1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Budget Workshop 10 Wednesday, August 20, 2003 11 10:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X August 20, 2003 2 PAGE Budget Workshops: 3 4 County Attorney 6 5 County Court at Law 38 6 Extension 42 7 Road and Bridge 56 8 Animal Control 122 9 General Discussion 138 10 Adjourned 224 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., a budget 2 workshop meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was 3 held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I'll call the meeting 8 to order. This is a budget workshop scheduled for 10 a.m. 9 this morning, Wednesday, August the 20th. The first item on 10 the agenda is the budget of the County Attorney. You'll 11 find that on Page 33. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, before we 13 move along, I've got a couple of things. One, I'm going to 14 leave shortly after 3 o'clock to attend a public hearing at 15 the U.G.R.A., and two, are -- are we going to schedule any 16 further meeting times for -- for budget workshops? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: There's already a posted one 18 for Friday morning, I believe at 10:30. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: For any remaining unresolved, 21 outstanding, et cetera. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: It's been posted. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And everything else 25 would be on the regular agenda, as far as setting public 8-20-03 wk 4 1 hearings and approving budgets and all that, would be 2 regular scheduled stuff after that? I mean, Friday will be 3 the end of the -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: So far as I know. You guys 5 have been more to these rodeos than I have. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm shaking my head. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Huh? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd want to look at the 9 completed budget before I was agreeing -- I mean, I do not 10 want to go from what we've done to even -- even probably 11 what we've done up through Friday, straight to a public 12 hearing until I have a chance to look at it and see really 13 what we've done from a bottom line standpoint, and also 14 hopefully discuss the COLA between now and Friday and figure 15 out and put a number down and get that run so we can kind of 16 get an idea. That would be my thought, would be -- but it 17 could be done, and I'd probably -- I don't know if we could 18 have it done by Monday. So, we could do it in conjunction 19 with the meeting on Monday if it's ready. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, for purposes of 21 satisfying timelines, it might be well to put on the agenda 22 the setting of a public hearing. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: On the proposed budget. I 25 think we definitely want that for satisfying the timeline 8-20-03 wk 5 1 that we're going to be operating under. But in setting that 2 time frame, the budget's got to be available -- proposed 3 budget for public inspection and review for a certain period 4 of time prior to the public hearing. We -- we'd have to 5 calculate that timeline on Monday when we set the public 6 hearing. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is that, two 8 weeks? It has to lie in state for two weeks for public 9 hearing viewing? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think we need -- 11 on Monday's agenda, we ought to have the flexibility to set 12 the public hearing, and also to discuss the budget if we 13 need to, if it's ready to discuss. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll follow up on 15 what you're talking about, Jonathan. Will we have a revised 16 one of these on Friday that -- that computes all the various 17 changes or suggested changes? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably not. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably not. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we'll still 22 be working on the changes on Friday. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I doubt we'll have 25 them on Monday. 8-20-03 wk 6 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I do too. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're really 3 looking at probably having to do a -- a workshop or a 4 special meeting in the next week, or sometime this week, or, 5 you know, sometime. But we'll know more -- I think Tommy 6 can probably help answer that. I mean, he'll know his 7 timeline, how long it will take to calculate. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: The previous answer he gave me 9 on plugging in new figures was -- he indicated that he could 10 do those in a day, which I thought was pretty accommodating. 11 Hopefully they're going to be, at the most, maybe two days. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, anyway -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Mr. Motley. 14 MR. MOTLEY: Yes, sir. Maybe the best way to 15 start out on this might be -- is to ask the Court if you 16 have any questions of me. I don't really have a whole lot 17 to bring to your attention on the proposed budget for our 18 office, and I'd be happy to answer questions you might have. 19 It may -- might, you know, spur me to start talking or 20 something like that if you said the right word or something, 21 but -- but I don't really have that much to comment on. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On conferences -- 23 MR. MOTLEY: Right. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Line 485, you're 25 requesting $3,000. Judge recommends $3,000. Is that what 8-20-03 wk 7 1 you feel is required for you to get the hours required? Or 2 is -- 3 MR. MOTLEY: Well, we're out of money this 4 year, and still have our major conference yet to attend, 5 which is in September. Yes, I do. $3,000 was the figure 6 before last year, and you may recall that we came to the 7 budget hearings and the Court had asked for additional cuts, 8 5 percent or something like that, and then also lowered 9 everybody's conference money to $1,000. Apparently, there 10 were some elected officials, department heads, whatever that 11 came in after the budget and sort of settled in a little bit 12 and got their moneys restored. I didn't know about that, so 13 I didn't come and ask for it, so we were cut to $1,000, and 14 that cut way deep. We do have three lawyers that are 15 required to have 15 hours a year CLE, and actually, out of 16 some of this money, we have members of -- of our staff that 17 are part of the District/County Attorneys Association, Key 18 Personnel Section, and so they -- you know, it's 19 administrative training and such as that. That also comes 20 out of there. But, yeah, I do think we do need the $3,000. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that answered the 22 question, basically, was the 15 hours for each of the -- 23 MR. MOTLEY: That's required. And I -- I'll 24 tell you, you know, five of that hours can be self-study, 25 reading and such. We took -- we tend to get 15 hours -- 8-20-03 wk 8 1 classroom hours, at least. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Motley, I'd like 3 a little explanation, if you will, in terms of what's 4 plugged into Line Items 103 and 105 on Assistant Salaries. 5 Your request was considerably higher than where we are, and 6 Secretary Salaries is extremely higher than where we are. 7 MR. MOTLEY: Just a moment here. Well, the 8 assistant salaries -- give me just a second on that. I'm 9 not sure -- hold on, let me look at my worksheet here. Just 10 a moment. Secretary salaries, I can say -- and that's where 11 I'm -- secretary salaries contemplates another position, an 12 additional secretary, and that's where that comes from. And 13 I can make further explanation of that if you'd like. 14 That's why it's higher in that amount. The assistant 15 salaries -- in my estimation, the assistant salaries have 16 been low in this office for -- for as long as I can 17 remember, and I know I make regular visits to Commissioners 18 Court at budget time and make that observation, and it's not 19 ever really borne much fruit. Let me say that, comparing to 20 other counties, we're low on the -- on the pay for the 21 assistants. I'll give you an example. Lamar County, which 22 I believe is pretty much our twin county in the state, the 23 entry level salary is $51,120. This number that I put in 24 here represents salaries of 45,7 and 43,6, so we're at 25 that -- we're yet $6,000 and $8,000 under Lamar's starting 8-20-03 wk 9 1 salary. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What were those two 3 numbers again? 45 and -- 4 MR. MOTLEY: 45,727 and 43,600. That's how 5 that breaks down -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 7 MR. MOTLEY: -- for the two positions. That 8 represents somewhat of an increase over the last year, and 9 over -- by the way, I want to also tell you that my -- it 10 has the COLA in there. I thought I was supposed to put that 11 in there, and I did that in error, so that requested number 12 is off by that amount, and I believe Judge Tinley made those 13 adjustments. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: My figures is taking the 15 COLA's out. 16 MR. MOTLEY: Right. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: What I have recommended 18 excludes any COLA. 19 MR. MOTLEY: Yeah, I think my requested had 20 them in there. I thought we were supposed to put them in, 21 and I realize now that is the subject of further discussion. 22 But I had put them in there; I want to make that clear to 23 the Court. On -- on salaries, on FICA, group -- I mean 24 salaries, FICA, retirement, all those figures were 25 calculated using the 2 and a half percent, which is in 8-20-03 wk 10 1 error. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Am I to understand that the 3 figures you just gave Commissioner Williams of 42 or 4 43-something and 45-something also include a 2 and a half 5 COLA? 6 MR. MOTLEY: Those do not. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 MR. MOTLEY: Those -- let me be sure about 9 this, now. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 43,6, Judge, and 11 45,7. 12 MR. MOTLEY: No, they do. They do include a 13 COLA, and they include a one -- longevity -- one of the -- 14 when we drew up this budget submission, one of the attorneys 15 was eligible for a one-year longevity, and so it included 16 that. He is not here any more. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 18 MR. MOTLEY: It -- it did include the COLA's 19 and one longevity for -- for the 43,6 position. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does have COLA in 21 it? 22 MR. MOTLEY: That has a COLA and a longevity 23 for that one. The longevity is not applicable any more, as 24 that person is not with us. He was here when we calculated 25 the budget, but he is not here any longer. We have a new 8-20-03 wk 11 1 person in this position, so longevity is out the window. 2 COLA's and longevity are in there. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: But if I understand what -- 4 what you've requested -- and this was my understanding when 5 I talked with you -- you are asking that those existing 6 salaries be restructured up to what you'd -- what you had 7 requested, and that's how we got to your requested figure on 8 those two assistants. 9 MR. MOTLEY: And I think the -- Judge 10 Tinley's backed out -- backed out what he was supposed to 11 back out to take out the COLA's, and I believe that's 12 correct. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. I would have if there 14 were any included. 15 MR. MOTLEY: I would not put pencil to paper 16 right at this point, because it was my error, and I probably 17 should have clarified that. I thought we were supposed to 18 put 2 and a half percent COLA's in there, and so I went 19 ahead and did that. And, you know, it kind of escapes me 20 exactly what sort of high math I performed, but I believe 21 that the 87,148 is a correct number without COLA's. And the 22 secretaries' salaries, in addition to the position, the 23 additional position does have, I would say -- I don't know 24 any way to describe it but additional duties with 25 commensurate salary increases. A raise in duties, title, 8-20-03 wk 12 1 however you want to describe it. Senior administrative 2 secretary, legal, a promotion. I'm just not sure what terms 3 we're supposed to use in -- you know, in the wake of Nash. 4 Let me say -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: David, can we get to a 6 place that we don't have the COLA's built in? I mean, let's 7 get to that place. 8 MR. MOTLEY: Well, that -- Judge Tinley did. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: The figures I have in that far 10 right column do not have COLA's. 11 MR. MOTLEY: He did it. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The COLA's are backed 13 out, but the longevity, those kinds of things, are in there? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: If there were any longevities 15 due, they are in there. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. Okay. 17 MR. MOTLEY: The -- and if you want me to get 18 into the explanation of -- of the secretarial thing, I'm 19 prepared to do that. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to -- what 21 step and grade did you plug in for the new position? 22 MR. MOTLEY: On one position, from a 17 to a 23 19. On the other, from a 15 to a 17. And I can -- as I 24 say, I can explain that if you -- or give you some kind of a 25 brief explanation if that's what you'd like to -- 8-20-03 wk 13 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we're not only 2 dealing with a new hire here; we're dealing with salary 3 increases for the present ones? 4 MR. MOTLEY: As well. Promotion, salary 5 increase, whatever you want to call it. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we're concerned 7 with salary increases. 8 MR. MOTLEY: Right. You're right. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The words don't mean 10 anything here. 11 MR. MOTLEY: That's right. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's kind of hard to 13 get my head around looking at it that way, but it appears 14 that -- that in the salary -- secretaries' salaries, that 15 you had requested 121, and the Judge gave you 118, which is 16 a -- is a pretty good increase, so he's granted something 17 here. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding, there was a 19 reclassification of some of his employees. 20 MR. MOTLEY: That's right. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: And -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So that's a salary 23 increase on the present employees? 24 MR. MOTLEY: Two of them, and an additional 25 employee. That's the difference between -- 8-20-03 wk 14 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is the new employee in 2 there? 3 MR. MOTLEY: -- the current budget and -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, the new employee is there 5 also. 6 MR. MOTLEY: -- and the recommended budget. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You currently have 8 two secretaries, and you're asking for a third; is that 9 right? 10 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I have a Hot Check lady 11 who really doesn't function as a secretary; it's pretty much 12 a full-time job. I have two legal secretaries, and then I 13 have an administrative legal secretary who does 14 administrative functions in the office, and really, 15 basically leaving me without any secretary. She's doing -- 16 in addition to that, because of staffing, she has to do what 17 little bond forfeitures we're able to do. She has to do 18 juvenile detention orders and do the general administration 19 in the office, leaving, really, very little time to function 20 as a -- as a secretary. That's the reasoning, number one, 21 for the additional secretarial position, in brief. The idea 22 behind the reclassification on 17 to the 19 was because -- 23 and I'm not sure if it's one or two years ago -- this 24 responsibility level is very similar to the chief deputy 25 clerks in the District Clerk, County Clerk's office, the 8-20-03 wk 15 1 chief deputy in the Auditor's office, Road and Bridge 2 office. And, at one point in time, I think it was two years 3 ago, those positions were all equalized to a -- to a 17, but 4 others have moved on. They've moved on and gone up to a 5 higher step or grade, whereas the senior administrative 6 legal secretary has not. It's just an effort to keep pace 7 with the people with similar responsibilities, as was done 8 in the past. And that's -- that's the 17 to the 19. The 15 9 to a 17 is a bit different. This is a person in the office 10 who has continually performed above pay grade, assumes 11 duties really outside the job description, taking duties off 12 of the senior, I guess you'd say, administrative legal 13 secretary, taking things off of her, harder work, more 14 duties, more self-initiative. This is just in recognition 15 of that, so this is, I would guess you'd say, more in the 16 line of a merit or something like that, but it is more in 17 keeping with the actual duties that this person does. Not 18 doing the duties of a legal secretary, but doing the duties 19 of everything. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question 21 now. Have -- we know -- we have visited with the personnel 22 director and we know that this step up -- there is a slot 23 for secretaries or administrative assistants or deputy 24 clerks or whatever that title might be? There is a slot to 25 where you're going? 8-20-03 wk 16 1 MR. MOTLEY: Talking about a job title? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am talking about a 3 job title. I mean, I don't want to get this thing out of 4 kilter. 5 MR. MOTLEY: Well, we never really -- to my 6 understanding, the job title deal for us to begin with was 7 never really clear. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, a legal office may 9 be different from a -- another office in the courthouse; as 10 an example, the Clerk's office? 11 MR. MOTLEY: You mean just in duties, or -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 13 MR. MOTLEY: -- in any way? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think -- I think you 15 have to -- you know, to go up two steps, I mean, there needs 16 to be a -- a name beside that -- beside that step. I mean, 17 if you go up two steps, does that person turn into a county 18 commissioner? 19 MR. MOTLEY: No. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I'm 21 saying. 22 MR. MOTLEY: No, we give -- we made a -- we 23 made a name for it. We made a name. There is no -- I don't 24 believe there is a name of a position at that level. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we're creating 8-20-03 wk 17 1 something new here. That needs to be dealt with with the 2 personnel officer. 3 MR. MOTLEY: I have not consulted the 4 personnel on this, by the way; I'll just tell you that. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I thought I heard 6 you say that the -- the 17 to 19 was based on the end of 7 this salary structure study, certain jobs were classified 8 17, and that subsequently some of those were moved up to 19. 9 MR. MOTLEY: Right. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, your -- 11 MR. MOTLEY: Moved to 19. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- your reason is 13 equity with other jobs? 14 MR. MOTLEY: This person is -- I consider 15 this -- I mean, I think you're saying it exactly correctly. 16 This is -- this person has lagged behind, did not make up 17 the difference last year. I think the other positions moved 18 to 19 last year, if I'm not mistaken. And don't hold me to 19 that, 'cause I didn't really study -- only part of the 20 budget I get is my part, so I haven't really gone and 21 studied everybody's budget. I will say that -- I mean, you 22 know, I don't know. Maybe -- everybody probably wishes that 23 the Nash study had never been performed, but my 24 understanding is -- by the way, that was the first time that 25 they'd ever done at least a county government, if not county 8-20-03 wk 18 1 or municipal government study. I'm not sure about that. A 2 lot of it was not a good fit to Kerr County, and 3 particularly to our office. It just didn't fit. But, in 4 any event, I believe it was determined two years ago that 5 the responsibilities of this job were certainly on a par 6 with chief deputy clerks, the chief deputy auditor and 7 senior administrative assistant at Road and Bridge. 8 Granted, Road and Bridge has more, you know, employees 9 overall, but that person really doesn't necessarily deal 10 with employees, per se, the road hands and such. But they 11 were -- they were similar at one time; they were equivalent 12 in job duty level. The others moved on. This one didn't. 13 And that's -- we're looking to rectify a situation that 14 probably should have been taken care of last year. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a -- 16 necessarily a problem. I think what was done in the other 17 situations, Road and Bridge and some of the other chief 18 deputies, was that it was demonstrated that there was a 19 responsibility change that went along with -- and maybe it 20 was how real that was, I don't know. But, I mean, they came 21 and said there is a responsibility change and a job 22 description change that went along with the classification. 23 And that's -- you know, and that's fine. That's the basis 24 of how those were done. 25 MR. MOTLEY: Yeah, I hear you. 8-20-03 wk 19 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- and I think what 2 the -- the Court seems to be doing this year is doing the 3 same thing, but doing it -- we tend to be doing it more in 4 line of if someone can basically reduce staff, and then 5 raise everybody up a little bit. And that may not fit your 6 situation; I don't know. But we have -- in several 7 departments so far, the department head or elected official 8 has come in and said we would like to, you know, reduce 9 staff by one and redistribute that workload, and through 10 efficiencies and other things, and raise other people in the 11 office. And we have done that, I think, in two or three 12 offices, gone along with the recommendation of the elected 13 officials. 14 MR. MOTLEY: Well, one area that I'm -- and 15 to answer Buster's question, we did create names for the new 16 positions. We have not run those by Barbara. There's 17 certainly nothing official. We tried to create a name to 18 differentiate the additional duties. One disadvantage, I 19 guess you'd say, maybe, that we are operating under is the 20 fact that we're the only -- I mean, the D.A.'s are in -- you 21 know, they're not really in the same boat that I'm in, but 22 there really is no other law office, no other -- you know, I 23 submit to you that a legal secretary's job is different from 24 a secretary. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would agree. 8-20-03 wk 20 1 MR. MOTLEY: And I'll just tell you that. 2 And so there's really nobody else to compare our people to, 3 so we almost get into one of these comparable word 4 situations; "Who's worth more, you know, the day care worker 5 or the road hand?" kind of a thing. You know, we -- we have 6 to do the best we can to look at, I guess you'd say, overall 7 responsibility, and those deputy clerks or chief deputy 8 clerks in those offices are kind of the -- you know, they 9 kind of make the place run. They're kind of the go-to guy, 10 so to speak, in those situations, and they make the office 11 run, and it can run very well with or without the elected 12 official or department head being there. 