and -- and I had discussions with several of the
Commissioners about there's some other agreements that have
to be made in this water -- in this water issue. And,
obviously, I think there's some issues have got to be --
some -- some things that have to be hammered out in the
~ T-hangars. Who's getting the revenue for these T-hangars?
Where are they going? Where's money going for --
', COMMISSIONER LETZ: Airport.
8-31-09 bwk
36
1
2
3
4 budget.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Airport Board.
MR. KING: That's what I would hope.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Supposed to be in your
MR. KING: Well, that's half of it right there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. King, we appreciate your service
and your leadership.
MR. KING: Appreciate it.
JUDGE TINLEY: And we recognize how much time and
effort you're putting in on this. And, of course, you're
receiving these -- that wonderful compensation that we
I provide for. We appreciate your efforts.
MR. KING: I was going to put in for that 50,000.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Steve.
MR. KING: Thanks. See y'all later.
JUDGE TINLEY: You got anything else, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the other thing, I mean,
is the salary issue. You want to talk about that now?
JUDGE TINLEY: Got to talk about it sometime, don't
I we?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. We got a handout on it,
whatever you want to call it. I think that it is -- or if at
8-31-09 bwk
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
all possible, we should do a 2 percent increase.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I know we gave some
large increases last year. That also got us caught up with
some other things we're trying to do. I hate to see us get
further behind. That's, I mean, one issue. And the other
issue is, I think it is -- even though the funds come from
different sources from our standpoint, it's kind of difficult
to be talking about some major capital projects and doing
some things that -- that are good for the county that we need
to do long-term, and at the same time, not looking after our
employees some. I think it's kind of a -- difficult for me
to justify that in my head. So, I mean, I would be in favor
of that, a 2 percent increase, you know, if we can do it with
no increase in tax or anything like that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I asked the Auditor
to prepare this handout for the Court, and as you can see,
the 2 percent with the various rollups comes to a quarter of
a million, 251,872. And that's based on the payroll with the
additional employees, I believe, that are scheduled to go
into the mix in the next budget year. Is that correct,
Ms. Hargis?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: Probably a little bit on the high
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
side, because we only pay a percentage of those other
~i COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other thing that I
think that's not going into place this year, but I think that
-- possibly go in place in future years, I'd like to look at
the longevity, extending the longevity to possibly a
four-year cycle, as opposed to a three-year cycle.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But that's not for this
year?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not for this year. I don't
think it's right to change it at this point. But I think
that, going forward, we're looking at some very lean years
coming up, and I think that it's -- that, you know, the
longevity increases that we've built in, I think, have helped
a lot. Helped with our retention, which is certainly saving
us money, but at the same time, it's also increasing our
payroll a pretty large amount. But that's really not a
budget issue this year, but something I want to put on the
table for the 2010-2011.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hargis, do we have a number that
is occasioned by just the longevity increases for this coming
budget year? Just -- just that one factor alone?
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. HARGIS: No. They're rolled up.
MS. HYDE: They're all rolled up. They're rolled
8-31-09 bwk
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
up into that sheet I gave y'all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HYDE: And education.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which was around 450,000 total, as I
MS. HYDE: 479.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you could anticipate
that that's going to be pretty uniform every year. I mean,
we've had it long enough -- no? It doesn't?
MS. HYDE: The way that the longevity impacts us
', is, because it is on a three-year cycle, we started in the
year 2000, so 2001 was a heavy hitter. The 5.0. did half of
theirs in one year and half in another. So, we get it on two
years, and then the third year, like last year, it's almost
next to nothing. It's the last two years, and in the
three-year cycle, so 2003-2004, and then you had three every
time. Does that make sense?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Makes sense. But --
MS. HYDE: Last year and this year. Last year and
this year --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are big years?
MS. HYDE: -- are big years. Next budget year,
2010-2011, will be significantly less. It worked out very
25 I different.
8-31-09 bwk
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Because of the three-year cycle that
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But for our purposes, the
rollups, which include what you're talking about, are in
these numbers that Ms. Hargis gave?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's real hard for me to go
along with that. I'm sure that's a surprise to everybody in
this room.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm shocked.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But, you know, I'm looking
across the state of Texas, and I'm hearing -- I'm hearing the
pretty bad horror stories about other counties being in bad
financial shape. And we just got hit again with another --
another thing that's going to take away from our revenue.
And whether you love it or hate it, it's a fact, and that is
the veterans' benefit that's going to hit us a little harder,
I think, than we're expecting. And it may be to just about
the tune of what this 2 percent raise would be. We have not
planned for that. By doing this, we will not have planned
for that decrease in revenue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought we had some
estimates of cost on that.
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41
~, COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It was just -- in a few days,
it hit us for 45,000, and we're not near done with that yet.
There's some thought that it might be as much as 300,000 this
year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Bolin, do we have an updated
number, or is the 45 that you've got --
MS. BOLIN: The 45 --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the most current number we have?