13 Our office is a little different. I mean, my 14 administrative responsibilities have been -- had to take a 15 back seat to mental health, juvenile, just whatever we've 16 done over the years, and administratively, I've never -- 17 I've never had the opportunity to operate in the realm of 18 administrator, which I feel like some of these other offices 19 do. I mean, I think the District Clerk, the County Clerk, 20 they really operate -- they don't go out, necessarily, and 21 sell license plates or whatever. You know, and I've cut the 22 duties down, but in the past, I've had full juvenile court 23 responsibilities, had mental health and part-time -- you 24 know, the Commissioners Court, doing appeals and doing all 25 that, so I've carried a workload, plus tried to add 8-20-03 wk 21 1 administrative. That's only about me, and I'm not concerned 2 about -- I'm just trying to, I guess, demonstrate for you 3 the fact that we're kind of a solitary law office in the 4 county, so we really don't have much to compare our 5 positions to. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Two quick 7 questions. Under assistants -- just in numbers, not 8 salaries right now. 9 MR. MOTLEY: Yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You have the two 11 assistants right now. 12 MR. MOTLEY: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And when did you get the 14 second? At what point? You had one; do you know how long 15 you've had two? Or has it been -- 16 MR. MOTLEY: Month. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- 18 MR. MOTLEY: Mas or menos, a month. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not position. I mean, 20 how -- the position there. 21 MR. MOTLEY: Are you talking about -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When did the -- 23 MR. MOTLEY: -- the second position, or when 24 the person filled the position? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When did you get the 8-20-03 wk 22 1 position? How long has it been? I mean, have we -- I think 2 it's been a while. I'm trying to remember. 3 MR. MOTLEY: Year or two. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two years or so? 5 MR. MOTLEY: I don't think it was actually 6 done at budget time. I don't think it was done at budget, 7 but it might have been. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was done in 9 conjunction with agreement with the Court and the -- 10 MR. MOTLEY: Right. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- who's going to do, you 12 know, the work for the Court and all that. 13 MR. MOTLEY: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it was about two 15 years ago? 16 MR. MOTLEY: The agreement with the Court is 17 -- has -- it morphs a lot, but I think I know what the 18 general idea of the agreement is with the Court. But 19 sometimes the agreement becomes something that I never think 20 it contemplated. And let me say that, at least in the past, 21 that would become all sorts of new and different things. 22 And -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 24 MR. MOTLEY: You know, the agreement is we're 25 going to try to do the civil work and do the best we can on 8-20-03 wk 23 1 it, and that's it. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the -- under your 3 secretaries or people that go into that category in the 4 budget, how many are -- are there currently? 5 MR. MOTLEY: Secretaries? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 7 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. Currently? Four. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's four. 9 MR. MOTLEY: One of which is a Hot Check, one 10 of which is this administrative legal secretary, two legal 11 secretaries. They're all under that -- under that line 12 item. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, four. And there -- 14 and two you'd like to reclassify, two you'd like to leave 15 the same as in the -- 16 MR. MOTLEY: Right. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the step. 18 MR. MOTLEY: Right. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then you'd like to get 20 one new hire. 21 MR. MOTLEY: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That sorted it out 23 for me. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I still have two 25 questions; I'm still exactly where I was 20 minutes ago. In 8-20-03 wk 24 1 order to create a new -- I mean, this may be a question of 2 these guys, I don't know, or Thea or somebody. In order for 3 us to create a new position in that, we've officially 4 adopted the -- the program that we're running under; you 5 know, we have Secretary, Secretary 1, Secretary 2, you know, 6 those official things. What is it going to take to go back 7 and change that all of that to create a new slot? A new 8 position? A new category? 9 MR. MOTLEY: Jon may have answered your 10 question. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He did? 12 MR. MOTLEY: These other people did move up 13 from 17's to 19's. I don't think they have new titles; 14 they're still chief deputy clerk, you know. They're still 15 the same title. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Chief deputy clerk? 17 MR. MOTLEY: I mean, I think that's what they 18 call them. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that what yours is 20 going to be? 21 MR. MOTLEY: No. No, that's not -- no. They 22 moved up in pay and classification, but kept the same title. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I'll find out 24 about it. All right. My last question is -- 25 MR. MOTLEY: I don't want you to leave 8-20-03 wk 25 1 without me being able -- you know, if you have a question of 2 me, I want to be sure to answer whatever it is. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you knew, you would 4 have answered the question. 5 MR. MOTLEY: But I told you we gave it a 6 name. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll find out. 8 MR. MOTLEY: We've given a name for it; we 9 have not gone through Barbara. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll find out about 11 it. But my last thing is -- I'm really not asking this as a 12 Commissioner. I'm just kind of -- it's just kind of an 13 interesting thing. Where in the world are you going to put 14 another person down there, David? Where are you going to 15 put another person? There's not room for another person 16 down there. 17 MR. MOTLEY: Let me tell you that -- I don't 18 know what you call -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm talking about -- 20 I'm just -- 21 MR. MOTLEY: I know. No, I'm answering your 22 question. You know, last year, after Juvenile Probation was 23 built, money was saved by using county labor, and there was 24 material left over to work on the other finished out space. 25 Let me say it was supposed to be after that we were supposed 8-20-03 wk 26 1 to -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. 3 MR. MOTLEY: -- expand. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 5 MR. MOTLEY: And, all of a sudden -- there 6 was a certain sum of money left, and I'm not exactly sure of 7 that amount of money, but all of a sudden, the expansion for 8 us sort of stopped after all that other stuff was done, and 9 we were told we had the -- what's his name, the architect -- 10 project manager? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Skip over that and go 12 on. 13 MR. MOTLEY: He comes in and draws us plans 14 of what our office was going to be, and all of a sudden, it 15 -- you know, the talk got very quiet about that. So that's 16 what was supposed to happen last year, is we were supposed 17 to -- our office was supposed to be expanded. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. 19 MR. MOTLEY: And we talked about one of three 20 different plans, and actually drew them out. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. 22 MR. MOTLEY: And I'm just saying I don't know 23 what happened to the money that was allocated for that. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know, either. 25 But are we supposed to -- you know, are we supposed to 8-20-03 wk 27 1 create some more office space for you? 2 MR. MOTLEY: Well, there doesn't -- I mean -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have a place 4 for this lady? 5 MR. MOTLEY: This doesn't contemplate more -- 6 this doesn't contemplate more office space in this budget 7 request, if that's what you're asking. You know, it's going 8 to be -- we're going to have to make do, is what we're going 9 to do. Have to; we don't have any other place. We have 10 a -- a part-time legal clerk, a law student out of St. 11 Mary's, who works in the County Law Library. We don't have 12 anyplace to put another -- we can't give him an office. We 13 have a volunteer investigator who comes in who works out of 14 his house. Doesn't have -- he just comes in and says hi and 15 bye. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 17 MR. MOTLEY: So, space is an issue. I 18 mean -- but, I mean, we're going to have to make do, at 19 least for the time being, but I'm not sitting here telling 20 you that I wouldn't come back at some point in the future 21 and say, "What about those plans to expand our office?" 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree a hundred 23 percent; I think that we need to. I think we need to finish 24 what we have started down there, and we're not anywhere near 25 finishing. 8-20-03 wk 28 1 MR. MOTLEY: Back -- way back when the office 2 -- when the jail space was converted to office space, we 3 said at that time we need this much room, and everybody said 4 no, you don't. So we said okay, no, we don't. And so 5 that's what we ended up with. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: David -- are you 7 finished, Commissioner? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably. 9 MR. MOTLEY: Well, now, I don't want you to 10 be befuddled. You always talk trash -- you always talk bad 11 about lawyers, so I don't want you to be befuddled or not 12 have your questions answered. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's going to talk bad 14 about lawyers. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you understand why 16 now? 17 MR. MOTLEY: If you have something else you 18 want me to answer, I mean, I -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, you're fine, 20 David. Thank you. I like you; you're a nice person. Thank 21 you. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, two things. And 23 they're related, but not related, so we can try to separate 24 them out. Between raising the salaries of the other 25 attorneys and the reclassifications, is that a higher 8-20-03 wk 29 1 priority, or is it a higher priority to hire another staff 2 person? 3 MR. MOTLEY: Well, you know -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And not change the 5 others? 6 MR. MOTLEY: Let me say, with the assistant 7 salaries and with the secretary, 17 to 19, I honestly don't 8 look at this as a situation to come in, per se, and get new 9 money -- I know it represents new money. I look at this as 10 a situation to correct a past wrong. These lawyers -- and, 11 again, I -- I'm going to be struck by lightning if I say 12 this four times, but the Nash study talks specifically about 13 the assistant county attorney position, and back when they 14 did the study -- you know, this is way back -- they said it 15 was a poor opportunity. We had a guy who had been here a 16 couple years with three or four years experience. The 17 proposed salary for him this year, just contemplating a COLA 18 only, was only $75 over what was recommended in 1999 for 19 that same position. That position, if you carried along the 20 COLA's -- that's how I came up with these figures. I took 21 the -- the recommended salary from the Nash study and put 2 22 and a half percent COLA on it for each year, and that's how 23 I came up with that 43,6. That is not just out of this 24 deal. I tried to bring what they recommended in '99 to 25 present value as best I was able to do, and that's where 8-20-03 wk 30 1 that figure came from. 2 I think if they had -- those recommendations 3 had been implemented and those people had been paid at that 4 level, they'd be here right now. And -- but I have come to 5 the Court, I think y'all know, every year and said something 6 about it. Maybe not forcefully. I don't -- I'm not a big 7 screamer or anything like that; I don't get too wound up, 8 usually. And I just have come and asked and submitted 9 paperwork about it, and you've pretty routinely said, well, 10 we're just going to keep them where they are. And Guadalupe 11 County, four years ago, was paying people out of law school 12 $45,000 to start. We do compete with Bexar County, 13 although, you know, we don't like to talk about that. Bexar 14 County's paying $55,000 to start. This is just -- we're 15 just at 37; we're just not in -- it makes it hard to get 16 people at all. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- okay, let 18 me -- the reason I'm asking this is -- 19 MR. MOTLEY: I think they're all important; 20 that's the answer. But I don't know if I have -- if I had 21 to pick one over the other -- you know, it's like split the 22 baby, you know. I don't know what to tell you. 23 Solomon's -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. Unfortunately, 25 we're Solomon up here; we're going to have to split the 8-20-03 wk 31 1 baby, probably, 'cause we have limited resources. Trying to 2 figure out what's important to you. My personal view is -- 3 you can tell me if you don't like my personal view. My 4 personal view is that we have many employees throughout the 5 county that are not paid to the level I think they should be 6 paid at. 7 MR. MOTLEY: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Every time we hire a new 9 employee, it makes it harder to bring everybody else up to 10 where they should be. 11 MR. MOTLEY: No, I understand. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, for me, I'm putting 13 priority more on let's try to get everyone who's working for 14 the County up to where they should be paid, rather than 15 bring on new people. 16 MR. MOTLEY: Now, maybe I misunderstood 17 your -- I thought you said what is more important, the 18 assistant attorneys' raises or the raises for the 19 secretaries. You're saying the raises for staff versus new 20 personnel? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, all raises for 22 current staff versus new staff. 23 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I mean, if I had to face 24 the -- you know Hobson's choice here, I would say it's more 25 important to raise and really, I think, rectify the 8-20-03 wk 32 1 situation with existing employees. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The other question 3 I have -- Hot Check fund, which I've never understood; don't 4 want to try to understand it today. You mentioned that one 5 of your secretaries -- staff primarily works with that fund. 6 MR. MOTLEY: Right. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a way -- or is 8 that person already compensated out of that Hot Check fund, 9 which is kind of out of our -- 10 MR. MOTLEY: Let me say -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- out of our budget? 12 MR. MOTLEY: Supplemented. She is 13 supplemented out of that fund, but it is not a major 14 percentage of her salary. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Is there -- is 16 there a way to make it a -- you know, to help equalize and 17 move things around, is there a way to get more of the funds 18 out of the Hot Check fund to be a -- a larger supplement for 19 some of the people that -- 20 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I'll tell you right now, 21 it's not -- I don't want to go into the detailed thing, but, 22 I mean -- I wish could I give you some examples -- numerous 23 examples of what the Hot Check fund is used for. It is used 24 for anything, basically, to enhance law enforcement. I 25 mean, radios, bulletproof vests, digital cameras -- 8-20-03 wk 33 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Computers. 2 MR. MOTLEY: Computers. I can't tell you all 3 the different things it's used for. So, it's not strictly a 4 salary supplement thing. Salary supplements, in my view, 5 come after all the other essential things that we can do to 6 assist. We bought a portion of an old ambulance that was 7 supposed to be converted to kind of an emergency response 8 command center thing that never happened. But we put, I 9 think, if I'm not mistaken, $3,000 or $5,000 into that 10 purchase, and I think we got an old, rusty ambulance sitting 11 over there that never got finished out. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we did the same 13 thing. Okay, you've answered my question. 14 MR. MOTLEY: But, I mean, it can, but I'm 15 saying it's pretty -- it's pretty thin. So, there's really 16 not -- and that's by the decision to go ahead and do these 17 other law enforcement-related things. If I said, well, when 18 they come to me and say, "We need another digital camera," 19 or in one case, one and a half digital cameras -- they had 20 half the money for a digital camera, and if they didn't 21 spend it, they were going to lose it, so I bought them a 22 half a digital camera to get that one in there that year, 23 and then bought them another one. P.D. -- this is every 24 agency; P.D., Ingram, D.P.S., Sheriff's Department, 25 whatever, you know, we can do. I've just asked Rusty about 8-20-03 wk 34 1 buying some more of this riot gear type stuff for the jail 2 for emergency situations, and I'll say that we've done that 3 in a proactive way. Rusty didn't come to me; I went to him 4 after I read about a situation. "What do y'all have? What 5 do y'all need? Can we maybe help?" And so we do that. 6 That's the majority amount of money that comes out of that 7 fund, is for those type of expenditures. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 9 MR. MOTLEY: But there are supplements paid. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: David, help me 11 understand something here. 12 MR. MOTLEY: Sure. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The state supplement 14 of $33,900, is that intended for the County Attorney, or is 15 that intended to be used by the County Attorney for other 16 members of his staff? 17 MR. MOTLEY: It is entitled and referred to 18 as a salary supplement. It could be used for office -- 19 other personnel. It can be used that way if it -- if that's 20 the decision made, but it is a salary supplement. It's 21 intended to be a salary supplement. And I know that there 22 are other officials, I think, receiving a similar supplement 23 who divert part of it into other uses. You know, I don't. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just a couple 8-20-03 wk 35 1 things, at the risk of restating some of the things Jonathan 2 and others said. David, I appreciate the -- the use of 3 non-lawyers, paraprofessionals, clerks, whatever to leverage 4 the utility of the lawyers, and I know you do that, and 5 that's -- that's wise. The direction I see this Court going 6 on people is, we're looking for productivity improvements. 7 We like to -- we'd like to do the two things Jonathan talked 8 about; we'd like to pay better, and we'd like to do that -- 9 fund that in part by having fewer people. So, this is sort 10 of a not very good time to be asking for more people, when 11 we're -- even though they may be fully justified, when we're 12 asking other departments to do more with less. 13 MR. MOTLEY: I understand that. And I'm 14 going to tell you straight up, and probably every county 15 department head/elected official who's come up here will 16 tell you, I wouldn't put it in there if I didn't think I 17 needed it. And I always try to be very -- on my estimates 18 of what I need, I don't do this thing about socking some 19 back and switching funds around later on. We're out of 20 money for Books, Publications, and Dues right now. We are 21 -- we have -- Tommy told us to submit basically a series of 22 budget amendments to move stuff over there as we need it, 23 and we are submitting one -- we're going to be submitting -- 24 we actually submitted another one, and we need to correct 25 that, do a corrected one. So, that was someplace where 8-20-03 wk 36 1 something kind of bit us that we didn't expect. But, by and 2 large, we try to budget -- I mean if we -- like I said 3 before, we bought a printer and we said its $1,132. We 4 don't come in and say we want 1500 bucks. We got an 5 estimate, and that's what we put in there. We try to play 6 very close to the vest with it and -- 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My view, David, is 8 that your office is frugal, and I appreciate that. The 9 other -- one other statement. As a merchant, I -- I 10 appreciate your Hot Check Department. I've got a few 11 hundred dollars in the bank that I wouldn't have except for 12 your help, so that's a -- that's a good service to the 13 community. 14 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I got to tell you, we're 15 -- we are collecting about 86 percent of the checks. And -- 16 and, you know, it'd be nice if it were a hundred, but 17 86 percent is -- is pretty darned good. And -- 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good job there. 19 MR. MOTLEY: Most times the merchants really 20 like -- we're doing a new deal with a merchant fee now, and 21 they tend to really like that. And so most of our money -- 22 and, I mean, I can't sit here and tell you that we don't 23 have some merchants, folks out there that are not mad. I 24 got an ugly letter from a guy the other day, another county; 25 I don't even really know the guy. So I'm not telling you 8-20-03 wk 37 1 that, you know, the merchants -- somebody's not angry at 2 some point in time at something we've done or will do. But, 3 you know, we just try the best we can try, and so that's all 4 we can do, I guess. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for 6 Mr. Motley? Mr. Motley, we appreciate you being here. 7 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I hope I answered the 8 question. I'm really a little bit worried about 9 Commissioner Baldwin. He's got a pensive look on his face; 10 he's not smiling. He's kind of looking like, "Well, he 11 didn't tell me what I need to know." But I really do -- 12 seriously, I know how you like to kid lawyers all the time, 13 but I -- I hope I'm speaking plainly and that -- you know, 14 that you got your questions answered. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But he's not kidding. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not kidding about the 18 lawyer thing. 19 MR. MOTLEY: Tell you what -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Not all the time. 21 MR. MOTLEY: If you need one, Buster -- if 22 you need one, you can probably start liking them. You know 23 what the definition of a Republican is? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 25 MR. MOTLEY: Excuse me, I got it backwards. 8-20-03 wk 38 1 Do you know what the definition of a Democrat is? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good 3 question, though. 4 MR. MOTLEY: It's a Republican who has been 5 arrested. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. 7 MR. MOTLEY: That's right. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's interesting. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Motley. Next 10 we have the County Court at Law. Ms. Holmes? 11 MS. HOLMES: Yes, sir. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Looks like that particular one 13 is on Page -- Page 12. 14 MS. HOLMES: Judge Brown and I went over the 15 recommendations yesterday, and neither one of us had any 16 problems with any of them, so I have no -- nothing to 17 present, unless you all have some questions about something 18 specific. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: By way of explanation, Special 20 Judge that's noted down there under 415, you'll notice a 21 significant increase there. That came about as a result 22 of -- the way we used to operate when we needed extra 23 judges -- special judges, we'd get them through the district 24 courts, and they'd be assigned through the state judge 25 system, and they'd come to us and it wouldn't cost us 8-20-03 wk 39 1 anything. The Legislature said, no more. You want special 2 judges, you got to pay them. So, that's -- that's why that 3 one is as it is. 4 MS. HOLMES: And -- 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The big decrease in 6 the Court-Appointed Attorneys from -- from 69 this year to 7 30, is that -- was 69 an anomaly? 