MS. BOLIN: -- 45 is the most current that I have,
but they are expecting a substantial increase.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They are expecting a
substantial --
MS. BOLIN: They are expecting more veterans to
come in, probably when tax statements go out. They'll --
that's when exemptions usually click with people. And
they'll -- they're expecting an influx during October and
November.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would rather see us put a
little bit of money in reserve for a change. And there have
been some substantial raises given over the last two years,
and the cost-of-living index is -- is down. So, actually,
we're -- we're ahead in pay compared to what we were last
year, if you used the -- that figure, which is not -- it's a
minus number rather than a plus number.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's negative right now.
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: For now. It may go back up,
and it probably will.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But, you know, I've --
I
', there's a lot of people that I talk to that say, you know,
it's just -- I just can't imagine anybody proposing a tax
increase or a -- a raise increase, even if you don't have to
increase taxes for anybody.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We would not be proposing a
tax increase. It's within our existing --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Providing your revenues come
in as projected.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. That's always the
case.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And we were real fortunate
this past year to have some things that -- that made it able
for a tax increase not to happen, be steady, the same rates
we had last year. But I just see a lot of people hurting. I
think the real estate market is going to get worse, and when
that happens, our values level or decline. Hopefully that
won't happen, but if it does, I know of one particular county
that is $2 million short, and they're going to have to start
cutting employees. It's one of the regular old counties.
And Gillespie County, I believe, had to increase their rate
to the rollback or better this year.
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Increased.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And so, you know, we're very
fortunate, but I don't think we ought to -- we ought to
approve raises this year. We didn't have not one person that
came in here and asked for a raise. Not one department head
or anybody requested that, and so I'm going to go with --
with that. I can't go for any kind of a raise this year.
I'm hoping we'll be able to keep employees and not have to
let some go in the future if our revenues decline.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, this fits within what
we know to be the budget right now. The question is, is this
a number that we would -- or a majority of the Court is
comfortable with, or is it something less, or what? You can
do the math; you can see what it equates to. 125 is 1
percent. 250 is 2 percent. So, if you were at 1 and a half,
for example, you'd be at about 180, 190, something like that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I agree with Bruce on
some of it. You know, I see that if -- you know, this --
some of these other issues that affect our budget, if it puts
us to a point where we're even thinking about having to
increase the taxes to do these things, I'm -- I can't do
that. I'm with Bruce on that issue. But I also -- you know,
we gave a nice raise last year, and those employees that --
you know, I'll just say it -- dealing with the food stamp
issue are not -- are not having to do that any longer, and we
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
want to stay that way. But if -- you know, if the thing
hurts us to the point to where we're getting -- getting in
trouble, getting out there and getting in financial trouble,
I don't want to do it. We're just all going to have to learn
how to tighten our belt. And -- and I saw where the City of
Ingram, they dealt with their problem; they laid off some
folks. You know, so -- and, of course, that's how you do it,
but I don't know that we have that problem yet. You know, I
want to see the numbers fine-tuned and run again, and --
and -- but, you know, if -- if it's what I'm seeing it is,
I'm certainly in favor of a 2 percent increase. If it's what
I --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Would that include everybody,
department heads and elected officials too?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if we can talk
I about that.
MS. HARGIS: It includes everyone.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What, Ms. Hargis?
MS. HARGIS: The total that I have includes
everyone.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If it's a COLA, a
cost-of-living adjustment, it -- it costs the elected
officials to go to H.E.B. just like it does a secretary. So,
a COLA's a COLA, and everybody should get it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's always been my
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
position, whatever we do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seems like we had this
argument last year.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Same thing, just a different
year. But I'm telling you, we're facing a whole different
set of -- set of problems going into the -- the next year, I
believe, than what we faced the past year. And I would
sure -- and I fully anticipate next year having to raise
taxes enough to cover the loss of revenue from some of the
stuff that the state Legislature passed on to us, as well as
some other things that are coming down from the federal
government. But I don't have any -- any doubt that there'll
have to be some rate increases next year, especially if we
don't get our tax base numbers up like they have been going
in the appraisals, up the way they've done for the last good
many years. If that levels off, guys, we're in trouble.
I've seen it before, and I hope it doesn't happen, 'cause
it's hard on everybody. Really hard on employees.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In your discussions with
the Appraisal District, Ms. Bolin, --
MS. BOLIN: Mm-hmm?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- do they have any -- any
feel for -- they should have a feel for the number that
applies thus far, but do they have a feel for what that
represents in terms of the whole body of eligibles?
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
MS. BOLIN: They have not given me that. I've
asked for additional information, but I had not gotten it as
of this morning. I've asked them what they think their --
their projection is. And when I spoke to Fourth about it --
Fourth Coates, the Chief Appraiser -- he said that he
believes that we're just looking at the -- the outer scope of
the issue, because the Legislature also changed the
definition of the disabilities to where --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: From what to what?