8 MS. HOLMES: That's what has been spent 9 actually up to date, and that's because of the new laws that 10 went into effect last -- at this time last year, that state 11 bill. Pat probably knows more about it. I mean, I know -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Senate Bill 7. 13 MS. HOLMES: Senate Bill 7. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Question is, how are 15 we going to go from 69 to 30? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you've got an additional 17 18 there. We just -- we created a new line item. 18 MS. HOLMES: Just underneath it. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That answered that 20 question. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Next question. 22 MS. HOLMES: And back to the special -- 23 Special Judge. Judge Ables and Judge Brown and Judge Prohl 24 have sort of worked out an agreement, where if -- if they 25 have something that doesn't necessarily have to be assigned 8-20-03 wk 40 1 to a special judge, then Judge Brown will hear it. We're 2 going to do some trading out there to try to save the County 3 some money. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Try to do it in-house, 5 kind of? 6 MS. HOLMES: Yes, do it in-house. What they 7 can't hear, maybe we can, or what Judge Brown can't hear, 8 maybe one of them can. So, we've sort of got that -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know the days of the 10 Judge Sherrills are about over. 11 MS. HOLMES: Yes. And, you know, we've been 12 able to utilize Judge Sherrill on a lot of different 13 occasions, and it hasn't cost the County anything, because 14 Becky gets him paid through the district courts. But we'll 15 no longer be able to do that. So -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question I have, and I 17 don't know if you can answer it. I think it's more of the 18 way things are in here. Under Elected Official Salary, 19 there's a number, but there's no -- at least I don't see a 20 state supplement shown. 21 MS. HOLMES: It's on Page 14. That's the 22 H.B.66 supplement, and the rest of the judge's salary is on 23 that. And -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, okay. Answered my 25 question. That just -- I couldn't figure out why it was -- 8-20-03 wk 41 1 supplements are on some people, but not other people. Thank 2 you. That looks about -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't prepare the format; I 4 just filled in the numbers. 5 MS. HOLMES: That's what we do. 6 MS. SOVIL: That was set that way that first 7 year that House Bill 66 came down, and it's just never 8 changed. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know if there's 10 any -- we might make a note to check with Tommy as to why 11 that can't be -- 12 MS. HOLMES: I wouldn't see any reason why it 13 can't be consolidated with our general -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, 'cause then -- I 15 mean, it just seems like we're wasting paper keeping track 16 of more funds than we need to keep track of. We have too 17 much funds, in my mind, already. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody got any other 19 questions for Ms. Holmes? We appreciate you being here. 20 MS. HOLMES: Thank you. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Sorry you couldn't stay 22 longer. 23 MS. HOLMES: Well, I'm not. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: You may not have that same 25 sentiment, but -- 8-20-03 wk 42 1 MS. HOLMES: Okay, thank you. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Holmes. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Barbara. 4 We got time for a beer before the -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we sure do. Let's take 6 a break. Yeah, we're going to take a break until 11:00, at 7 which time -- 8 MS. SOVIL: Do you know if Extension is 9 coming? I have not heard from them. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd highly recommend 11 it. We got to get tough on this thing. 12 (Discussion off the record.) 13 (Recess taken from 10:49 a.m. to 11:05 a.m.) 14 - - - - - - - - - - 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let' call the workshop 16 back to order. We recessed a bit before 11:00, and it's now 17 about 8 or 10 minutes after 11:00. The next one up is the 18 Extension Service, and we will find that under Page 65, I 19 believe. Ms. Chapman. 20 MS. CHAPMAN: Yes. Do you want me to come up 21 here? 22 MS. SOVIL: Yeah. 23 MS. CHAPMAN: I'm new at this, I'm sorry. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: If you survive this one, 25 you'll be ready for the ones to come. 8-20-03 wk 43 1 MS. CHAPMAN: That's right. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. First item that 3 probably needs clarification for the Court is under 108, 4 Part-Time Salary. That has been eliminated. 5 MS. CHAPMAN: That was done via cooperative 6 effort between the Extension Office and our Maintenance 7 Office, and my understanding of that is, the booking 8 secretary is going to be located out at the Extension 9 Service nearby the Youth Exhibit facility, which will 10 improve things for the booking secretary, but it will also 11 make that individual available to the Extension Service to 12 assist them with the duties that they have. And that's how 13 that got done. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Excellent. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excellent. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Excellent change. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good move. 18 MS. CHAPMAN: I talked about this -- about 19 this with Glenn Holekamp, too, about just getting a phone 20 line specifically for booking. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, now they want 22 money. 23 MS. CHAPMAN: Well, it's a small thing. 24 MR. HOLEKAMP: It's already been addressed. 25 It has been addressed. 8-20-03 wk 44 1 MS. CHAPMAN: Okay. But that will be really 2 important, because I know -- what I understand about booking 3 the barn is when you're on a phone call about that, you 4 don't need to be pausing that phone call and answering other 5 phone calls. And, of course, we have another secretary in 6 the office, but I just want to make it clear that, you know, 7 Jamie or whoever's in that position will be booking that 8 barn. And that way we don't get lots of lines crossed and 9 everything. So, that will be important to do. And also, 10 that Jamie will need to get up from time to time and go show 11 the facilities to whoever is stopping by, so -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: But she'll be there -- 13 physically located there to be able to do that. 14 MS. CHAPMAN: Yes, right. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under Extension Agent 16 Salaries -- 17 MS. CHAPMAN: Mm-hmm. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- who's included in 19 that? 20 MS. CHAPMAN: That one is me and the Ag 21 Agent. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it's just two 23 positions? 24 MS. CHAPMAN: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a partial 8-20-03 wk 45 1 funding, though. 2 MS. CHAPMAN: Partial funding. We also get a 3 state check, so -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the Assistant Salary? 5 MS. CHAPMAN: The assistant salary's the 4-H 6 Program Coordinator. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that's Laurinda? 8 MS. CHAPMAN: Laurinda, uh-huh. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there's one 10 secretary, correct? 11 MS. CHAPMAN: Right. This probably needs to 12 go back to the language "4-H Coordinator" instead of 13 Assistant, because -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, just -- I think I 15 agree. I think it's better. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll make that change. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under 103? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, 4-H Coordinator. 20 That -- that position is not in any manner an assistant 21 extension agent, is it? 22 MS. CHAPMAN: No. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, those duties are 8-20-03 wk 46 1 pretty precise, 4-H and so forth. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It looks good. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we were -- if I 5 were ranking the value of County-funded services, this one 6 would be at or very close to the bottom. I don't -- I don't 7 hear a whole lot of support for it or value for the services 8 provided by -- by this organization. It almost appears to 9 be out-of-date, something that at one time served a useful 10 function and was valuable to people in a rural, agricultural 11 community, but no longer has a -- has a role. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I disagree totally. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too. 14 MS. CHAPMAN: Where are you hearing about a 15 lack of value? I mean, who's -- 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mostly what I hear 17 is, "What is it and what's it do, and why are we paying for 18 that?" 19 MS. CHAPMAN: Yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I can address a couple 21 things, and then, you know -- or you're welcome to. Do you 22 want me to -- 23 MS. CHAPMAN: I can talk about my role. I 24 know a lot about mine. But, you know, I think in the past, 25 an FCS agent, which is what I do, got a lot of phone calls 8-20-03 wk 47 1 or a lot of calls about, "Why didn't my jelly firm up?" Or, 2 "How come I boil my beans for six hours and they're still 3 solid?" I mean, that -- that's the olden days. But that's 4 not how I do my job now. I certainly get some of those 5 phone calls, especially from older clientele. I think they 6 deserve to seek an answer for those questions. If that's 7 what they want to use our service for, that's great, but my 8 idea is that if I'm going to work as a County Extension 9 Agent, I should be doing programming that somehow results in 10 cost savings to our county, so much that it should at least 11 pay for my salary. So, my areas of interest are wellness 12 promotion, because there's a lot of health care savings that 13 go along with people being informed about how to take care 14 of themselves, so I do a lot of basic nutrition education at 15 the prevention level. That's very hard to measure and 16 prove, but there are some ways to do that. And, actually, 17 with the Healthy Agent Conference that I had in May, we're 18 drumming up some numbers and working with our specialists at 19 A & M to get some of those numbers. 20 The other thing that I'm launching is a 21 diabetes education program. The cost savings for something 22 like that are absolutely substantial. So, to me, those are 23 beneficial. I mean, I see that as very beneficial. The 24 other area that I think is really important and that I've 25 had stakeholders all over this county tell me about is, we 8-20-03 wk 48 1 need to do something about and for our children, parenting 2 education, working with child care facilities and improving 3 the quality and affordability of them. I can't help with 4 affordability, but I can certainly help with quality. And, 5 so, these things are very important to me. If we've got our 6 parents -- and I know you're a judge, and I don't know about 7 any of -- any of you others working with juvenile kids or 8 anything. If we have some quality parents out there, I 9 really think we're going to see a decrease years later in 10 kids coming to court for things, and so I think that saves 11 us a lot of money in the long run. Again, that's -- that's 12 an investment. That's not something that has an immediate 13 payback, but that's what I see for my position. And those 14 are the things that I'm going to focus on as I hear, you 15 know, people in the community speak about them. 16 The other thing that I think is a really 17 strong asset to Texas in general is the 4-H program. And 18 when I started as a County Extension Agent, I really didn't 19 realize what a profound impact 4-H can have on kids. I saw 20 it a little bit as an instructor at Texas A & M. There are 21 always these kids that have a little bit more snap; they saw 22 the next thing to do, they knew how to take things from a 23 book and roll with it and put it out in real life, and a lot 24 of times those kids were 4-H'ers. And 4-H does a lot for 25 speaking, public speaking skills, organizational thought, 8-20-03 wk 49 1 time management. It's amazing what it can do. So, you 2 know, those are the things that I see that are really an 3 asset. Now, the ag part, I haven't seen -- and I don't know 4 much about that. It's kind of -- just because of the way 5 things are divided in Extension in general, not just in our 6 office in Kerr County, but, you know, I know that has a huge 7 impact with water conservation and educating the public 8 about, you know, what kind of plants to plant so that you're 9 not putting out these very water-thirsty plants and -- and 10 just, you know, preserving the land and stuff. So -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can follow up a little 12 bit on both -- two of those areas. I think we certainly -- 13 Amy's description of her job is far more than I can give, 14 but on the 4-H side of it, you know, I don't know how many 15 hundreds of kids have gone through that program in recent 16 years, and if you look at these numbers, roughly 25 percent 17 of our budget goes -- probably 30 percent goes straight into 18 the 4-H program. And, you know, beyond what Amy said, the 19 -- the amount of -- this is getting kids doing the right 20 thing. Getting them involved and doing things, I think, is 21 money well spent. And it's not just, you know, showing 22 hogs. It's all kind of -- range management; it's, you know, 23 raising cattle, responsibility. There's countless -- 24 shooting. There's lots of things that get kids involved in; 25 they learn lots of leadership skills and they go -- really, 8-20-03 wk 50 1 it's like -- it's just a good program. 2 And the other -- going back to the Ag 3 Extension, and this is probably the thing that gets under my 4 skin quicker in this county than anything else, is when 5 people say we're not an ag county. We are an ag county, and 6 we're heavily -- ag is the number one industry in Kerr 7 County. And the Ag Extension Office, you know, if you ask 8 people what they're doing, ask those people -- you know, 9 many of them are rural, I know, that you work with. If they 10 need CEU's for a pesticide license, if they need CEU's for 11 countless things, those are done out there through that 12 office out there. People that have questions on, you know, 13 everything from homeowners, from xeriscaping to fruit trees 14 to pecans to all of that, that's a service provided. Range 15 management. 16 You know, people, for some reason, are in a 17 mind-set that deer and wildlife is not ag. Well, deer and 18 wildlife are ag, and they do a tremendous amount as to, you 19 know, working with the -- the State or Parks and Wildlife, 20 and also Soil Conservation Service, as to working, kind of 21 coordinating all that, working together, putting on 22 seminars. There -- you know, a lot of seminars are put 23 together, either under -- you know, directly under Extension 24 Office, or they contribute to other seminars. Now, just 25 recently, the event held out at the Kerr Wildlife Management 8-20-03 wk 51 1 Area, that's a direct relation, and, you know, held hands 2 with the Extension Agency statewide, and -- and locally as 3 well. So, I think that the -- the value given to, you know, 4 the rural community and to youth is -- is tremendous, and 5 well, you know, worth the money we spend on it. And I think 6 there's a tremendous benefit also to the -- you know, the 7 urban people, 'cause a lot of services -- because they 8 understand -- I think the Extension Office understands that 9 we are becoming more of an urban county, and they are 10 providing a lot of programs that help them as well. But I 11 just think that the ag side of it alone is enough, and the 12 -- you know, the importance of it to this county is -- is 13 phenomenal. I have an example. My wife and I are probably 14 going to build a home out on the ranch at Mountain Home 15 soon, and instead of me going, hiring Eagle Landscape 16 Company or Jon Letz Landscape Company, I'm going to come to 17 you for you to tell me what I need to do. 18 MS. CHAPMAN: We have a bunch of master 19 gardeners who can help you for free. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. And 21 that's what -- that's just for my own personal -- one issue. 22 MS. CHAPMAN: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see it that way. 24 MS. CHAPMAN: Right, yeah. I mean, that's 25 what they're there for. 8-20-03 wk 52 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: White flag. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He gives. 3 MS. CHAPMAN: Okay. I just wanted to say a 4 couple more things that I think will help out here. One 5 is -- and Jonathan kind of -- Commissioner Letz kind of said 6 something here that kind of sparked a thought in my mind. 7 The other thing about 4-H that I really, really like is, I 8 think if we're going to have outstanding citizens in the 9 future, our youth need to, for their own development, feel a 10 tie into civic responsibility. I think that is so important 11 for all youth, and that is something that 4-H really pushes. 12 So, they do a lot of community service, and that is so good 13 for them. It's good for the community also, but it's really 14 good for them. And the other idea that I had maybe a month 15 or two ago was, I think every year -- and maybe I'm digging 16 up a can of worms here -- opening a can of worms. I think 17 every year it would behoove the Extension Service to write a 18 report -- not anything big, but what we call an 19 interpretation piece, as my boss would call it, to just 20 explain to you all what we have done and how many people we 21 have contacted and what kind of impact we've had in 22 different programming areas, just so that you're not like, 23 "Well, what do those people do down there by that Ag Barn?" 24 So that you guys are really well-informed about that. So, 25 that was something I was going to put together and, you 8-20-03 wk 53 1 know, just kind of plan on doing something like that every 2 December, so that you can see how many thousands of people 3 we reach every year and what kinds of educational impact we 4 have. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mea culpa. I'm 6 going to -- I'm going to go back out into the -- the vast 7 hinterland of west Kerr County and -- and tell everybody 8 what the three of you told me. 9 MS. CHAPMAN: But I agree with you that -- I 10 think Extension needs to market more. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not going to keep 12 plowing on it, except to say one thing, 'cause Commissioner 13 Letz said it all, really, and so did Amy. 14 MS. CHAPMAN: Yeah. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any time you have an 16 opportunity to compare quality of the kids in the 4-H 17 Program -- and this Saturday night's a good example. 18 They're going to give awards out this Saturday night. Take 19 a look at those kids, and then take a look at the ones that 20 come before Judge Tinley, the court. 21 MS. CHAPMAN: Some of them have calendars 22 that are busier than mine. They are incredible kids. And, 23 anyways -- yeah, you should come out to the awards banquet. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm glad I raised 25 the issue, 'cause I learned something. Thank you. 8-20-03 wk 54 1 MS. CHAPMAN: We'll feed 'ya. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I was going to mention 3 that there's not a single juvenile that I'm aware of that 4 has come before me since I've been on the bench that's been 5 a member of 4-H, or involved in -- in any of those ag 6 programs out there. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably won't, 8 either. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Outside of -- outside of the 10 4-H. 11 MS. CHAPMAN: Well, another exciting thing 12 is -- is 4-H is collaborating with the Salvation Army, and 13 we're going to start a culinary arts program. I'm just 14 thrilled about that. I'm just absolutely thrilled. So -- 15 and that's something that's going to be yearlong, and I am 16 just excited about reaching another audience that typically 17 isn't 4-H, but they're going to have a whole palate of 18 opportunities opening up to them, and it's just a really 19 exciting thing. So -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well done, Amy. 21 MS. CHAPMAN: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions, 24 Commissioner Nicholson? 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, sir. 8-20-03 wk 55 1 (Laughter.) 2 MS. CHAPMAN: Call the County Extension 3 Office if you want. I've got a meeting later this afternoon 4 about diabetes, but between those meetings, I'll answer any 5 questions you got. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Amy, only thing, I 7 haven't given the Commissioner your telephone number. 8 MS. CHAPMAN: 257-6568. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Amy, in case you are not 10 aware, Cheryl Mapston's probably going to be here Monday on 11 our agenda. I don't know if you're aware of that. She's 12 going to -- 13 MS. CHAPMAN: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- come up just to give 15 us an overview of the Extension position and how everything 16 works out there and where they are in the hiring process. 17 MS. CHAPMAN: Yeah. Thea told me, and I plan 18 to be here, and also tidy up my office a little bit before 19 the boss comes, 'cause, you know, I like to have things 20 looking nice when she comes. So, usually it's kind of piles 21 everywhere, but -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: At least we'll have a -- a 23 presentation by which to judge hers when she gives her 24 presentation on Monday. 25 MS. CHAPMAN: Yeah. 8-20-03 wk 56 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 2 MS. CHAPMAN: All right, thank you. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thanks, Amy. 4 MS. CHAPMAN: Good to see y'all. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You too. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Moving right along, 7 Road and Bridge. 8 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Looks like we have -- I don't 10 know whether I can find that or not. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 73. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Right down there 13 at the bottom. Good morning, Mr. Odom. 14 MR. ODOM: Good morning. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard? 16 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you give a -- I've 18 kind of asked everyone to do this, just so I can remember -- 19 an overview on staffing levels as to how many there are, and 20 then what your -- what you currently have and what you're 21 going -- if there's any changes, where they are? So 22 basically, how many people -- how many supervisors, how many 23 personnel? What, kind of, their positions are, basically. 24 How many supervisors? How many crews? How many office? 25 MR. ODOM: I have five supervisors, plus the 8-20-03 wk 57 1 shop supervisor. We have five areas in the county. This 2 used to be particularly by precinct, but what I have, since 3 4 is so big, several years ago I put two crews out there to 4 try to handle that, so I have five working crews, and the 5 shop. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Five work crews of 7 how many people each? 8 MR. ODOM: Three. Three men. That includes 9 a supervisor. And then I have -- Dieter is my haul truck 10 operator also, and then in the shop we have two people. 11 Each -- each crew has three men, including the supervisor, 12 so Dieter has essentially -- I have a pothole man, Michael. 13 I have a person assigned to signs specifically, and then I 14 have a catch-all individual that I thought I had filled, and 15 it's not filled yet. He was off more than he worked, so 16 he's no longer here. So, I have 25 people. That -- that 17 gives two people in the office, and that's Truby and 18 Barbara. And then there's Frank and I. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Total? 20 MR. ODOM: Sir? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Total? Total number? 22 MR. ODOM: Total number, I believe, is 25. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you -- do you have 24 any changes that you're recommending? 25 MR. ODOM: As far as personnel? 8-20-03 wk 58 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In numbers? 2 MR. ODOM: In numbers, no. I'm just tying -- 3 I'm trying to leave it the same; there's no increase. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 5 MR. ODOM: Other than what I've already been 6 allocated. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Just kind of -- 8 are there any classification changes? Which -- you know -- 9 MR. ODOM: I believe I have one. I was 10 trying to move Truby to a 20 -- I'm -- let's see if I have 11 that data. Move Hardin to a -- she is now a 19-4. With 12 this longevity, she's at a 19-5, and I was trying to move 13 her to a 20.3. And the reason I wish to do that is that she 14 has -- inside, she has one person. I find that it makes it 15 difficult with Michael, with my patch man, and then the 16 signs, and that we -- there's to be more -- I would like to 17 have her take care of those three guys instead of the 18 supervisors out there. They have their own crews and 19 assignments, and I think it's better management for her -- 20 them to come in, 'cause they normally come in to check the 21 complaints anyway. And, particularly, if there's a sign or 22 something down, and if we don't -- you know, we don't have a 23 lot, then those supervisors will take those people. But I 24 think they ought to have accountability. It's been me and 25 maybe Dieter or Donny, and I just think -- I think she's 8-20-03 wk 59 1 capable of doing it, because she writes those reports; she 2 knows where these complaints are at. Michael does a real 3 good job. It allows us to spend more time on -- on 4 projects, you know, that these crews are at instead of 5 breaking off it and trying to go patch a pothole. Mike's 6 also done a real good job over 12, 13 years since I've been 7 here, but it's always been accountability, and I think it's 8 better to have accountability for it. That puts her at the 9 same level with the rest of them supervising three people. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought we did that 11 last year. 12 MR. ODOM: No, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We didn't? 14 MR. ODOM: Maybe -- when she was moved to a 15 19 was when we had the salary thing, when that gentleman 16 from California came in. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. 18 MR. ODOM: That's when he moved her to a 19, 19 at that point. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Maybe I didn't 21 mean last year; the year before. And what is at a 20? 22 MR. ODOM: My supervisors. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the rest of 24 the people in the courthouse system? And I'm -- and I'm not 25 really directing this question to you. 8-20-03 wk 60 1 MR. ODOM: Sure. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not your 3 question. It's really a personnel officer's question. Is 4 there a -- well, see, I don't know; I better not go there. 5 How can I do that without getting gender? Don't guess I 6 can. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Don't. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, don't even 9 attempt it. I'll talk to the personnel officer about it. 10 MR. ODOM: I haven't talked to Barbara, but, 11 you know, the way I look at it is that what I've done is 12 bring it to a level -- to a point where she has -- she's my 13 assistant, and that I feel that she's very capable of 14 handling other than one person in that office. If I assign 15 her like the other supervisors, I think they're on equal 16 ground and equal pay. There's been a disparity, yet -- 17 they're higher than what she is, and I would like to bring 18 them up equal and have more interaction -- I think it would 19 be more positive -- in the group. Plus, she can handle 20 those people. I mean, they -- they report to her anyway. 21 And she's a 19, and she's going to be doing the same thing 22 that Doug or any of the rest of them do. I mean, she's not 23 doing the capacity of the work, but the work's a little bit 24 different. I just think it -- to me, it was fair. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we talking about 8-20-03 wk 61 1 Line Item 105? That's who we're talking about? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hmm-mm, 103. No -- 3 MR. ODOM: Well, we were -- 4 MS. SOVIL: 105. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're right. 6 MR. ODOM: -- on 105. And I had that figured 7 into the budget. I mean, it didn't -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What I don't 9 understand, then, and not only what you're saying -- I 10 understand what you're saying, but the numbers don't 11 compute. Because the numbers on the requested and 12 recommended are less than what that individual's receiving 13 right now. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There are two -- aren't 15 there two people? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. I'm 17 trying to get a handle on it. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, there are two. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's two in there. 20 MR. ODOM: Well, there's two in there, so I'm 21 sorry, I don't have it broken down what the other one is. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 23 MR. ODOM: But it's a 14-1. I'm sorry. I've 24 got both people in the office under this item -- under this 25 item right here, Secretary's Salary. So, it's two people. 8-20-03 wk 62 1 It's not -- that's not for one -- one person. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm guessing, Bill, 3 the -- I think it's because there's a vacancy, so the new 4 person is 14-1, and there used to be -- the other 14 used to 5 be a 14 -- 6 MR. ODOM: -5 or -4, something like that. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would explain 8 it. Thank you. 9 MR. ODOM: So, yeah. I'm sorry I didn't 10 catch that, so I had to come back down to a 14-1. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Somewhere, while 12 we're visiting with Len, I'd like to hear him talk about the 13 -- his strategy for road maintenance, talk about the 7-year 14 versus the 10-year schedule, about the impact of the flood 15 of last year on -- on his work and budgeting, just kind of 16 up-to-date about where you see us on our road maintenance 17 programs. 18 MR. ODOM: This -- for the last two years, 19 within a one-year period, we had two floods, and I was 20 running behind. Right now, it looks like I may miss a few 21 roads, but we're -- I believe we're going to get pretty well 22 caught up from where I had to back everything off. We 23 couldn't get to it the last two years. I -- our policy is 24 that if we don't get it, then this next budget, we're -- it 25 has a high priority; we make sure that we get it. And I 8-20-03 wk 63 1 think we're going to be pretty close. We looked at the 2 numbers that, if we went to a 10, that we weren't off. I 3 was off in one area, and that's what we're working on real 4 hard to try to get caught up out there, and we think that 5 all the rest of it, by 10-year, should fall in pretty well. 6 We're going from about a half a million square yards to 7 350,000 square yards. 8 What I've done in this budget is, the budget 9 is increased, between the aggregate and emulsion, $207.50, 10 based upon a projection of what the oil prices would be. It 11 certainly looks like oil prices would come down, but 12 everything else is holding a little bit different. I -- you 13 can see that the aggregate is higher and the oil is down. 14 That's because I'm shooting less oil, and it sort of plays 15 back into a better aggregate. What we shot on Sheppard Rees 16 is what I want to use on high-traffic areas, hills, things 17 like that, for better traction. And we're thinking of going 18 into Bear Paw back over there, and I'm not sure if that was 19 yours or yours. We used the regular pea gravel, then it 20 bled on us, and then we went back to an uncoated rock, 21 natural limestone. So, I'm looking at using that for better 22 skid resistance. A better quality road is what I envision. 23 The 350,000 gives us a little bit of edge and 24 a leeway that I can do more maintenance. Our complaints are 25 changing a little bit where there's more, maybe, ditch work, 8-20-03 wk 64 1 seeing the grade-all out there. Everybody's beginning to 2 see that that's changing. It's not so much -- still a 3 pothole, but it's not the whole road coming apart any more. 4 "When are you going to do my sealcoat?" We've already been 5 through everybody; this is the second time in 12 -- I'll be 6 here 13 years, and so we're already going through the entire 7 system twice. And so, I feel like you -- when I started, I 8 looked at where I would be in 10 years, trying to get the 9 dirt roads. We had three priorities that the Court -- and 10 you remember; you were here. First priority was take the -- 11 the paved roads and keep preventive maintenance on them. 12 That's what the sealcoat program's more for. The second was 13 to take dirt roads and turn them into gravel roads. And the 14 third priority was to take gravel roads, when time and money 15 permits, and turn them into a sealcoat road, which becomes 16 Priority 1. 17 The curve for maintenance runs out there 10 18 to 12 years for sealcoat. You're all right at 10. You 19 start getting out 12, 15, for every dollar you spend, you're 20 going to be spending more than a dollar to maintain it. So, 21 I feel that we've already had two cycles on everything, and 22 I feel it's very practical to assume that that 10-year would 23 not hurt. And if we have floods, I think we have more time, 24 if I'm not scrambling at the last -- you can see where I'm 25 at, just from floods, where I'm running behind. I think 8-20-03 wk 65 1 we'd have more time to do maintenance. They could go -- not 2 only get the roads ready, but go out to do some other 3 things. To have the program for the next year to work on 4 it, or to go through their system and find out what they 5 need to do. I just think it's -- it's better use of our 6 time, instead of -- I'm pushing always for 500 -- I don't 7 think it's necessary now. When I first came here, it was 8 necessary. Buster, y'all lived in this community. You know 9 what it looked like. And I'm not bragging. It's a whole 10 lot better. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 10,000 percent. 12 MR. ODOM: And I just think it's time that we 13 back up, and I -- that was Phase 1. I think we ought to go 14 to Phase 2 and look at it. Maybe the next young woman or 15 young man that takes my place -- hopefully I can stay for a 16 while -- would look at hot mix; that the budget would get to 17 that point. But we've gone from 30,000 to the mid-'40's 18 since I've been here so we are changing. And I think we've 19 got a good road system, but I would like to use a higher 20 quality, and one aspect of that higher quality is skid 21 resistance. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me say something 23 there. If you guys have not been to Sheppard Rees Road, 24 please go out there and take a look. It's exactly what he's 25 talking about. You'll see one of the finest quality-built 8-20-03 wk 66 1 roads that I have seen anywhere, and it's a Kerr County 2 road. I mean, it's just -- it's not only a sight to see, 3 how they've done everything, but you get out and look at the 4 actual rock, and the hot -- what am I trying -- the oil 5 there and how that's blended together and how that rock 6 sticks up and what kind of rock it is, and you can see how 7 it's skid resistant and all that. I mean, it's just one of 8 the top, top roads that I've ever seen anywhere. It's a 9 great, great road. 10 MR. ODOM: And if we get -- use better 11 aggregate, it doesn't mean that we have to use trap rock on 12 every road. A low-maintenance road, maybe we do something a 13 little bit different, save some money. Maybe I can have -- 14 you know, do it a little bit different. But trap rock has 15 its place. An uncoated rock has its place too, whether it's 16 natural limestone rock or whether it's an uncoated limestone 17 rock. But we look at that, and I think that we're in with 18 the cost; looking at everything, I don't think I'm going to 19 be out. I think we're going to be all right. I think 20 petroleum prices will probably start coming down here pretty 21 soon, and they're already leveling off pretty well. And 22 from what I just read, it's going to about $20 a barrel; 23 it's now below 22. So, I just think that, you know, for the 24 next couple years, that I will be in good shape, and we'll 25 take a look at it. I don't think we're going to be hurting 8-20-03 wk 67 1 whatsoever. I think we -- we've got a basis in which we can 2 -- can do a little bit more maintenance out there. Right 3 now, I'm pushing for a 7-year program versus 10-year. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, is there a -- I 5 mean, and this is a big "if." Assuming funds were 6 available, is there a -- what would it cost, or would it be 7 a benefit and what would the cost be to go more back to a 8 7-year program? Or is it necessary to go to a 7-year 9 program? 10 MR. ODOM: It would just be -- I couldn't use 11 the -- I would -- if we use better aggregate, it would be 12 higher, because you're going to shoot 500,000 gallons -- I 13 mean, 500,000 yards versus 350, so you're going to use more 14 oil. So, I -- I'm just -- that's a good question. I don't 15 have, off the top of my head. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the difference 17 between those numbers, half a million and 350, is an annual 18 amount -- 19 MR. ODOM: Of petroleum. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- going from a 7-year to 21 a 10-year? 22 MR. ODOM: That's right. So, it's 150,000 23 square yards, and if you take a third of that, that's 24 50,000 gallons, at -- say, at 80 cents is a realistic budget 25 number. So, what's that? $40,000? 8-20-03 wk 68 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. 2 MR. ODOM: And that 40,000 went into the 3 aggregate. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 5 MR. ODOM: But if you -- if you went to a 6 better aggregate and you kept it 500,000, you're going to 7 add another $40,000 on top of that. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What would it do from a 9 road quality standpoint? How much -- I mean, when you start 10 going out to that 7 to 10 years? 11 MR. ODOM: You don't -- like I say, that 12 curve -- it's a signed curve. And that signed curve, you 13 don't start getting off that signed curve really till about 14 12, and that's the reason 10's there. I mean, San Antonio 15 wishes they had a 10-year. They wish they had a 7. They're 16 probably at a 15 or a 20 now. So -- but they're a little 17 bit different, 'cause it's hot mix, and they look at 15. 18 We're looking at -- I don't -- I don't see it deteriorating 19 that much. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 21 MR. ODOM: You've got some -- I'll be honest 22 with you. When I look at a road and I rebuild it, 23 rehabilitate the thing, I put base and I really put some 24 work into it, I don't put it on the calendar until 10 years. 25 I mean, I've been doing that since I came here, because if 8-20-03 wk 69 1 you put that kind in there, that curve tells me from all the 2 management and all of the -- the seminars you go to, and 3 with Federal Highway Administration or TAC, any of them, 4 they'll tell you that curve's on out there. Once you start 5 getting past 12, then you've got -- you've got some 6 problems, because it takes more money to upgrade it. And at 7 10 -- if we can stay in at 10 -- we've been able to do it at 8 7; I have no -- I have no doubt the 10's there and that we 9 wouldn't miss anything. And if we missed something and 10 something came up, which every flood, the roads are all 11 different. That groundwater eats you alive. So, if we had 12 something, we would probably have the opportunity to add 13 something. If I made a good buy on petroleum or better 14 price for aggregate, you know, we could always pick up 15 something. It gives me more flexibility to do it. You've 16 got more people, so you've got a little bit more beating on 17 it. That's the reason I'd like to go to a -- a better 18 quality for the traffic flows here. There used to be 19 minimum, and now you're getting traffic -- you're getting a 20 whole lot more flow out where you live, where it used to be 21 not that bad. It was, you know, very light traffic. Still 22 light to compared to some of it, but it's a whole lot 23 heavier now and -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 25 MR. ODOM: -- and a lot of people building 8-20-03 wk 70 1 and living out in that area. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 3 MR. ODOM: I feel comfortable that we'll be 4 all right. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Two items. One is, I don't 6 know whether the word has gotten to you on the position 7 schedule. As soon as you can, you need to give that to the 8 clerk. 9 MR. ODOM: Okay. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: What your current, coming-year 11 position schedule is going to be. 12 MR. ODOM: All right. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: So that she can do that. My 14 second question is, if we were to have another natural 15 disaster, similar to what we've had in the last year or two, 16 floods and whatnot -- 17 MR. ODOM: Could I make it? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: -- what's your feelings about 19 where you'd be with regard to the current status in your 20 reserves? 21 MR. ODOM: What -- I believe I know where 22 that status is at. I believe that if we sustain half a 23 million dollars and you take three-quarters of that, you'll 24 probably have, what, 60, 70 thousand? I don't think there's 25 enough in reserves to -- to handle that. That's for us to 8-20-03 wk 71 1 fund it before I get my 75 percent. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: The FEMA reimbursement? 3 MR. ODOM: The FEMA reimbursement is -- is 4 75 percent of that amount. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Assuming that stays there. 6 MR. ODOM: That's right. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: If it doesn't stay there, 8 you're stuck with a hundred cents on the dollar. 9 MR. ODOM: Two years. Well, what would that 10 have been, the '02 -- '01 flood? We were stuck 100 percent 11 with it. Texas was not declared a national -- a national 12 disaster, and so this county got no money. And so, all of 13 the work I did, even that bridge down there, came out of 14 my -- out of my budget. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 16 MR. ODOM: I made it work with the budget, 17 and we had to cut things. That's where some of the 18 preventive maintenance went, 'cause that was a priority 19 trying to get that across. And this time, I still got hit; 20 I figure $600,000, by the time I added the bridge in there, 21 and I got 75 percent of that. And so far, we haven't got 22 anything from O.R.C.A. That -- I had to -- I had to take 23 $125,000 out of my budget to make it work. You add the 24 other damage of the other roads that they wouldn't even give 25 me any money on. 8-20-03 wk 72 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 2 MR. ODOM: So, it's been -- it's been -- it's 3 been tough. But we've -- right now, we're pulling out of 4 it. We've already completed everything with FEMA and NRCS. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: In the event that the tax rate 6 -- you operate off of a separate tax rate that's -- that's 7 set. In the event that tax rate were modified to shift a -- 8 a portion back to you -- it's declined over the last several 9 years, I believe? 10 MR. ODOM: The last several years. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Something under 6 cents per 12 hundred to now where it's down to -- 13 MR. ODOM: 2.34, I think. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: 2. -- 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 2.34. 60 percent 16 decline since 1997. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I assume that you'd 18 feel a little bit more comfortable if you had some more of 19 that tax rate come back to you to benefit your -- 20 MR. ODOM: To go back in reserves? Yes, sir, 21 I would. And that would be my recommendation. I think we 22 need that pad. I don't know all the others and what's going 23 on. Y'all know the numbers, but I really believe that we 24 need a pad on my reserves for that. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: How does three-fourths of a 8-20-03 wk 73 1 cent sound to you? 2 MR. ODOM: I don't know how that would equate 3 to -- what that would be on a yearly basis. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 200,000. 5 MR. ODOM: 200,000? Over the next couple 6 years, we're talking about we'll get up around 800,000. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: About 180,000. 8 MR. ODOM: That would put us at a half a 9 million, if we're at 330. So, you know, if it was possible 10 over the next couple years to do that, I think we ought to 11 be around 800,000 to be able to sustain ourselves for 12 emergencies and to have a backup in case something should 13 come up we want to do. If we want to do another Sheppard 14 Rees or something like that, we would have that capability. 15 Right now, I have no capability of any major special 16 projects. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In this budget year, 18 we had one of those two floods. At that point in time, were 19 we faced with the option of using reserve money to take care 20 of that, as opposed to delaying going from seven years to 21 ten years? Was that a consideration? Did we -- did we let 22 the maintenance schedule slip a little bit to avoid spending 23 reserve money? 24 MR. ODOM: There was nothing that I recall of 25 any -- anyone -- we just -- it had been talked about. I 8-20-03 wk 74 1 don't think -- there's not anyone here that, over a period 2 of time, hasn't talked about going to a 10-year program. 3 It's when the timing was right. And I was worried the first 4 time, and then the second time, but we got a handle on it, 5 and we're starting to come out. I just think it's the time 6 to do it, and it gives me a safety factor. I just -- it 7 just gives me a factor better. I was just to the wall; 8 we're maxed out at 500,000. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go ahead. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, you probably 11 know the answer. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was going to say, the 13 problem -- I think, from my experience in the floods -- 14 unfortunately, both have been in my precinct. If we have 15 another one, hope it goes out west. 16 MR. ODOM: It'll still come down your way, 17 though. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: If it starts out west, it's 19 going to go all the way through. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's true, too. But 21 the problem -- the floods that do the damage, it's not that 22 they take money away as much as they take manpower away, so 23 we can't do as -- 24 MR. ODOM: I just can't -- it gets tight. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. More of that than 8-20-03 wk 75 1 money. 