MS. BOLIN: -- to where more people are going to
qualify for the higher disability.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's V.A. disability.
MS. BOLIN: Yes. It's not Social Security; it's
strictly V.A. And those -- those qualifications have all
changed. And you're looking also at the veterans as they go
through life, and I have one in my office that didn't have a
V.A. disability, and now he's up to almost 70 percent because
of post-traumatic stress disorder and the things dealing with
the areas that he was in and issues like that, so you're
looking at people that are coming into the 100 percent
category.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But the law -- the law as
we know it is -- enables or makes you eligible if you're 100
percent disabled.
MS. BOLIN: Right.
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or partially?
MS. BOLIN: 100 percent disabled or 100 percent
unable to work.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, like, I didn't realize --
I wasn't -- how you classify, 'cause I know the V.A., you can
be a relatively --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Healthy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- appear functioning person,
and I'm thinking about General Bacon, who comes to -- I think
he's 100 percent disabled, even though he -- I mean, you
would not think he was disabled at all. But he had hearing
loss and --
MS. BOLIN: We had a gentleman come into the office
who qualified for the 100 percent disabled, and looking at
that man and talking to him, you would never know there was a
thing wrong. But he has a post-traumatic stress disorder, so
they deemed him 100 percent unable to work, which qualifies
him for this exemption.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That sounds like you and I,
I Bill.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, it does. What'd you
say? (Laughter.)
MS. BOLIN: And that's going to be the problem that
we have, is because it's not going to be the ones you see in
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
48
the wheelchair, necessarily. It's going to be however the
V.A. determines it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the loss of revenue
that has taken place thus far, Ms. Hargis, has been --
MS. HARGIS: She has the number.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- accounted for -- or,
Diane, it's been accounted for in our current revenue stream?
MS. BOLIN: I've let Ms. Hargis know, so I'm
assuming that it has.
MS. HARGIS: I didn't take the 100 percent. I
already had 77,000 that I had not accounted for, so right
now, we're okay. If we go up any higher, I'm going to have
to -- I'm going to have to change the numbers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it sounds like it's a
pretty safe assumption we're going to go higher. Is that
right, Diane?
MS. BOLIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, to me, we have the
numbers now. I don't know that we have to make a decision on
that today. I would leave it out at the present time and
just look and see -- but if we can just keep a -- I don't
know, us aware as to what our bottom line is and how much,
you know, based on our projections and our tax rate that
we've set, how that balances out, and we can look at it --
25 ~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- down the road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Look at the revenue side,
what you're talking about? Or the expense side?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bottom line, both. 'Cause we
changed the -- continue to upgrade the revenue side, continue
to upgrade -- update the expenditure side, and see where we
are in a couple weeks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, in a couple weeks.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. And if we're
on the edge, we can't do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we're on the edge, it's
something I'd like to be able to do, but I recognize -- I
agree with Bruce.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I do too, but I just don't
see, in today's economy, that we should.
MS. BOLIN: Can I make a statement, please? If
y'all change your proposed budget -- or, I'm sorry, your
proposed tax rate and it goes up to the effective amount that
was calculated, then we have to go through the two hearings.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not changing the tax
rate.
MS. BOLIN: Okay. Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not changing the tax
rate.
8-31-09 bwk
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. BOLIN: Okay, thank you. I don't want to start
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This whole discussion is to
avoid that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Straw poll, but I think Commissioner
Letz gave you some accurate information.
MS. BOLIN: Good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other particular department
budgets that we need to address --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just have one --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- at this point?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just have one short
question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And it's for the Auditor. I
want to know if she's happy with her proposed budget as it's
been approved or recommended.
MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir. Why?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Are you not happy with what
you've been given for this year's budget?
MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir, I have no complaints.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're not intending on going
upstairs and getting any approval for any other employees or
salary increase or anything?
MS. HARGIS: No, sir.
8-31-09 bwk
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're not going to do that?
Thank you. That happened last year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other departments that we need
to look at specifically?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're getting ready to go to
the capital.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's where we're going to
~ end up .
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: Capital.	
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Oka	y, we are to capital.	
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	Before you get there,	I see --
I saw	the 198th D.A. in the	back.	
	JUDGE TINLEY:	He	was here, but I thought	I saw him
leave.	He snuck back i	n on	us, okay.	
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	And I don't know -- I	don't
think	he was here and heard	the recommendation that	we went
with.				
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Probably ought to tell him.
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably be a good idea.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ask him if he knows.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Somebody's told him in the
I hall .
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe he's clairvoyant.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Barton, are you aware of some
earlier discussions we had this morning relative to your
8-31-09 bwk
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. BARYON: My understanding from looking at the
web site is that there was a tentative recommendation for
230. I understand this morning that we've deviated from
JUDGE TINLEY: The suggestion that was made is that
', the number being worked on now is 210.
MR. BARYON: I understand. I understand what
Commissioner Oehler has hit on real well, that we're facing
some tough economic times. This -- this new number may
require additional cuts in my office that we hadn't
anticipated. We're really down to a bare-bones operation.
I -- my commitment is that we're going to continue to provide
the same level of services, but I just want to encourage you
guys not to gut-shoot the D.A.'s office. We're -- we're -- I
tendered a memo to two of our commissioners reflecting the
benefits that have gone to the county since my taking office
in January, and I think one of the things I would ask this
respective Court to consider is the term that we've heard
some other people talk about, your return on your investment.
Sometimes we've got to put our money where it gets us the
most benefit. And I appreciate the efforts that the Court
has made to fund the budget as we've requested. We certainly
have made some major cuts in our office. Some additional
25 ~ cuts may be necessary.
8-31-09 bwk
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We have worked in conjunction with some other
policies and programs that we've implemented. You've seen
dramatic increases in fees assessed and fines assessed, and
restitution assessed on behalf of citizens of your community.
You've seen monumental decreases in Court-appointed attorneys
costs due to the new programs that your elected officials
have put into place. Because of that, I'd ask that you just
consider that return on your investment. All business of
getting bad guys aside, consider that return on your
investment. What -- what are your department heads doing for
the money that you've giving them? And I would respectfully
submit that the 198th D.A.'s office and all of its employees
have been pretty good stewards with the funds you've given
us. And, given the opportunity, if you fund our budget --
regardless of	what	you	do, we're going to -- we're going to
keep making a	hand	for	you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only thing I'd like to say on
that -- well, first of all, I think that the increase that --
you know, from last year to this year in your budget is
probably one of the largest, if not the largest, of any
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
54
department in the county. So we are funding -- you know,
trying to come up to, you know, giving you additional
resources. But I think you need to understand also that we
can't determine a budget based on return on investment. I
look at Rusty over there the jail. I don't think the jail is
ever going to make a return to us, other than maybe...
Obviously, we can't gut the jail budget, 'cause that's -- you
know. So, I mean, you just can't look at it solely from
that -- or, you know, that really as a major criteria.
MR. BARYON: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our responsibility to the
taxpayers and to employees and department heads, elected
officials, is to provide you with the resources to accomplish
your constitutional duties, and I think we're doing that. I
know it's less than you had asked for, but we all understand
how we got to where we are. And I appreciate you trying to
level the playing field and come up with a real budget that
doesn't account for other sources.
MR. BARYON: It seems like -- like, at this point,
we're about -- last time we met, we had come down from 245 to
230. And I used the term "nickel-and-dime." You know, we're
down to now $20,000 difference between what the Court
discussed this morning and what we had talked about last
time. And -- and I'm not privy to the insight that you men
have to know if there's -- there's $20,000 out there that we
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55
can pitch into funding the D.A.'s office. I don't know that.
I leave that in your hands. I know you're going to make a
good decision for the community. I'm going to make a hand
with whatever you give me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate that. I know you've had
some hard decisions to make. Obviously, we didn't like the
sticker shock, but we needed to have it, because we needed to
know the true cost of running that office. And --
MR. BARYON: We're all big boys, and --
JUDGE TINLEY: We've gotten spoiled in the past
years, and -- but that can't continue forever. We have an
obligation to fund that office, to perform the function that
it needs to perform. And --
MR. BARYON: I appreciate y'all's efforts. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we now to capital?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We are.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I have -- with regard to the
proposed facility that we started out on a rather modest
scale with for the 216th Juvenile (sic) Probation office,
that thing has morphed into something significantly larger.
I got, late last Friday, the most recent site plan and draft
of the floor plan for those -- for that particular facility
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
to house both the 216th Adult Probation, and also the -- the
administrative services -- or some of the administrative
services for the Sheriff's Office, together with some common
areas. And I've distributed that to you folks this morning.
I don't know that this affects in any way the -- the bottom
line cost that we've got plugged into the -- to the capital
outlay request schedule. My thinking is still that we can
come in -- and has always been that we can come in
significantly below that, by the construction methods and
materials and by utilizing some of our in-house resources or
other available resources to accomplish a lot of these
particular finish-out aspects of that building. It's a --
it's a pretty good size project now. Mr. Buckalew, did you
get your copy that I delivered to your --
MR. BUCKALEW: No, sir, I just returned from
Bandera, so I have not been back to the office.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me let you borrow one of
these. She's got one that I gave her to take to the office,
and give you a little bit better handle on what's going on
here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, is this floor plan
here, is that basically the same thing as -- that Clay drew
up?
JUDGE TINLEY: Captain Buckalew and the Sheriff's
Office combined. And there's some modifications to what they
8-31-09 bwk
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
drew up, but it accomplishes, with probably one major
exception, everything that they have plugged into theirs.
~ probably --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Twice as big.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- more than twice that big.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, almost all the way
across the building.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I do have --
JUDGE TINLEY: Much, much larger. So, that --
that's the major change.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And where did that -- the
room that was cut, the square footage that was cut out of
there, where did it go?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, number one, it reduced the
overall size of the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- of the structure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Our original plan, if you'll recall,
was to look at building a building for the Adult Probation,
and then make it approximately twice that size, leave the
remainder of it unfinished for expansion purposes. Sheriff's
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
Office then got involved, and next thing we know, we had
12,000 square feet covered.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see the name of it, the
Hierholzer Annex. (Laughter.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't believe you see that
on there anywhere. Judge, I did have Clay measure our
current training room.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And this one, at the size that
you had programmed in there now, is still almost double the
size of the current one, so it would be plenty big.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And what I said this morning
is different. This would be fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, how much of the office
space would you fill up immediately?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just about every bit of it.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm assuming at some point,
we're probably going to have to do some sort of a jail
expansion; hopefully, we're talking about 2016, 2020,
somewhere in there. Along -- this space will help that kind
of be deferred, anyway, from the standpoint that it takes
care of your office space needs for quite a while, and that
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
i
any jail	
expansion would more than likely	
just	
be a pure
detention	-- detention facility expansion,	and	not
a Sheriff's --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's exactly what this would
do. This -- you know, the jail docket, the way that's
working has saved us, you know, on that for years in the
future, I think. But the administrative part, the Judge and
Bruce, I think, have taken a tour, and the evidence stuff
that we're way over now, so we really do need to do
something. So, this would take care of that and allow us to
truly put off the jail expansion for later.
JUDGE TINLEY: Accomplishes three goals. Number
one, it gives you new space for your C.I.D., narcotics, and
the administrative functions that go with that, bring that
from your current facility over to here. Plus, number two,
it gives you some expansion area for those two major
functions; it'll free up some jail administrative space by --
by letting the jail administration move into the areas
that --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I won't say that.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- folks are vacating.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I won't say it will allow the
jail administration to move into that area, because what's
going to happen with that area is most of that area's going
to be taken up by your evidence storage expansion, okay? And
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
then we have all the other offices the way we have three or
four people in those now, that will expand into that. So,
your jail administration's probably still going to stay in
your jail, but we're okay with that until, you know, years
down the road. I don't see the admin. part of the jail
growing any more than what it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: The plan as originally conceived
would -- and I realize none of us have a crystal ball.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: But the charge when you and the
Adult Probation director -- chief were putting this together,
it was to try and project for your needs 10 years down the
road. Do you think this will solve that insofar as it
concerns your department as to what's going in there?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I do.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you, likewise, --
MR. BUCKALEW: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Captain?
MR. BUCKALEW: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, is the Court
familiar with this extra 30 feet here on the right?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to explain that.
8-31-09 bwk
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: We had talked about some unfinished
space originally to be used for storage. When we reworked
this plan with Mr. Lewis, we ended up with 20 feet out there
on the end. Insofar as trying to utilize 20 feet for
expansion, it would be difficult to utilize that, whereas
with 30 feet, you could come in a separate entrance off that
right end, come in, make a T, make a hallway left and right
for office space on either side, and you got a workable --
workable space for multiple offices on either side. You can
put two smaller departments in there on a future expansion
basis, one larger department. You're going to end up with
2,400 square feet, and in the interim you could use it for
storage. What would have to be done is, at the time the slab
were poured, we have to locate at least two restrooms there,
and we'd have to rough in the plumbing there so as to have
that in place, where we didn't have to call in the
jackhammers down the road, which is not a good idea.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: But that's easily enough done.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought maybe the front
~ porch.
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Could be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For early morning coffee
8-31-09 bwk
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and, you know, ciphering and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rocking chair.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rocking chairs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, what's the current
amount we're paying for the Ziegler building?
JUDGE TINLEY: It's right at 40,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 40,000 a year? And that's
II going to escalate, as I recall. Part of the reason that got
this moving.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe we could save some
money over what's projected. Quite a bit of money, actually.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I hope you're right, but kind
of like the other stuff, we can't bank on it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, but it's in the city
limits; it might be a little more difficult.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I brought that up at
one point at an earlier meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what do we do to get
this thing --
JUDGE TINLEY: Moving down the road?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- hearing hammers and nails
and stuff going on?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, number one, the floor plan
8-31-09 bwk
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we've got on the fast track. As you can see, we've got the
draft back. Any additional input from anybody on the Court,
Adult Probation, Sheriff -- I can see one modification that
needs to be made on Adult Probation, on the access to that
one restroom. That should have been changed, but it wasn't.
But other than that, I need more input from them, and get
~, this plan finalized, and then figure out how we're going to
II bid this thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Rusty, on two or
more occasions, the discussion has come up of a joint
dispatch, and, actually, it was -- a building like this was
kind of the thought we had last time it was discussed. Would
joint dispatch fit in that vacant spot? Is that enough space
I! for it?
', JUDGE TINLEY: 2,500 -- 2,400 square feet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2,400.
i
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think it -- I think, yes,
it's plenty of space for it. You got a lot of hurdles that
you'd have to overcome.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand that, but that's
one of the --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: As far as space-wise, I think
it is. You may have to upgrade some things as far as the
security end of your dispatch from outside; that type of
stuff is what you'd have to be careful with. But as far as
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
space, I wouldn't see why it wouldn't work.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just as a -- I just want
to make sure; I'd hate to have it too small, you know, by
10 feet, and it would be a possibility.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're just adding on a roof
and slab. It's not much now. Be a whole lot later.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My current dispatch office is
nowhere near 30 feet wide. It's probably more like 10, 12.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much space is allocated
elsewhere in K.P.D.?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: How much what?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much space is allocated
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They've got an area that's
about the size of this room; maybe a little bigger, but not
much. It's pretty --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like the idea. Need to make
darn sure that we're not skimping 10 feet.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thirty feet's usable; 20 feet
isn't.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Forty would even make it
8-31-09 bwk
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Forty gives you a lot more
flexibility. I don't think it's going to drive the cost up.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, it's negligible.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Negligible if it's unfinished
space.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that notion of
contemplating that use.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At least there's a -- next time
we get to the discussion point, at least there's a spot for
it, which takes that whole issue off the table, and also
meets a lot of your things that you thought was a good idea
to put it all --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I do --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- out by the jail and by the
Sheriff's Department to keep the interaction going. Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That issue, for your
information, Sheriff, is still alive down the street.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I know it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't mean that direction
down the street; I mean that direction.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because we hear a lot of
rumblings -- I won't get into that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, I think we need to take
that into consideration. If that needs expanding, I would be
in favor of that at this point.
8-31-09 bwk
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Makes sense.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think what we need to keep in
mind, if there's an inclination to, say, add another 10 feet,
what it's going to affect is the original placement on the
site. And Mr. Lewis has already had some discussions with
our floodplain engineer about the detention pond that is out
there. That's probably going to require some reworking.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And, Judge, in regards to
that, we got your floodplain engineer and those people
together out there. Schreiner College has done some major
work right on the opposite side of the fence and put in
actual large culverts. That's going to change a lot of that
water flow already. And -- and that ditch that runs down the
edge of our -- I've seen where they laid out the property
line. If that were expanded to fit with even the apartments
across the street, you know, I think, just looking at it, it
would solve a whole lot of the water problems. And I don't
think moving that building back another 10 feet, if that's
what Jonathan is talking about, would affect that at all,
because our part of the drainage has to be redone. Our
drainage is -- is terrible right there, and that detention
pond, in its current form, is useless.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I don't -- I think it's a
decision that we can make a little bit later, because -- and
it can be an add alternate on any kind of a plan as well.
8-31-09 bwk
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's just going to be -- just
going to be adding basically unfinished space.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's not going to change
the -- the plug-in budget number that I see.
JUDGE TINLEY: No. No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My question in that regard
would be, does the million and a half that's in the capital
program contemplate any extensive site work, above routine
site work?
JUDGE TINLEY: It includes the -- the fencing. It
includes the new parking area, which will be immediately
adjacent to the street. You'll see it on your site plan
where it says "Proposed Parking."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: It includes the additional parking
area that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Narcotics.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the narcotics, right. And I
think some minor reworking of that detention area. My
thinking was that, in large measure, that could be
~, accomplished by our Road and Bridge people, and they've got
adequate expertise -- and Leonard's looking at me now, --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Turning red.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- thinking, "What part of my budget
are you going to rob for that?" We should have -- we should
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
68
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
MR. ODOM: Site work and parking is what we're
talking about?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Your guys can practice out
there a little bit.
MR. ODOM: Sure. Practice is good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Call it training.
MR. ODOM: Training.
i
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Training on working within
the city. (Laughter.)
MR. ODOM: Be fun.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: May get your Ph.D. on that
I one .
MR. ODOM: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Might.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the -- I'm looking through
the capital list. It seems to me that there was one thing
that has been taken out, which I'm glad, was the rape -- jail
rape cameras.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's gone, right?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
8-31-09 bwk
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: There is a new item in Road and Bridge
that we added for front-end loaders, so I'll just make you
aware of that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's for the second year
MS. HARGIS: It's in the -- in the other fund
totals at the bottom here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But it's contemplated for
the second budget year, not the first budget year? Or does
it make any difference?
MS. HARGIS: Doesn't make any difference, because
once we get the money, it's spent however you designate it.
There is no budget limitations other than your arbitrage, as
I explained earlier.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: This is a different type of a budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have a pressing need for both
of those?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: At this point?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How firm is this figure for
the safety committee?
MS. HARGIS: I'm sure it's not that firm.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I tell you what, it seems to
8-31-09 bwk
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
me like we're going to have to cut out something here. We
can't have all this stuff.
~I COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. What do you
', suggest?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where do you start?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Radios?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Airport?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That'd be nice.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can sell the courthouse.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We can sell the airport; we
won't have to worry about all this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's probably an
~ option.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't tell you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's beginning to make a lot
I of sense.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not a very good option, but
it is an option.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Might be a better option than
you think. It would be -- it would be on the tax rolls,
then.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we get it off in our private
sector, I'd be willing to entertain it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe you can put it on Ebay.
8-31-09 bwk
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Better be a bunch of zeros
out there on the end of it, though.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, unfortunately, I don't
see a whole lot that can be cut. I mean, they're all kind of
equal priority, I think, almost. The things that either have
to be done because of unfunded mandates, like the radio
'~, things, I don't like them, but if I say take them out, then
I
we got to pay for them, and we're not going to have any money
in the next couple years to pay for them. All the vehicles
that we're paying off, we're just rolling it out of our
normal budget and putting them in here, so that doesn't make
sense to get rid of. The two big --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That will help us on our --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It will help our budget --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Help your budget next year,
yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A lot of these help our budget
next year. I mean, and the few little things -- I mean, I
really don't --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: One thing is, I believe we
were told by our financial adviser that we didn't have a
whole lot more to play with than what he had --
MS. HARGIS: Well, we do, because he had the jail
coming in at 2013. If we push the jail out --
8-31-09 bwk
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To 2016.
MS. HARGIS: -- to 2016, then we're fine.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 2020.
I, COMMISSIONER LETZ: That gives you that extra.
I'~ MS. HARGIS: The key is putting that extra --
putting the jail out.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, that makes a big
I difference.
JUDGE TINLEY: Of the radio equipment for the
Sheriff's Department of 140,000, there's only 50 of that
that's likely to be reimbursed.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, 50 of that is what we're
going to have to spend.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The rest of it, 90 is likely
', to be reimbursed through the grant, if we get it, that's
applied for.
MS. HARGIS: I got that down below, Judge, in the
yellow.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay.
MS. HARGIS: That's why I highlighted --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the level of confidence
of that grant?
25 ~ DEPUTY BARYON: We haven't presented it yet.
8-31-09 bwk
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It gets presented the end of
this month. We did get half of it last year; this is the
other half of the two-phase we're trying to do in two years,
so I think that helps the likelihood some. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does it help if we don't fund
it? (Laughter.)
DEPUTY BARYON: Hasn't been presented. We don't do
the oral presentation till the 21st.
MS. HARGIS: That's not really -- to me, that's
almost like a contingency holding, because that money's not
going to even come up to a --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Might not make any difference
I at this level.
MS. HARGIS: No.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because all of those are in
the same grant, the constable radios, the Animal Control
radios, and that 141 is all in the same one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to see -- you know,
have Mr. Henderson look at it with this number and see what
it looks like, see if it's doable.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me too.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I totally agree with that.
You aren't going to get an argument out of me on that one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to get us down the
road. I want to start taking some steps, and let's get --
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
74
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, you know, as long as
this is -- he's signed off on this, I can probably sign off
on it, I think, 'cause I think these are all good projects.
They're needed.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we have our charge, don't
we, Ms. Hargis?
MS. HARGIS: I will e-mail this to him today and
ask him to send out proposals to y'all so y'all have them in
your hands, so that we can be looking at them. Keep in mind,
it -- you know, the market is changing kind of on a daily
basis, so the sooner we sell, --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The better.
MS. HARGIS: -- the better.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, how many -- how many
vehicles are you purchasing?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In this grant, okay -- or in
this capital outlay, it's 11, is what you have there. You've
got a jail van we've got to replace, and then you've got this
year's five cars and next year's five cars.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If you remember, this covers
two years, and next budget we won't be able to add cars.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I love it. What do you do
with your old ones?
25 ~ SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, a lot -- I've got 26
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
75
with well over 100,000 miles on them right now, Buster. I
have two that went down last week, permanently, one that had
a hundred and -- 140,000 miles, and it had a transmission go
out on it. I'm not paying another 3,000 for --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, what are you going to
do with your old cars?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The ones that we can possibly
get over to the courthouse or still use -- I know the Auditor
and I talked about three of them for courthouse purposes,
which we will be more than happy to do. If we cannot do
that, they're going to be sold.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're bringing your Junkers
over to the courthouse?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute. I've got
some really ugly pictures in my mind right now about that.
Why are we doing that?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If they are still -- when I
first took office, I made an agreement with this Court that
every car we get goes on patrol, so what will happen is, they
may go -- the ones that we're getting rid of may go to
replacing some of my C.I.D. cars, 'cause this Court's never
bought us investigative vehicles; it's either been through
seizure or hand-me-down patrol cars. Or if they're in good
enough shape, I was told they still may need more than the
8-31-09 bwk
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
one jeep you have over here; that they would come over here.
If they won't go with that, then they would be auctioned off.
But none of these cars that we would get rid of would have
less than a hundred -- 110,000 miles on them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Well, just first
glance at this thing, I can't -- I don't know that we want
your Junkers sitting around the courthouse.
II SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm more than happy to get rid
of them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you're getting rid of
them, why would we want them?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, it's kind of -- you
know, and I think -- and some people disagree with it. It's
kind of like when we got that jeep, we thought we did real
well, Buster. Because that's what it was compared to, most
of the cars we're getting ready to get rid of.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. We like our jeep.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We like our one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like it; I think it's
cute. Of course, it doesn't run.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can sell all his junk and
get, like, a Yugo. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
~~ SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Maybe.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Too bad the Cash for
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~~
Clunkers program's over.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't even think ours would
qualify for that.
JUDGE TINLEY: We utilized the Cash for Clunkers
program, in case you gentlemen are not aware.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For whom?
JUDGE TINLEY: For Tim's truck.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wonderful.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did we really?
JUDGE TINLEY: We sure did.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Buster, do you realize when we
auction those off, that those proceeds automatically go in
general fund?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's not like I get to keep
it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, now --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We need all we can get to
help fund what you do want.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on the capital
list?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know what you're
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's one of those
vehicles -- there's two vehicles for Tim there, and I think
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
78
one of them can go away, can't it?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir, one of those can go away.
JUDGE TINLEY: Cut that by 21,5.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. As long as you're
here, Mr. Bollier, let me ask you a question with respect to
the jail maintenance. We got 50,000 for air-conditioners
there. Is this the tail end of that program, or are we going
to continue to buy --
MR. BOLLIER: That should be the tail end, sir.
There's only 10.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Replacement program?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir. There's only 10 left up
there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's good news. We're going
15
16 forward.
17
18
1a
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Well, and, of course, the
newer air-conditioners are more efficient, and so that
reduces our utility costs, too. That helps. Okay. What
else we got, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did we take a vehicle out
just now?
JUDGE TINLEY: We can, yeah. Take -- cut that 43
in half to 21,5.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. I agree.
8-31-09 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
79
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Give us a little help. Because
we're also going to have to consider -- and Mr. Henderson's
going to have to incorporate the cost of issuance in there,
which he's made allowance in the other analysis that he's
provided for us. Any other -- the elected officials or
department heads have anything they want to throw out on the
table? Ms. Hyde?
MS. HYDE: There's been some question about what
holidays we're proposing for next year. They're the same as
this year: Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving and the day
after, Christmas Eve and the day -- Christmas, New Year's
Eve, New Year's Day, President's Day, Texas Independence Day,
Good Friday, Memorial Day, and Fourth of July.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sounds pretty normal. How many is
that, 13?
MS. HYDE: Thirteen. I tried for 14 last year, and
y'all --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Were we at 13 the year before
that?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. There's been 13 as far back
as I can find history.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Didn't we do something last
year, or maybe two years ago, that we did the two -- two days
at New Year's because of where the -- the way the calendar
8-31-09 bwk
80
1 fell
2
3 Day.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HYDE: The -- yes, sir, we got rid of Columbus
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Got rid of Columbus Day.
MS. HYDE: And this year, Christmas and New Year is
on Thursday and Friday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Thursday-Friday this
year, okay.
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, next year, we may --
MS. HYDE: We might modify it again.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- look at giving Columbus Day
or some other holiday.
MS. HYDE: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Seems like a good place to start.
Anything else? We're adjourned.
(Budget workshop was adjourned at 11:36 a.m.)
8-31-09 bwk
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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 11th day of September,
I 2009.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY• _
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
8-31-09 bwk
~_
PU~~IC PARTICIPATION FORIVi ` ~ ~
FOR ~~
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' CO RT
U ~ ~~'
~'
INSTRUCTIONS: Fill out all appropriate blanks. Please print or write legibly. P t
to the COUNTY CLERK rior to the time that the Agenda Item (or Items) you wish to
address are discussed.
If you are handing out any material or documents to the Court, please make sure
you have one extra copy for the Clerk to ensure that one is put into the record.
s
Name:,,~~i/an ~~~°vla re e_
Address:. ~o S~ L~~p ~3~~/-~
~ rrv~~~e,
Telephone: ~96~" `~~~~
Place of Employment: /~~
Employment Telephone: ~~
Do you represent any particular group or organization? Yes No
If you represent a group or organization, please state the name, address and
telephone number of such group or organization:
Which Agenda Item (or Items) do you wish to address: ~~
In general, are you for or against such Agenda Item (or Items)? For Against
Sig ture
NOTE: This Public Participation Forrn must be presented to the County Clerk prior to
the time the agenda item(s) are discussed.
Once you reach the podium please state your name and who/what you represent
clearly for the court reporter to accurately record who you are