2 MR. ODOM: Health, safety, and welfare comes 3 in at that point, and direction of the Court. Then we go 4 about fixing it, because it's tort liability, and by the 5 time I get to trying to finish, you hit August and 6 September. There's very -- you just run it, and then on 7 1 October the budget's ended; if I haven't spent it, I lose 8 it. And we try every way we can, but I've had -- right now, 9 I have no money to even help me with the contractor to help. 10 I mean, there's nothing there. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What I see out in my 12 neighborhood is that we have good county roads. That's 13 probably true of 90 percent of them. We got a few bad ones, 14 but we've got good county roads, and we've got good 15 maintenance on them, and the county Road and Bridge 16 Department's very responsive. I was surprised how fast they 17 could get something done when they need to get it done. I 18 also see that they're very productive. I would guess our 19 three-man crews get as much work done as a six- or seven-man 20 crew does from TexDOT. What I'm getting around to is, we've 21 got good roads. A few problems we got are usually 22 prescription road problems; we don't have much to work with, 23 so there's not very much options to improve them. But if 24 some more money would help us to -- to do even more to 25 maintain and enhance our roads, I'd support that, so that's 8-20-03 wk 76 1 my reason for questions about the reserves and the taxes. 2 If -- if Road and Bridge needs more money, I think we ought 3 to put that on the table and come to some conclusion on it. 4 MR. ODOM: Well, I -- it would be neglect not 5 to say I could use more money. Of course, everyone could 6 use more money. But, you know that's a decision you'd have 7 to -- can I do more? Right now, I can't. I'm limited to 8 where I'm at. It will be October before I could have a 9 contractor help me, or maybe late September. The more you 10 do have, then the -- you know, we still have some dirt or 11 gravel roads out there that need to be upgraded. Maybe 12 there might be a -- some project we do. We still have 13 110,000 I haven't figured in that I have to substitute for 14 that bridge down there. But I look -- feel like that will 15 probably be -- we'll worry about that the next budget year, 16 'cause I have three years after that to come up with 17 something for Town Creek over in that we were talking about. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- I mean, but on 19 the Hermann Sons, we -- under TexDOT's policy I think we 20 approved, our contribution is going to be in-kind. 21 MR. ODOM: Well, our contribution has to be 22 110,000. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's -- 24 MR. ODOM: In-kind or actual money. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 8-20-03 wk 77 1 MR. ODOM: Yeah, we have to make that 2 $110,000 improvement. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we are. 4 MR. ODOM: So we are. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's still money. 6 MR. ODOM: It's still money. It's just not 7 my labor and equipment. I mean, even if we would do that, 8 that's time taken away. So -- so, I can tell you that I 9 have three years from the time they start building. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To do -- 11 MR. ODOM: To take care of that. And I 12 figure next budget year, we'll be looking at that and doing 13 some -- I've been looking at some of it. I think we can do 14 it, but it's going to run -- it will run 110,000 or better. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, bottom line, 16 I'm certainly in favor if it's time to restore some of 17 that -- that tax rate back in there. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm terribly concerned about 19 it. If we have another flood, -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: -- he's out of business. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: If for no other reason -- even 24 if we got FEMA to come back and give us some money back, 25 he's going to have to float that for how many months? 8-20-03 wk 78 1 MR. ODOM: Three, four, maybe six. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Six at least. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm -- I think it's -- 4 the time is -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The timing is right to 7 do that. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think -- you know, 9 I agree. So -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me add a couple 11 things here. First, I want to thank you Leonard, 'cause 12 you're -- I'll go on record as saying you folks have done 13 everything I've asked you to do, with the exception of one 14 thing. 15 MR. ODOM: What's that, sir? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But I do appreciate 17 the response I get from you and your people. I truly do. I 18 just have a couple questions about a couple items here, and 19 then one -- one thing. I noticed on your material -- your 20 paving aggregate, oils, contract fees, for example, you're 21 going up 50 percent on aggregate, but you're coming down on 22 the oil. And I assume that the reduction in the costs for 23 contract fees is due in part to the fact that we're not 24 going to -- you're not contemplating any major projects in 25 this next budget year. Am I correct about that? 8-20-03 wk 79 1 MR. ODOM: Right, sir. I don't -- I don't 2 anticipate anything. But I do have some projects I'd like 3 to work on with some contract force. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not critical; I'm 5 just asking for some clarification. 6 MR. ODOM: Right. And the paving 7 aggregate -- you understand that the rock I used on Sheppard 8 Rees for engineering, that rock is heavier than limestone. 9 So, even natural limestone rock, you're running 1.05, to 10 precoated, 1.22 tons per cubic yard. That's 1.35. So, I'm 11 beginning to use that type of rock. It costs me more money, 12 because it takes the -- and it's sold by the weight. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 14 MR. ODOM: So I'm not getting the spread I 15 want to. I may have -- that's the reason I say I've got a 16 conglomerate of material I want to look at of using on less 17 traveled roads. I don't think I need to use that expensive 18 -- that heavy rock on a road like Wiedenfeld or something 19 like that. I don't need that. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you getting ready 21 to do C.P. River Road? Your stack of materials is out 22 there. 23 MR. ODOM: No, sir, that is for -- what is 24 that, Skyline up there? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're going to use 8-20-03 wk 80 1 it on Skyline? 2 MR. ODOM: I'm going to use it on Skyline. 3 That was given to me by the State. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wonderful. 5 MR. ODOM: TexDOT. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only other question I 7 have is something you and I have talked about for a long 8 time. 9 MR. ODOM: All right, sir. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I notice you're 11 cutting street striping down from 20,000 to 5,000. Does 12 that mean I don't get Elm Pass striped? 13 MR. ODOM: No, I -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or what is it going 15 to cost to do Elm Pass? 16 MR. ODOM: Probably be contract fees, okay. 17 But I -- that one -- last year, we did not have that in the 18 budget. I only had around 5,000 or 6,000 in there, and when 19 the Judge sent it to me -- not Judge Tinley, but when Fred 20 sent it down there, we had 20,000. We told him then, well, 21 it's misappropriated. You know, I don't have that type of 22 project there. We were -- I don't -- I don't know where the 23 number came from. So it -- I used that for guardrails, is 24 what I used it for. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. One last 8-20-03 wk 81 1 question. Where -- where do I see the inner roadway at the 2 courthouse square? Where do I see that? 3 MR. ODOM: That will be in here. I'll do it 4 in this next -- sometime this year. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, I trust you. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When will we see 7 the sealcoat schedule and project schedule? 8 MR. ODOM: I would -- once I -- once I get 9 this finalized, and I would like to put it -- I think I 10 already have some of yours in one crew already. But I -- 11 it's just a matter of looking -- taking a little time and 12 sitting down, going through the computer looking at the last 13 ones. It won't take long to do that, but you certainly may 14 -- I will give everybody a copy. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got one last 16 question on Page 75. And I guess this is a question on 17 Number 4, line item 597. Is that the correct name? 18 MR. ODOM: Beach Road? (Laughter.) I don't 19 know how to speak. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the name of 21 that? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Byas Spring Road. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Byas Spring Road? 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't think it's 25 official yet. 8-20-03 wk 82 1 MR. ODOM: It's not official yet. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, it's not? 3 MR. ODOM: No, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What the hell's the 5 holdup on that? I don't understand that. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 9-1-1. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. Okay. 8 MR. ODOM: I think that there are some -- 9 this last time around, y'all made some name changes, and I 10 was thinking Truby told me that we've got about 30 signs. I 11 think there's 300 altogether. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 13 MR. ODOM: But I -- and that was one thing 14 here -- we want you to be patient, because it's called time 15 and money, particularly in this year's budget. What I have 16 to -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll, we're actually 18 the ones holding most of that up ourselves. But -- 19 MR. ODOM: So, I'm looking at -- we will do 20 it, and if people are asking for it, just bear -- just bear 21 with us. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We approved the 23 change, yeah. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Question. Did the contract on 25 Sheppard Rees include striping? 8-20-03 wk 83 1 MR. ODOM: No, sir. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that in the mix here 3 somewhere? 4 MR. ODOM: Probably in this next budget year, 5 is the way I figured on that one, sir. Maybe toward the end 6 of September. Once I get -- I can get on into the first of 7 September, I -- it will -- it will sort of fall together, if 8 I don't have anything. And I sort of thought about that, 9 that I would try to get to it done. I'm going to get -- oh, 10 boys out of San Antonio -- I'm sorry, my memory's slipping. 11 But they do it for the State and all. But they've been up 12 here doing that, and my thought was that I would do that. 13 But $1,000 here, and 2,000 right now of my budget is real -- 14 real tight, sir. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I just had the inquiry, so 16 I -- 17 MR. ODOM: No, sir, I -- 18 JUDGE TINLEY: -- thought I'd pitch it out. 19 MR. ODOM: If I had the money -- we made that 20 project work based upon how I did it. And you can see that 21 the numbers fell right in there around 311, 316 thousand. 22 So, that's where I needed to be to make it work. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's your capital 25 outlay going to be for this time, Len? 8-20-03 wk 84 1 MR. ODOM: Capital outlay, sir, is -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Line 570. 3 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Let me -- I have 4 something for y'all. I believe I have enough for everybody. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. Do you 6 have any dump trucks you could hand down for our constables 7 to drive? (Laughter.) 8 MR. ODOM: I might have one of those old -- 9 old trucks of mine that they could -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They could pass it 11 around. 12 MR. ODOM: I thought about them. I said they 13 ought to come over there and get some of my old trucks. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, make them 15 happy. 16 MR. ODOM: I don't know about that. They'd 17 probably be in the shop all the time. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They are already in 19 the shop. 20 MR. ODOM: Hand-held equipment is chainsaws 21 bow saws, weedeaters, which I'm constantly repairing. You 22 can see six of the complaints I have on one sheet -- I got 23 one sheet -- down to one sheet now. Over six of them are 24 complaints about cutting, and they keep -- it keeps going up 25 when have you this much rain. Who would have a thought that 8-20-03 wk 85 1 July and August you'd have green grass? And it just 2 keeps -- keeps changing, and I -- our complaints are 3 changing to the point where this is -- everybody's telling 4 me this is like Alamo Heights or Highland Park. This is -- 5 this is the way Kerrville's becoming, you know, the area 6 around it and all, and that's the type of complaints I got. 7 And that's -- that's labor-intensive. And it's -- 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How frugal Len is. 9 He's got 1,200 for hand-held equipment. I think I spent 10 that much last year just to keep my yard trimmed. 11 MR. ODOM: Yeah. It doesn't -- only a couple 12 of big chain saws, and that's the end of it. It doesn't go 13 very far. And I just -- we just keep repairing until I get 14 a repair that's as much as replacing one, and, you know, I 15 can buy a new one for it. Then I won't even do it; we'll 16 just junk it and get hold of the Auditor and say, "Take this 17 off our list," you know. But -- 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This tractor with 19 buzz bar, is that the device that one man can operate the -- 20 that trims up? 21 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I believe, if you'll 22 turn back, it will show pictures there on that. And that is 23 -- I also have a skid loader with a grappler. And -- and 24 it's a set -- what do I have here, 70 horse? I'm sorry, 80 25 horse in here. This other one up above, just scratch that. 8-20-03 wk 86 1 That's from this -- this year's budget. That 80-horsepower 2 tractor with buzz bar shows -- and we've experimented on 3 Baldwin -- on Ox Hollow back over there. The -- and I would 4 say that the citizens were -- were clamoring for us to -- to 5 continue on, and we told them we were just demonstrating it, 6 and they said, "Buy it." And I said, "Well, that's what 7 we're going to talk to the Court about." I would like to -- 8 to consider that. That is an expensive outlay; however, I 9 just think, labor-wise, it is just one thing. It's like a 10 chain saw. It's four blades, and you can lay it up in there 11 and that thing will just cut. Now, we're not perfect with 12 it. Given a little bit of time, we'll get it down, but it's 13 not like going up there and shredding everything; it just 14 explodes and it's ugly. It literally saws it off. 15 And what I've got this other -- instead of my 16 people sitting behind with -- we pull up behind with a 17 chipper now, and then you got to pull it by hand and shove 18 it in the chipper. Well, this way, we felt like in some 19 cases we have to do that. That's okay. But other cases, 20 when we're out there and doing a lot of it, we'll find an 21 area to pile it. You know, it's better than trying to take 22 a loader, which takes it out of the maintenance crew. We're 23 always a loader short. This grappler will -- is on a skid 24 loader, and it picks it up -- and you have some pictures 25 there. We've experimented with the pile over there, and 8-20-03 wk 87 1 made sure that we can load. It just grabs it, throws it in 2 a truck; we can drive it down the road, dump it in an area 3 and continue on. That's faster than manually trying to chip 4 everything on these roads. And I just think it's a 5 labor-saver. It will cut down my need in the future for 6 this, because it's -- it's -- I'm sure y'all get calls too. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 8 MR. ODOM: And, you know, what are your calls 9 now? It's more -- it's a different type of complaint. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Leonard, are 11 all these items new? 12 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dump trucks, et 14 cetera? 15 MR. ODOM: Dump truck is new. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then why do you 17 have the buzz bar item underlined? Is that some kind of -- 18 MR. ODOM: That was total. That was just the 19 line under it; the next -- the next item is the total for 20 the entire -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, why does 60,800 22 have a line under it? 23 MR. ODOM: Because that line is the total for 24 the -- that column. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the bottom of the 8-20-03 wk 88 1 column. 2 MR. ODOM: That's the bottom of the column. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see what you're 4 saying. Thank you. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Following up on what Mr. Odom 6 has said, the labor savings and increased efficiency and 7 productivity, of course, is -- is where we're trying to go. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: There's another factor in here 10 that's an intangible -- probably a little bit more than 11 intangible. That's safety. When you're operating some -- 12 some of this, doing this brush clearing like they're doing 13 some of it now by hand, you have a tremendous amount of 14 minor and not-so-minor injuries trying to wrestle that brush 15 around, pull it in the chipper, load it into something. 16 MR. ODOM: Poison ivy. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: You're -- you're going to -- 18 you're going to sacrifice -- in addition to saving a lot on 19 labor, you're going to have some safety problems when you're 20 doing that stuff by hand. And I -- I think this is going to 21 be a real big step towards improving safety, and is going to 22 help our comp rates and just the general health of the Road 23 and Bridge employees. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think activity's 25 enhanced, too. 8-20-03 wk 89 1 MR. ODOM: Absolutely. Absolutely. It's 2 productivity. Doesn't compare to the hand labor that's 3 there. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couple of comments. 5 Well, I mean, I'm in favor of all of this. When it gets 6 to -- when you pick out the skid loader, if you want, I'll 7 stop by. I've used one a lot and I've got a lot the of 8 pluses and minus based on what you want. Only thing I've 9 learned a lot about in the past few years is skid loaders. 10 MR. ODOM: We have looked at it. I'll tell 11 you where I'm leaning, is LS-180, New Holland, and I like it 12 because of the -- it has 4 inches more space in back and I 13 don't have to get as close to it as the others. But I -- 14 I'll say this; that all the different implements that we 15 have are compatible to the LS-180, as well as the Bobcat. 16 I've talked to Glenn about that. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're all pretty 18 much -- 19 MR. ODOM: They're all -- if I needed an 20 auger, y'all have one. If y'all need a grappler, all you 21 got to do is the same bar -- same basis up front, and 22 they -- they told me that it was compatible to that. But 23 I'm willing -- I'm not sold on anything. I can tell you 24 what those pictures are, and the reason I looked at it, 25 'cause I wanted to see how that 12, 14 yards of mine -- I 8-20-03 wk 90 1 wanted to make -- where I'm at the best I can do, and that 2 was loading it. But I don't know; so many times, Jon, you 3 have to get right up against it and you're hitting the bed, 4 and -- and, you know, I've got this offset with those arms. 5 So, every one is a little bit different, but I know this one 6 works. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. I'm just saying 8 -- well, I have a -- that and others, but I'll get with you, 9 because there are others that get closer than that. 10 MR. ODOM: Sure. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good machine. I've got 12 an LS-190. But I think it's -- you know, I agree with 13 everything else said on the capital outlay items. No 14 problems with that. Back to the line items, just a question 15 under 457, Contract Engineer Services. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 457? 17 MR. ODOM: 457. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 457, Page 73. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Contract Engineer 21 Services is a -- and it appears that you didn't request it, 22 so -- so maybe the question is to the Judge. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, it is, 'cause 24 look at Line Item Number 1. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. I discussed this with 8-20-03 wk 91 1 Leonard briefly. I don't think it was his recommendation. 2 I saw it as a way, based upon what Leonard told me about the 3 need for engineering services based on the type of work he's 4 doing, that -- that we could be more efficient in -- in that 5 particular area. That's why these -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As opposed to -- what 7 you're saying is to eliminate the County Engineer position 8 and go with contract services, essentially, for this -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Basically, yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on whatever we 11 need, whether a hydrologist or civil engineer or contract 12 with one engineer. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Go on outsourcing. 16 MR. ODOM: Outsourcing. The Judge asked -- 17 when this -- you know, this is -- the question was, could 18 you save money? And the answer was I'd look at it. And I 19 looked at what is the -- I was asked what is the most 20 predominant thing that the engineer does, and that's 21 platting -- or replatting, basically. So, I went back and 22 took a look -- and, of course, there's some more things, but 23 so many times we outsource things. I mean, just -- that's 24 the way it is. But when I went back and took a look for -- 25 from 1999 to today, or yesterday, and took the average, the 8-20-03 wk 92 1 average plat, there was 6.423 plats over 4.67 years. That's 2 plats. And then I looked at replats, and the average replat 3 for 4.67 years was 9.85. So, I rounded everything up and I 4 looked at 10 years -- I mean 10 replats and 7 plats. Now, 5 plats take more time, and a replat could be -- even, you 6 know, a minor, it doesn't even go before you where they just 7 change it, so a replat's even less. 8 And we tried to figure time on it, and I 9 looked at time and I figured a plat, by the time it goes 10 through a concept plan, a preliminary, and then it would 11 be -- maybe some inspections before final, I figured 13 12 hours. And I thought I was high. Y'all may know a little 13 bit more, but I just figured 13 hours for 7 plats. And I 14 figured $85 an hour, which is very high; took a very high 15 number. It doesn't take technical knowledge just to take 16 Subdivision Rules and do that, but 85, that's 7,735. Then I 17 looked at replats, and used 6.5 hours for replat, which is 18 normally a whole lot less work to be done. It's normally 19 moving some lines or something. And I came up with 5,525. 20 I came up with a total of $13,260; that's at $85. So, if 21 you -- we're paying Franklin, I think, around 30-something 22 now for 15 hours a week. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 23. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you add the health 25 insurance costs -- as a part-time employee, there's health 8-20-03 wk 93 1 insurance costs there, too. 2 MR. ODOM: That's right. There's -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Factor that in. 4 MR. ODOM: 37,900 off this year's budget, 5 what we're proposing is what it's going to cost. Okay? 6 Versus 13,000 -- that leaves you about $18,000. Now, if we 7 outsource, I'm going to have to do it anyway, which -- 8 hydrology or something like that anyway. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 10 MR. ODOM: So, that doesn't affect this, so 11 there's $18,000 there. Can it be done? I don't -- you 12 know, what else is there? You have a little bit better idea 13 than maybe I do. I spend some time with Franklin, but, you 14 know, there's maybe right-of-way -- I put right-of-way on 15 him. If there's any questions there, there's a little bit 16 of time. You look at drainage. Maybe if we have a problem 17 with an individual and we take a final look -- he won't 18 listen to me sometimes, or I can't work it out, then I'll 19 put, you know, Franklin in charge of that. I think those 20 would account for 15 hours if you did that. I don't think 21 that we've ever accounted -- the Court's never accounted, 22 and I don't think it's there. And I'm not trying to 23 criticize. I'm just -- I'm giving you what I see. So, if I 24 can tell you that $85 an hour, that's $13,260 dollars off 25 seven. If I went back from 1999, let me tell you the 8-20-03 wk 94 1 numbers are dropping just like this. They're going down. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I mean, that's -- 3 that answered the question, and that's the discussion that I 4 think we need to have. 5 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I appreciate you. 7 MR. ODOM: We're not taking a position one 8 way or another. This is up to the Court. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: No, I asked for the 10 information, because that -- that was a concern that I -- 11 another item that that's related to, and which has come 12 under discussion very recently, is when these plats are 13 filed, we need to be sure and -- it's not Kerr County's 14 responsibility to see that the engineering of those plats is 15 correct, or -- or what is represented on the plats and what 16 is done per the plat and the engineering specs is correct. 17 And we need to clearly provide in our Subdivision Rules that 18 whoever the project engineer is, be it the -- who's platting 19 it or whoever the consulting engineer -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's already there. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 22 MR. ODOM: May I say a little bit on that, 23 too? That would be -- I think that is a very good -- I 24 think we should address that. I think that we should put it 25 on the developer. I don't think we should maximize the 8-20-03 wk 95 1 profits. And I do believe that there should be a fee, and I 2 think that fee could offset any costs that we have for an 3 engineer, whether it's Franklin, whether you still use him 4 or what. I don't know where we need to be. I don't know 5 where it's at, but in most cases, that fee is going to 6 pretty well cover that. So, I don't know -- you know, I 7 don't remember where everybody's at, maybe around 3,000. 8 There may be something for a replat, but I think that 9 offset, having that money there, that we can allow the 10 developer, if he wants to build this thing, to pay for it 11 and pay for the inspections in that fee. I -- we may not be 12 out much of anything and still have that. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. 14 MR. ODOM: I think it would take a year or 15 two to look at, and maybe we can eliminate that and drop 16 that down and save the money and put it somewhere else. 17 That's up to y'all, but -- but that's a way to look at and 18 have more productivity and a better use of our resources. 19 And whether it's Franklin or anybody else, I think those 20 fees can come pretty close to covering it. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with you to a 22 large part, Leonard, and I'm just tossing this out. But 23 when the area -- and, you know -- well, first part of my 24 question is in subdivisions, road construction. We call 25 for, in our rules right now, inspections to take place. You 8-20-03 wk 96 1 know, I'm not going to -- I don't know if they're being done 2 or not being done, but they need to be done. 3 MR. ODOM: They need to be done. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They need to be done, and 5 I don't want the developer doing that inspection. I don't 6 want the developer working for that. We may bill it -- and 7 that inspection needs to be done through the -- by -- under 8 County direction, whether it's contract or in-house. So, I 9 think -- I mean, there's a lot to pawn off on the developer, 10 and we can maybe figure that into our fee structure to help 11 pay for that. But, you know, to me, there's a -- we still 12 want the engineer doing the work to sign off that it's done 13 right. But on roads, because that's something that we 14 directly have maintenance on, I don't see -- I don't say I 15 don't trust them. I want to make sure that we have an 16 independent testing by our -- by someone basically you 17 control or we control. 18 MR. ODOM: You want to keep an honest person. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't mind them 20 paying for it. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, within reason, but I 22 think, you know, you got to look at that. I mean, I don't 23 think you want to get where some of our neighboring counties 24 have gotten, with getting so onerous that they start turning 25 down subdivisions and having lots of problems. I think that 8-20-03 wk 97 1 we have a very good set of subdivision rules, and 2 developers -- you know, I don't think get away with anything 3 here, but we're fair to them. Whereas we have some 4 neighboring counties that their development is -- you 5 know -- 6 MR. ODOM: Is pretty tight. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- is tough, and they 8 don't think it's fair, and they're pulling out. They're -- 9 you look at the number of new developments going in part of 10 Kendall County -- what's going on in Kendall County right 11 now are big developments that are, you know, new phases 12 being added on, not much new going on. And that's because 13 of the rules right now, the way they've interpreted them. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The bond issue that we 15 recently dealt with, that's one thing. 16 MR. ODOM: That's one thing. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then the actual 18 roads that we're going to be accountable and responsible 19 for, that's a totally separate issue. Let me -- I just want 20 to add one thing to this. Judge, if we're talking about 21 eliminating the County Engineer, I strongly recommend that 22 we take that into an executive session with our attorney. 23 I've been there and done that, and we need our attorney's 24 advice on that, please. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's something -- 8-20-03 wk 98 1 we may want to put it on our -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have a problem with 3 that. In fact, unless it's been missed somewhere in the 4 mix, I submitted an agenda item for -- for this next 5 meeting. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cool. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I got a couple. 9 One, I think I may be seeing the inspection issues a little 10 differently than the rest of you. Which doesn't mean I'm 11 right, of course. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you may. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I made a mistake 14 earlier. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't jump on the 4-H. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If I'm a neighbor of 17 a subdivision and I see that the County Engineer is 18 inspecting it, that gives me some assurances that I'm not 19 going to suffer a problem because of the hydrology. I may 20 be mistaken in that belief, but that's -- that's a reality. 21 And I'm not suggesting we need changes in the Subdivision 22 Rules. I agree, I think we've got -- from what I've seen, 23 we've got practical and extensive rules that, when properly 24 applied, work for us. But there's a loophole here 25 somewhere, and we've had -- we've had one, as you know, 8-20-03 wk 99 1 incident in west Kerr County where the hydrology caused a 2 problem for neighbors, and we very well may have another 3 one, but that's not something involved in a budget meeting. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, but your point's 5 valid. Your point is valid. And I had a similar situation 6 in Precinct 2 a couple years ago. Predated my term on the 7 court, but it happened, and I'm still hearing about it. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think that -- I 9 mean, I think Bill's is a better example. I think the ones 10 that happened out in western Kerr County, those problems 11 would have happened if those were bought by ranchers and 12 they cleared the cedar off of them. I mean, you're going to 13 get -- you know, when you go clear cedar, you're going to 14 get a bad erosion problem if you get a flood the next month. 15 And that happened out there, and that's what caused those 16 issues. So, you know, the one Bill has, I think, is -- if 17 it's the one I'm thinking about, is one where, you know, one 18 -- one subdivision right on top of another subdivision, and 19 the drainage was not addressed properly. But -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. But I'm -- 22 oh, excuse me. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I've -- I'll get 24 to this. I wasn't -- didn't want to forget Item 557. This 25 goes back to, do we have enough money budgeted? 557 is 8-20-03 wk 100 1 Right-of-Way Survey Engineer. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What I'm -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Goes back to -- it's on 4 Page 75, 557. You requested 4,000. Judge recommends 4,000. 5 And Dave mentioned it earlier and mentioned, you know, most 6 -- one of the areas where we have a problem is prescription 7 easements. This is an area that I think that we need to get 8 a lot more active in, and where we have landowners that are 9 willing to give us more land, if we'll go ahead and do the 10 legal work and the right-of-way work which we've done in the 11 past, I think we need to try to get more -- I know there 12 are -- there's one definite one that would eat up that full 13 amount in my precinct, on Hermann Sons out there, where the 14 road's in the wrong place or the road's not in the 15 right-of-way, and there's some issues like that. It's on 16 the Double S; Franklin's aware of it. And we've just told 17 him that we don't have the money in our budget to do 18 anything this year. We're interested in working with the 19 individuals to help fix that problem, but I think this is an 20 area that, you know, we can really help the County long-term 21 if -- if we have money budgeted for people who want to 22 change a fence line, move a curve, do something, and we can 23 get them to give us right-of-way if we, you know, pay 24 something. And I think we ought to probably beef that up a 25 little bit so we have funds available if those come up. You 8-20-03 wk 101 1 know -- 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Money well spent, 4 long-term. 5 MR. ODOM: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's your discretion 7 of how important it is to you, whether we use those funds or 8 not. 9 MR. ODOM: Well, that 4,000 reflects -- it 10 shows you that we're basically getting everything built. 11 And I -- that's the way I've always used it, is looking at 12 right-of-way, or what do I have and what I'm going to do. 13 So, I have -- that's a new step of where we're going now, if 14 we're escalating on up. That 4,000 only reflects my concept 15 of what I've got out there and what I think I can do. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, in the past, 17 you've -- what I'm talking about, you fit it in where you 18 could, and I appreciate that. But I think we ought to start 19 budgeting for those type things, because I think it helps. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And a cousin to that 21 question is, like, many times in years past, when someone 22 has donated some land to us, then as kind of a trade for 23 that, we've replaced -- we've built new fences. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that in this 8-20-03 wk 102 1 particular line? Or -- 2 MR. ODOM: No, sir. You'll see that fences, 3 I think I zeroed out. But maybe I -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't you include 5 moneys like that in a special project, particularly, 6 Leonard? 7 MR. ODOM: Sometimes I do. Sometimes I put 8 it in a special project. Sometimes I have, like, a fence. 9 I have one in your area, Keith Boulevard. I'm going to try 10 to take some of that line-of-sight on that slope. I didn't 11 seal that all the way down. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. 13 MR. ODOM: So I may put it in there. I had 14 money in this year's budget, and we were not going to be 15 able to get to it, so I don't know if -- I don't see -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm actually not a 17 big -- 18 MR. ODOM: Fence repairs, I've got -- I don't 19 have anything budgeted for it. I didn't see anything I 20 thought I might pick up. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not a fan of 22 paying for somebody's fence, anyway. 23 MR. ODOM: Well, sometimes it's -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, if that's -- 25 if that's the -- the negotiation point that makes or breaks 8-20-03 wk 103 1 the deal, I guess there's something there, but I just -- 2 I've always been kind of uncomfortable about that. 3 MR. ODOM: I know. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not saying it's 5 right or wrong, but I'm uncomfortable about it. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, in the past, 7 generally, your preference has been to give them the money 8 and let -- basically paying for the land, and they can hire 9 -- but it's -- the value that we're paying is based on the 10 value of that -- of a new fence, versus -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Putting it that way 12 may be -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Little easier? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- a little more 15 comfortable. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think Leonard 17 likes building a fence either. 18 MR. ODOM: I don't like people doing that. 19 We're not in the fence-building -- we'll sub it out in most 20 cases. We try to work something out with an individual, and 21 it gives us line-of-sight or something better. But I -- I'm 22 open for suggestion. There's different ways. It gets 23 expensive on some of it. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I was going to ask Jonathan 25 how much he wanted to increase that right-of-way engineering 8-20-03 wk 104 1 item, but -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's -- and he's 3 probably right. If you -- if you went out -- I mean, there 4 are still a lot of roads out there that are not centered in 5 the right-of-way. You get -- I mean, there's still some 6 messes out there, and if you wanted to address that, you 7 could quadruple that number easy. 8 MR. ODOM: But how do you get around having 9 enough time to do the projects you're supposed to do? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, it's not 11 feasible to do it all. 12 MR. ODOM: And then, if you do that and open 13 it up, then I would assume everybody would hit you at one 14 time, and you'd have to prioritize based upon, you know, 15 what -- how much do we do, and -- and you'd have to 16 prioritize in each precinct what you thought, and then I 17 would try to work it in. But you'd have to have some kind 18 of organization, 'cause you don't want to do it 19 helter-skelter out there. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, you heard 21 Letz; he wants it all done in his precinct. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Darned right. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: How much, if any, do you want 24 to increase that right-of-way? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. Maybe 8-20-03 wk 105 1 10,000 in there. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 3 MR. ODOM: On top of that? Or make it 4 10,000? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make it 10,000. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, 6,000 increase. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one more 8 question, Judge. I think I'm going to address it to -- I'm 9 sorry, Dave. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Go ahead. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got mine 13 written down. You may forget yours. (Laughter.) 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Distinct possibility. 15 I don't think I forgot. It's really possibly more directed 16 to Commissioner Letz. In terms of the discussion we're 17 having with respect to the County Engineer, do you see any 18 implication in terms of what we have to do with forthcoming 19 negotiations with the City over the ETJ plat review? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it affects 21 that, but I think we need to have a discussion about a lot 22 of ramifications related to the subdivision part. I mean, 23 and probably get with Len again as to -- you know, and kind 24 of discuss this. I think we spend a fair amount of time 25 discussing what that really means and certain things that -- 8-20-03 wk 106 1 and, you know, if it -- what the implications beyond are 2 that you really don't know, such as I think it's going to -- 3 and I would probably be in favor of it, I think. I think 4 it's going to take a lot more responsibility from the 5 Commissioners. I think Commissioners are going to have to 6 be more involved in the plat process than most of us tend to 7 be, and I think we're going to have to be more involved with 8 letters going out and things of that nature. But I don't 9 think you can afford to hire a -- or call up a -- from a 10 time standpoint, and probably also from a cost standpoint, 11 too, when there's a possible violation of something, to call 12 a consultant and an engineer to fire off a letter. I think 13 we have to do it ourselves, and which I think is good 14 probably, but I think there's some ramifications like that 15 that lie with us. We need to be aware of things that I 16 frequently ask Franklin to do now because it's easy, you 17 know. 18 MR. ODOM: That's right. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think it's -- you 20 know, I'm certainly capable of doing it myself. 21 MR. ODOM: We have a standard form letter, is 22 what I thought. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's ways to handle 24 it. 25 MR. ODOM: Where it's right-of-way, something 8-20-03 wk 107 1 like the standard form, where the Commissioner could do 2 that, or we redo the letter. I think, you know -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You want us to fill 4 in the blanks? 5 MR. ODOM: No. No, we'll fill in the blanks. 6 You just sign it. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sign it. 8 MR. ODOM: Just sign it. But it may be -- 9 the wording may be something that you want to change. But 10 if we have a standard letter and we sent that out, I think 11 that would help, you know, if this is line-of-sight or fence 12 or right-of-way, and then we just have to go from there and 13 see. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just needs -- we have to 15 think about how we handle things differently, not that it's 16 better or worse. Hopefully it's better. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just wanted to 18 raise it. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson? 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Three things. Item 21 Number 594, Mountain Home yards, $30,000. 22 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that for water 24 tanks? 25 MR. ODOM: Water tanks and probably some base 8-20-03 wk 108 1 up there. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You haven't heard 3 anything from the County Attorney on him moving that trade 4 along, have you? 5 MR. ODOM: No, sir. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. Ten or 15 7 years from now, we're going to have a south-of-the-river 8 road, from the new high water bridge to Hunt. 9 MR. ODOM: All right, sir. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It will be 10 years 11 if we start working on it now, or be 15 years if we don't. 12 My question is, do we need any money in the budget to begin 13 any work, or -- I know first we got to -- have to decide 14 whether we want one, but should we decide we want one, do we 15 need to start budgeting for the preparation for that? 16 MR. ODOM: I think -- in this budget year, I 17 don't think so. I think maybe we would look at it next year 18 and see how we come along. I think it's premature. There 19 would have to be a decision of the Court if that 20 right-of-way's to be acquired going across there, and I'm 21 not quite sure what-all's involved. I think one person 22 might be interested; it would enhance, maybe, his property 23 tremendously. But I -- you know, we discussed -- I think 24 that if there was that intention of the Court that we were 25 going to go that way, that you could -- without a cost. 8-20-03 wk 109 1 There might be a little bit associated, but to deem this -- 2 across this property, all the way to Bear Creek, an area -- 3 a zone, and then if anything was subdivided, they'd have to 4 come to court; they'd be on the record. Wouldn't cost us 5 anything, is my understanding, and that they couldn't do 6 anything. If they wanted to develop it, they'd have to come 7 to the Court, and -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Talking about just to 9 Bear Creek, or beyond Bear Creek? 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: All the way to Hunt. 11 MR. ODOM: All the way to Hunt. But we 12 need -- what we really need is a study by the Highway 13 Department, and that's what I was trying to get Bill Tucker 14 to put in. But you're looking at $200,000, $250,000 for the 15 study. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we -- for this 17 year, we just keep working with them. 18 MR. ODOM: I'd just keep with this. The 19 other one would be, you know, resolution of the Court that 20 you want to extend this. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what we need to 22 be done and -- you know, and something that's kind of been 23 in my lap for a while, and I need to get back to the Court; 24 the City did their long-range master plan, and I made them 25 basically include the county in their road master plan. And 8-20-03 wk 110 1 we need to get their -- the road master plan that TexDOT's 2 aware of and the City's aware of to the Court, and us 3 formally adopt it, and that will give us the ability, I 4 think, to force developers to follow it, and they're on 5 public notice. And it's not just that road, which that road 6 is on that master plan. It's Spur 100, it's -- 7 MR. ODOM: That's right. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 543, a lot of major 9 roads. 10 MR. ODOM: A lot of major roads. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we just -- I think 12 the Court does need to adopt that plan. That will help us a 13 lot, or give us at least the ability to do something down 14 the road. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's part of our 16 comprehensive plan? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 18 MR. ODOM: And I believe in the future, 19 should we need the money, I think we could probably go to 20 that infrastructure bank over in Austin and take a look at 21 that, even if we had to buy right-of-way. But I think Bear 22 Creek is another thing we should consider also, widening 23 that. It's just some questions. I don't have answers for 24 you right now, how wide and what we need. But -- 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Last one, and this 8-20-03 wk 111 1 is more of a policy or strategy issue, so it would be more 2 directed to the Court. We said earlier -- and I presume 3 this is all the county -- we've got a few prescription roads 4 that are problems. There's more and more stuff being built 5 back there, and they're -- they're not satisfactory, and -- 6 and Len can't do anything with them, 'cause he doesn't have 7 right-of-way deeds. Should we be budgeting money and 8 getting into condemnation processes? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's -- there was 10 a -- there was a discussion that Commissioner Baldwin and I 11 were privy to at the recent post-legislative conference that 12 had to do with prescription roads and the county's need to 13 publish a map identifying these and taking whatever actions 14 it needs to do, because the window for this is closing, and 15 it's closing rapidly. Do you recall that discussion? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, somewhat. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We probably ought to 18 address the issue, because -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There will soon no 20 longer be prescription. That word will drop out of our 21 vocabulary. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's probably a 23 benefit. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've got that in that 25 book. Maybe you and I can review it, see if we need to put 8-20-03 wk 112 1 an agenda item on. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all I've got. 3 Thanks, Leonard. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's kind of -- I see 5 Letz' move of adding money to that line is kind of a part of 6 that. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On voluntary -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But can't do it all at 9 one time. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Voluntary -- Leonard, my 11 last question. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Promise? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Promise. I've been 14 trying to get to these; every time we get one, then it moves 15 on. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you order lunch 17 yet or what? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not yet. Page 75. 19 MR. ODOM: Which item? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's kind of a 21 combination. We have -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: You have one question, or more 23 than one? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- 553 is Contract 25 Fees, and you're going to give us a schedule as to what 8-20-03 wk 113 1 projects are in Contract Fees, as I understand, correct? 2 MR. ODOM: I will. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 4 MR. ODOM: I wasn't asked for them, but I 5 will. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would like that, 'cause 7 that's related to the other question, and we used to list a 8 lot of these big projects individually, such as 585 down 9 through 598. And I -- and we're -- and my understanding 10 was, after last year, maybe year before, that we're kind of 11 not doing that as much, and going out, putting that all in 12 -- in Contract Fees. 13 MR. ODOM: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause we don't see -- 15 one of the projects that was in my precinct that has been -- 16 we've talked about is Stoneleigh, but it's straightening out 17 the road. 18 MR. ODOM: Yeah. Back there in the back, 19 yeah. That would probably come out of Contract Fees if I -- 20 but we're going to do that in-house, talking to Douglas. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. 22 MR. ODOM: If you'd like me to do that. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, I guess the 24 main thing is -- one is to put on the table again that it's 25 still something that needs to be done, I think, and -- on 8-20-03 wk 114 1 Stoneleigh, from a safety standpoint, really, is to 2 straighten and do what we've talked about there and get it 3 somewhere into the mix, whether it's this year or next year 4 or the year after. But the other question was just related, 5 basically, so we can -- Contract Fees is how you are keeping 6 track of these now? 7 MR. ODOM: Keeping track. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 9 MR. ODOM: Before -- remember, I'm $256,000 10 down from two years ago. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 12 MR. ODOM: So that's where a lot of this 13 $276,000, on a consistent basis, went into Special Projects. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 15 MR. ODOM: Well, that's -- I don't have that 16 any more. Mountain Home and the other things that we talked 17 about are going to have to be picked up in Contract Fees. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 19 MR. ODOM: So -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, what I'm kind of 21 saying is, you know, so I think we probably all have 22 projects like the Stoneleigh -- I mean, some of these are 23 pretty significant projects. Not as many as we did, 'cause 24 you've done most of them, but I think the best way for us to 25 budget for it, and so we have that money in two or three 8-20-03 wk 115 1 years, is to either list them as separate items or, you know 2 have a Special Projects line item that we start, you know, 3 consciously keeping track of so we can put money in reserves 4 for those projects. 5 MR. ODOM: Well, I -- GASB has changed a lot, 6 too. So -- for your accountability. Before, we used to 7 have Special Projects totally separate, and then -- that's 8 the way the Court set it up. And now there's an account -- 9 it's all one funding. We considered it like it was separate 10 funding. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 12 MR. ODOM: And understand that I only -- I 13 gave you what I've been asked for. Judge Henneke did it a 14 little bit different, and I used to do that, and it -- 15 that's how I got $20,000, probably, somehow on the line 16 item. And I -- things just -- it didn't make any 17 difference, so we just quit doing it. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. It just -- it 19 doesn't make that much difference whether it's listed in the 20 budget or we have a -- a worksheet that's given to us during 21 the budget process as to where -- you know, where you're 22 planning on, you know, this project in 2006 or this project 23 in 2004. 24 MR. ODOM: I see. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just so we have -- 8-20-03 wk 116 1 MR. ODOM: The projects. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- a projection. And I 3 know that the floods -- you know, you and I have talked 4 about a lot of things were definitely -- in my area was 5 delayed because of the floods. 6 MR. ODOM: Right. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the amount of money 8 we needed to spend there. But it's just something that -- I 9 don't want us to quit keeping them on the -- these projects 10 on the table, 'cause if we don't keep them in front of us, 11 we'll forget to fund them. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree, it's helpful 13 to know that. 14 MR. ODOM: It's helpful. I'm -- the 15 Commissioner has something. I have one -- one item I'd like 16 to address to the Court on, but go ahead, Commissioner. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm through, I 18 promise. 19 MR. ODOM: The item is medical on 611. 20 And -- let's see if I can find the line item. Employee 21 Medical is 220. Judge, that was the one that we told you 22 that we felt like might be cut a little bit short, and we 23 feel like that's pretty close to what I'm going to need. 24 We -- we still have $995 in annual fees that we have to pay. 25 When we first started this -- it started in October -- it 8-20-03 wk 117 1 wasn't a problem; we could pick it up in the new budget. 2 They've changed it, and they went to September, so I've 3 still got 900 -- I've got $1,914 left. And then I've got 4 pre-employment physicals, which was, I think she told me, 5 another 300-something. And -- and then, it used to be that 6 any physical, when we replace somebody, that that was taken 7 from general revenue. No longer. So, we still are looking 8 at $320, $340 for a physical that we have to do, so that 9 $3,200 is really about where we need to be, just for the 10 safety factor to have it work. Because I -- I can't get it 11 out of the $995 that will be coming in September. And we 12 used to be able to run to October, but I guess they went to 13 the State, 'cause ours is a month after the State, and 14 they've gone back to, I guess, hitting everybody first of 15 September with it. For the last couple years they've been 16 doing that, so I would ask the Court to leave it at $3,200 17 instead of that. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, when we talked about -- 19 after we massaged all of your numbers pretty heavily, that 20 was the one item that Mr. Odom left kind of hanging fire. 21 They were going to have to check on that number, and he said 22 he was going to look at those closely. So -- 23 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 25 MR. ODOM: That's -- the rest of them, what 8-20-03 wk 118 1 was massaged, we'll make work. But that was the one that I 2 felt like we -- we were pretty close on. Other than that, I 3 hope I've answered your questions, I haven't given you a 4 runaround. So -- 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One of the -- I was 6 shocked to see our worker's comp experience, our 7 work-related accident experience. I hate it when people 8 refer to the previous experience, but if a company had a 9 600-person division and production that had that many 10 accidents, there'd be some serious changes made somewhere. 11 And this is not -- I'm not being critical. I'm saying there 12 are things we can do to lower our accident rate, and we need 13 to be working on that. That's a big number, workers comp. 14 That's all. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm done. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: If there's no further 17 questions of Mr. Odom, we'll stand adjourned until 1:30, or 18 shortly thereafter, when the bodies come dragging back in. 19 MR. ODOM: Thank y'all. 20 (Discussion off the record.) 21 (Recess taken from 12:41 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 22 - - - - - - - - - - 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It's a bit after 1:30 24 -- what? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go ahead. Go ahead. 8-20-03 wk 119 1 JUDGE TINLEY: A bit after 1:30. We will 2 reconvene the budget workshops. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I make a -- kind of a 4 Road and Bridge follow-up final comment, just so we can 5 remember to think about it? If you look at Flood Control 6 line item, from '99 to 2003, the balance in that has gone 7 from $119,000 in '99 to the estimated end of this year, 8 $124,000. So, we've had two major floods, and we've 9 increased our reserves $5,000 in the last six years. 10 There's something we're not doing right. I mean, we're -- 11 we're not taking -- I think, you know, Road and Bridge is 12 taking their money -- their flood -- you know, which should 13 come out of Flood Control, in my mind. They're taking it 14 out of their -- out of their reserves and depleting their 15 reserves, and I think that we need to look at that. I mean, 16 this is something we're going through, and Tommy's here; you 17 know, he can bring it up. You know, I'm glad Leonard's so 18 frugal, but let's not get so frugal, it's to the point we're 19 hurting the program. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because, I mean, our 22 reserves shouldn't have gone up with two major disasters. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would think not. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good point. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Scheduled for 1:30 -- 8-20-03 wk 120 1 MR. TOMLINSON: I -- just a thought. I mean, 2 and I've always wondered why we did this. And it was -- it 3 was that way when I came here, and I always wondered why 4 that -- that fund was where it is. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why it's not in Road and 6 Bridge? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. Because it has to do 8 with -- for sure, with infrastructure. So, why not -- why 9 not think about moving the fund balance to Road and Bridge? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Why not think about moving 11 the -- the supplement that the County Court at Law Judge 12 gets from a separate account over to his main budget 13 account? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't know. I'm not 15 sure. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: There's no parallel between 17 the two, except that they're separate. My point is, it 18 would seem to me that you have the ability to do that. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it's set up -- because 20 it's set up the way it is, it's -- at some point, the Court 21 recognized that as a special revenue fund. And I just 22 don't -- I don't feel like you have the authority to move -- 23 to move it from -- from a fund that's been funded in the 24 past by Maintenance and Operations taxes over to Road and 25 Bridge, because there is a prohibition from actually 8-20-03 wk 121 1 transferring funds between those two, because they're 2 separate taxes. So, in my mind -- I mean, I've always felt 3 that it's more of a Road and Bridge fund than it is a 4 Maintenance and Operation fund. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think what the 6 Judge is saying is, I think -- 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I mean -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- it can be done. I 9 think what has happened in the past -- and these are things 10 that have come up before. We tend to get the budget done, 11 and then we kind of leave some -- leave some of these 12 categories, where it might be easier to try to make a list 13 of which ones need to be moved around and move them all at 14 one time, if we can legally. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: But I -- I think the lead 16 should come from you as to which of these accounts we can 17 consolidate, which we can't consolidate because of separate 18 accounting-type items, whether or not they can lawfully be 19 merged. That's my whole point. I -- when it comes to 20 trying to reduce the number of counsel we've got or to bring 21 all areas of a particular office under one roof, as it were, 22 it would seem like the lead should come from you as to 23 what's permissible and what's not permissible, so that we 24 can try and be as practical as we can for us to understand 25 it as well as the public to understand it. 8-20-03 wk 122 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I mean, we have -- you 2 know, we think about it in those terms all the time. I 3 mean, I've -- I would like to see more consolidation than we 4 have, but there's -- over the years, you know, there's been 5 some resistance to that. And, I mean, I just -- I just kind 6 of want to get some feel from the Court as to, you know -- 7 you know, what -- you know, what you want me to do. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think when we get to 9 our general discussion, I think that's a good topic for us 10 to talk about. That is either later today or Friday. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Simplify the bookkeeping? Who 12 could be opposed to that? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You'd be amazed. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I'll stand ready to be 15 amazed. 1:30, time for Animal Control. Mr. Allen? 16 MR. ALLEN: I'm hoping being last isn't a bad 17 thing. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: He is on -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 62. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: You're exactly right. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: 62. 62. 23 MR. ALLEN: Well I didn't ask for anything 24 more than I asked for last year. I'll just start where the 25 cuts were made. The first cut was on Line Item 108, the 8-20-03 wk 123 1 Part-Time Salary. It was cut $600. I can negotiate that. 2 I'm basing pretty much everything on what I ended up at the 3 end of last year. I ended up with $1,171 last year, so $600 4 cut. I'm still right where I was. I got the same guy 5 working for me; he's been getting paid the same. I'm not 6 having any thoughts of changing that. The next line item's 7 going to be 229, which is Vet Services. This one bothers me 8 a little bit. It was cut $1,400. Last year I ended up with 9 $1,250 in there. If I run out of money on Vet Services -- 10 that's what pays for the spay and neuters on our adoptions; 11 that's our adoption money. And the public pays us, and it 12 goes into an account, and then we pay it out of that line 13 item. We pay the vet for spaying or neutering that pet. 14 So, if I come up short on that, I'm going to have to tell 15 the public we can't adopt out animals, and I think I'll send 16 them to you guys if I can't adopt the animals, 'cause -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't look over here 18 when you say that. 19 MR. ALLEN: I can send them to Pat's house, 20 too. So -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that -- Marc, is that 22 a funded -- you say that's funded from an outside source? 23 MR. ALLEN: No, that's -- that's money that 24 we just put in the budget, okay? And we charge a flat fee 25 for spaying or neutering. We don't really make any money. 8-20-03 wk 124 1 It's a deal where the vets get a reduced fee; it's a $40 fee 2 that's for spaying or neutering and a rabies vaccination, so 3 when we give them the animal, we give them a voucher to take 4 to the vet. Well, they give the vet the voucher and he 5 sends it back to me and he sends me that bill, so I pay that 6 $40 out of that line item. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8 MR. ALLEN: So, I mean, just -- it just 9 changes hands. It really doesn't do anything. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They pay you the 12 $40, the person doing the adoption, and you pay the vet? 13 MR. ALLEN: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, how can you run 15 out of money? 16 MR. ALLEN: Well, there's only so much 17 funded. And that's -- 18 MR. TOMLINSON: The answer to that question 19 is, the revenue goes into -- to a revenue line item. And we 20 need -- and we don't offset the expenditures with the 21 revenues. I mean, there is a wash at the end, but he -- he 22 needs the amount budgeted so he'll have it available to 23 spend. I mean, it's not costing us anything -- any more in 24 the long run because of the revenues. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, is -- the 8-20-03 wk 125 1 question, said another way, are we going to collect $3,600 2 or are we going to collect $35,000? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll collect whatever 4 the number is. I mean, we're collecting $3,600 'cause, I 5 mean, you can't adopt out an animal if you don't have any 6 money to pay for the vet. 7 MR. ALLEN: Right. So we're going to get 8 them spayed or neutered, and I'm not going to have the 9 money. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Basically, from an 11 accounting standpoint, this line item is entirely funded by 12 the public under a fee -- under a user fee. It's just that 13 the revenue goes here and the expenditures come here. But 14 in the County coffers, it balances out evenly, 50 -- I mean 15 100 percent even. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: For whatever it's worth, I got 17 that figure by annualizing spent year-to-date with a half 18 month fluff, and that comes up 3535. So, with a half month 19 fluff, it's still pretty close when you annualize it that 20 way. 21 MR. ALLEN: I'd just hate to not be able to 22 adopt them out and have the public go irate on us for not 23 adopting them. But, I mean, that's -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the other item, we 25 leave the 3,600 in. If you spend more than you did on an 8-20-03 wk 126 1 annualized basis this year, you can come for a budget 2 amendment. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 4 MR. ALLEN: Yeah? 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That'd be fine. 6 MR. ALLEN: We may have a banner year on 7 adoptions, or that may go down. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 9 MR. ALLEN: We don't know what it's going to 10 be; we never know. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Since it's a wash, 12 I'd like to see the number go up more times. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you run out, don't 15 stop adopting. Come to us, and we'll find money. 16 MR. ALLEN: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's exactly 18 right. 19 MR. ALLEN: Okay. The next item was 316, 20 Uniforms and Boots. That was cut $600. I can probably live 21 with that. I can probably make do with that. I may not be 22 able to buy everybody new boots and -- but I'll still be 23 able to provide them with a decent uniform. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Here again, I annualized and 25 gave you a fluff. 8-20-03 wk 127 1 MR. ALLEN: Okay. The next line item is 330, 2 Operating Expense. That was cut by $1,000, and last year I 3 ended up with $427. I just -- I'd hate to go under. That 4 would be cutting it pretty close. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: What all comes out of your 6 operating expense, that amount? 7 MR. ALLEN: I can give you a pretty good 8 idea. Trash bags that we put our dead animals in to take to 9 the landfill -- why we have to do that, I don't know. It 10 just doesn't make sense, but that's the way they want it. 11 Dog food, cat food. We buy these disposable cat litter 12 trays. It's a lot faster when we're cleaning cats; we use 13 those instead of plastic deals. I mean, it's pretty messy 14 at times when we got four cats in there. It's easier to 15 just dump that tray. Let's see. Tranquilizers we buy 16 there. Euthanasia solution, which, I mean, we don't use it 17 all that much, but there are quite a few cases when we got 18 skunks or sick dogs; instead of firing up the chamber, we 19 just euthanize them with an injection. The dead animal 20 disposal, that varies every month. Some months it's really 21 high. In the winter, it usually goes down, but here lately 22 we're going out there about three times a week. Bullets. 23 The Terminix, where they do spray the shelter every month 24 for bugs. The oxygen for the -- for the euthanasia chamber. 25 And then, you know, just operating expenses. That's pretty 8-20-03 wk 128 1 much -- if we ship an animal, we got to -- sometimes we have 2 a pretty big bill for the bus depot, 'cause we're shipping 3 it by bus. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Here, again, I got that by 5 annualizing, and I think annualizing, I came up to a little 6 bit over 6,500, with a little bit of a float. But, now, you 7 know what your requirements are. And those items are not 8 like utilities, which are fairly constant, copier lease or 9 something that's a level payment. So -- 10 MR. ALLEN: It's in our equipment, too. You 11 know, some years our catch poles are in good shape, some 12 years we got to replace them. You're looking at 110 bucks 13 for a catch pole. We always have to have about four of 14 them; we've got three officers, and you got to have one in 15 the shelter, so you have to have those. That's our only 16 protection. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Marc, there's going 18 to be some expenses associated with the changes in our 19 procedures about how we register animals. Have you got 20 money here for that? 21 MR. ALLEN: Yes. That's -- I mean, that 22 would be included in that. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 24 MR. ALLEN: I think I can hopefully do that 25 fairly cheap. Like I said last time, I can buy 1,000 tags 8-20-03 wk 129 1 for 80 bucks, and that's not too bad, if we can get them all 2 registered. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So you can -- can do 4 all the things you need to do for 7,500? 5 MR. ALLEN: It'd be -- it'd be cutting it 6 close. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Close is good. 8 MR. ALLEN: Well, I'm pretty frugal. I'm 9 pretty much a tightwad. I mean, I don't know if you guys -- 10 I know y'all watch this, but I know I watch it a lot more, 11 and I'm a tightwad. I mean, we don't get what we want; we 12 get what we need. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think we want 14 to make sure you have enough money, but we don't want 15 anything extra anywhere if we can help it. So, if you need 16 more, we'll give you more. 17 MR. ALLEN: I'd rather see it at 8,000 than 18 75. I think the year before, I did it at 8,000. So -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if you had 400-something 21 left, that would be pretty close to 8. 22 MR. ALLEN: I can make it work. I'm going to 23 make do with what you guys give me. Just -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, we're just not used 25 to that. We're used to people that keep on spending either 8-20-03 wk 130 1 way. 2 MR. ALLEN: Well, that's the way I was 3 brought up. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like your way better. 5 MR. ALLEN: I'm a tightwad; I can't help it. 6 It's my way. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8 MR. ALLEN: Next line item would be the 9 telephone. Last year I ended up with $205; y'all cut it by 10 500. I don't know of any rates that are going up. I know 11 my internet comes out of that bill, my cell phones. And 12 then just the -- the two numbers -- I got two lines at the 13 shelter, and my pagers. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Why is that -- why is that 15 through July only at $2,300? 16 MR. ALLEN: Well, I think my cell phone has 17 gone down. I negotiated a deal with that. I think at one 18 time, my cell phone bill was, like, around $100 every month, 19 and I've got two phones now, and it' down to, like, $60 a 20 month, but it does vary. So, I know that will make a little 21 bit of a difference. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, you said 23. I 23 think it's 32. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: No, no, no. 2299 year-to-date 25 through July. 8-20-03 wk 131 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, bingo. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: When you annualize that, I 3 come up with $2,904, which is why I went to 3,000. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But his estimated 5 actual -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is 32. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- is 32. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's -- that's not my 9 estimated actual. That's somebody else's. I guess it's 10 Tommy. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe that -- I don't 13 know. Maybe there's a -- some of the utilities run about a 14 month behind as the -- what you're billed for. I don't know 15 how it works. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: July 1st should have been the 17 July billing. I mean -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: July 1st would be the 19 June bill, the way my phone -- I mean -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: You start a year behind, you 21 end up a year behind. You start a month ahead, you end up a 22 month ahead. That should be the closest to annualizing as 23 any of them. That and, say, a copier lease should be about 24 as close as you can come to the annualizing. But that -- 25 that's why he's got a half month fluff, plus he's got the 8-20-03 wk 132 1 fluff on the far end. It's up to you guys. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. It's $100. 3 That's good. Leave it where it is. 4 MR. ALLEN: Okay. The next item is 440, 5 Utilities. That was cut by 1,500. Last year I ended up 6 with 2294, and I know this year we changed the thermostat on 7 the air-conditioning and the heating, and that's made a big 8 difference in my electric bill already. I mean, that's 9 already paid for itself. Unless the price of natural gas 10 goes way up, we should be just fine; I can accept that. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 13 MR. ALLEN: And then the last one is computer 14 software. We don't use a lot of computer software. 15 Computer's just used for recordkeeping, and, I mean, we can 16 make our own little programs for that. That's pretty much 17 what we do anyways. And that's it. I'm pretty easy. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Marc, talk about the 19 104, 105. You had Assistant Animal Control Officer, and 20 that's reducing, and Animal Control Officer is increasing. 21 Is there some promotion in there or something, or what? 22 MR. ALLEN: No, last year when they finalized 23 the budget, they said I had two assistant Animal Control 24 officers instead of two Animal Control officers. That was a 25 mistake that Barbara had made. And I didn't -- when it was 8-20-03 wk 133 1 finalized, I went right straight to her and said this is not 2 right, because at the time I had hired an Animal Control 3 officer, but I didn't have them working at a 15-1; they 4 started out at a 12-1 because they didn't have any 5 experience. So, they assumed that that was an assistant 6 Animal Control officer position. So -- and that -- they 7 never changed that through the whole year, so -- but it's 8 been changed back now. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So this is just 10 really a swap of dollars? Is that what you're saying? 11 MR. ALLEN: Should be. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Correcting the -- the 13 employee list? 14 MR. ALLEN: Right. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Position list. Thank 16 you. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, two employees in the 18 second category and one employee the first category, and you 19 just swapped those two. You got two on the top and one in 20 the bottom one. 21 MR. ALLEN: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, looks good to me. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Marc, you haven't 24 been here the last couple days. You probably know this. 25 What the Judge has prepared is what I'm calling a zero-based 8-20-03 wk 134 1 budget. The fact that there's no money in there for 2 salaries in terms of cost-of-living or something like that 3 doesn't mean necessarily that there won't be one. The 4 only -- the only changes that the Judge entered in salaries 5 were those that have been previously committed. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: And I -- I think I told -- I 7 tried to tell every single department head and elected 8 official that I talked to that the issue of COLA's, for 9 example, was not going to be included, because that was a 10 decision for the Court. 11 MR. ALLEN: We didn't figure that. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand that, but I feel 13 certain that I indicated that to you also. 14 MR. ALLEN: You did. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: As far as longevity or 16 educational or other existing commitments that were firm 17 commitments, those would be included in what I was going to 18 recommend. 19 MR. ALLEN: Yeah, I was -- I understood that. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I know, Judge, that 22 you -- that you told them all what the game plan was, but it 23 sounds like some of them didn't hear you, so that's -- I 24 wanted to make sure that Marc heard you and wasn't 25 discouraged, 'cause I don't know if there will be increases 8-20-03 wk 135 1 or not, but -- 2 MR. ALLEN: Right. Well, just remember, the 3 City pays 40 percent of this too. So -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: We heard about that. Question 5 along that line. What percentage of the animals that you 6 have out there in your facility are -- are animals that are 7 picked up in the city? 8 MR. ALLEN: That's a tough one. We were 9 figuring it. Sometimes it's 60 and sometimes it's not. It 10 just -- it varies. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Would it vary 50 to 60, in 12 that range? 13 MR. ALLEN: Probably. I know at one time we 14 did a little study where it came out like that, but I can -- 15 I was thinking, you know, our contract's coming up for 16 negotiation. I was thinking maybe, starting October 1st, we 17 should decide how -- or show how many calls we're running in 18 the city versus -- how many animals we're picking up in the 19 city versus how many animals are brought in the from the 20 county, 'cause a lot of our animals are just walk-ins. The 21 dogs don't walk in; the people walk them in. So -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. 23 MR. ALLEN: But, I mean, to make sure that 24 everything's right and -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need it for 8-20-03 wk 136 1 recordkeeping, keep track of city versus county on all 2 categories. 3 MR. ALLEN: We do on the dogs, but it's -- on 4 the calls, it's really hard. We have to go back, but we can 5 start doing that. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably be a good idea to do 8 it beginning, what, October 1? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 10 MR. ALLEN: Yes, sir. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: The other thing is -- is your 12 pickup of dead animals. Virtually all of those are in the 13 city, aren't they? 14 MR. ALLEN: Yes. The only dead animals we 15 pick up in the county -- and if we have an elderly lady who 16 just can't do anything about it, we're going to help. I 17 mean, we're not going to say no; we're going to help them 18 somehow. Pretty much, if the word got out we were picking 19 up dead animals in the county, we'd be going on everybody's 20 property picking up dead animals. We'd be in Bear Paw 21 picking up every rabbit and raccoon and deer and -- I mean, 22 they'd be wearing us out. So, that's all we do. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We outsource that to 24 the vultures. 25 MR. ALLEN: We pick plenty up in the city. 8-20-03 wk 137 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Efficient plan. 2 MR. ALLEN: We do our share in the city, 3 so -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Good job. 5 MR. ALLEN: Okay. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate it. Thank you very 7 much. 8 MR. ALLEN: Y'all have a good afternoon. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As an aside, 11 Judge -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes? 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You guys who've been 14 around a long time know this better than I do. Animal 15 Control generally, and Marc in particular, occasionally gets 16 some criticism about attitude or approach to things or 17 something, but it's a sensitive subject and it's difficult 18 to deal with. And what I've seen out there working with 19 them, I think they do a -- a good job; that they're careful 20 with our money, and they try to be sensitive to people. 21 Some of them are just impossible to deal with. I went on a 22 couple of those that just -- they don't -- they don't 23 deserve to own a pet. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They don't want to 25 listen. 8-20-03 wk 138 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What you're saying is 3 accurate. I think Marc -- I don't know if you know, we -- 4 you know, we hired him from the City. He came out of the 5 City originally when we -- and he's done a good job. We had 6 a lot of problems before Marc took over that operation out 7 there, and it's run a lot smoother. He's frugal. You know, 8 usually when people get mad, he's following County orders, 9 which is law, rules, and people don't like -- like it, you 10 know, but he's doing what he's supposed to. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think he does a 12 good job. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I hear are really 14 the complaints about favoritism or doing this and that. I 15 mean, he's fair. He's -- I think he does what he needs to 16 do and follows the rules. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We are -- unless you 18 gentlemen have some specific budget -- budget accounts that 19 you want to look at, we are down to the general discussion 20 hour. On time, I might add, and thanks to Commissioner 21 Letz' scheduling. At this point, if you don't have any 22 specific -- specific account or accounts that you want to 23 look at, why, it appears that we're in a wide-open mode at 24 this point. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did we look at the 8-20-03 wk 139 1 County Law Library? I don't think we did. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's quite a few we 3 didn't look at. When I did the schedule, I wasn't trying to 4 skip any department or areas, but there's some of them that 5 we just, frankly, don't have a whole lot of control over. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm okay with that. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't see any point in 8 having people come down here and tell us something we really 9 don't have a lot of choice. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probation Department 11 being one of those. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: District Attorneys. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Library's one of 14 those. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Money we got to 16 spend. Why talk about it? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: A lot of those budgets, they 18 tell you what they are, and you don't have any discretion. 19 That's the way it is. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you want to discuss 21 things? I mean, I've got my little list here in my mind. 22 But do you want to discuss things like this issue of giving 23 the raises on the anniversary date? Do y'all want to talk 24 about those kinds of things? Or -- I think that would be a 25 good conversation. 8-20-03 wk 140 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's talk about it. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Way I understood it 5 was, is that when a person's anniversary date; i.e., May 1, 6 comes up, they -- they actually don't get that increase 7 until October 1. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Under current policy. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Under current policy. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: That's my understanding. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'm wondering if 12 -- if they're not right in saying that once -- and it seems 13 to me that it would be easy to budget for. We know that 14 that person's going to -- anniversary date's going to be 15 May 1. Why couldn't we put that pay raise in on May 1, as 16 opposed to waiting till October? 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to do that. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's a good 19 idea -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a good idea. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- in my opinion. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd also like to 23 abolish the rule that you can't have an education and 24 anniversary increase in the same year, and I'd like to 25 abolish the rule that you can't have a pay increase three 8-20-03 wk 141 1 years in a row. Those are earned increases, and the 2 restrictions on granting them don't seem to be real logical. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Our present policy 4 says that we can't give raises three years in a row? 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think it does. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have to think about 7 that for a while. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Merit or education. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Merit or education, 10 or step and grade. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Longevity, yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Longevity, not merit. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I said merit; I mean 14 longevity. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I agree with 17 you, that's wrong. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just can't remember 19 what caused that. I agree with you. And I can't figure why 20 we would do something like that. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I don't know. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just can't remember. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, basically, you 24 know, eliminate all the conditions. I think you can do the 25 raise on the anniversary date; you get the rest of them -- 8-20-03 wk 142 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When they're due. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- when they're due. And 3 I don't have a problem with -- on the educational being on 4 the next year, because -- 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's okay. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine on that. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, 'cause you're 8 not sure -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When that's going to be. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- when that's going 11 to be. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would be incumbent 13 on the department heads, however, to take -- 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- a close look at 16 their personnel rosters and note those things for budgetary 17 purposes. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And assure that 19 they're granted. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They shouldn't be 22 coming in here next year and saying, "Well, my employee 23 didn't get an increase back in November, and that's the 24 Treasurer's fault." And, no, it's -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yours. 8-20-03 wk 143 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The department head 2 needs to go make sure that what happens, happens. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think our personnel 4 people could and should help on that, too. I think there's 5 a way to tie these things and tell the department head or 6 elected official -- I think they should be encouraged to do 7 that. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: What I'm hearing, then, is 9 that the consensus is that we use the actual anniversary 10 date of employment as the benchmark, and all of the rules 11 are out the window except the educational increases, which 12 commence on the beginning of the first budget year 13 following. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you never know 15 what date that's to occur. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. I mean, you 17 can't program that. Is that what I'm hearing? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. And the 20 three -- three years in a row ban is out, yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, all rules are out, 23 mm-hmm, except -- except that one on educational. You could 24 have multiple in one year; you could have them five years 25 running and -- okay. 8-20-03 wk 144 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just -- should I just 2 keep going down my little list? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: You're doing good; you're on a 4 roll. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. Then, one 6 of the next ones is -- and I have a concern about the 7 funding of this murder trial. In my mind, I don't think 8 that we ever arrived at -- Tommy seems to think that we're 9 possibly okay, and some of you guys seem to think that it's 10 not near enough money in it, and -- 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me give you the best 12 information that I got late yesterday afternoon. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From the D.A.? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: It came -- it's from the D.A., 15 but not from him directly. The Sheriff ran -- ran the D.A. 16 down, and his estimate was that, under normal circumstances, 17 he figured approximately 150. Worst case scenario, yeah. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was afraid of that. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: We're not talking Exxon and 20 Conoco here. Worst case scenario is approximately 200, you 21 know, a bad case scenario. But a good case scenario 22 financially for us would be if he's found incompetent to 23 stand trial, because then you can't hold a trial. That 24 would necessitate a -- and there's going to be, I suspect, a 25 competency hearing anyway. If there were not a pretty 8-20-03 wk 145 1 contentious competency hearing, I would be very, very 2 surprised. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: But if there's a finding of 5 incompetency to stand trial, why, then all bets are off, and 6 everything's up in the air. But, financially, we're not 7 looking immediately at the face of $150,000 or $200,000. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do we have in 9 there? I don't know. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we have $100,000 11 for court-appointed attorneys, which we spent this year 12 without a trial. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We talked about 15 putting some in special -- in special services. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Special Trials. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whatever. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is a competency 19 hearing going to cost? 'Cause we know we're going to get 20 that for sure. $50,000? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: No, I -- I don't think a 22 competency hearing -- probably 20, 25. Does that seem like 23 a good ballpark to you, Tommy? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: 'Cause what you're going to 8-20-03 wk 146 1 have is basically -- 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Pay doctors for expert 3 testimony -- expert witnesses, expert testimony, that's what 4 it costs. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: It's going to pretty narrowly 6 focus on the issues involved in this. You're not going to 7 have a whole bunch of -- of extraneous witnesses involved. 8 So -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- I mean, as I 10 understand it, the trial is currently scheduled for January. 11 That's unlikely, but it's almost certain it will be this 12 budget year. Is that correct? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: In all probability. There's 14 the man that can probably give you more information, but 15 certainly, the competency hearing is going to take place. 16 That will take place first. Has it presently been 17 scheduled, Sheriff? 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It was scheduled for 19 tomorrow and got canceled from tomorrow to probably the next 20 court day next month, because they don't have the report 21 back from -- that's just the evaluation part that will go to 22 the court. So, the hearing itself, I don't know. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably this fall? 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It will be, I would 25 imagine, one of the competency hearings which is -- it would 8-20-03 wk 147 1 probably be the 216th, first court date in October. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: October? So -- 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's -- it could be 4 the last one in August, but I don't -- I mean set, but I 5 don't see that happening. And you know how the court system 6 works as well as I do. I would say in October. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: It definitely -- the 9 competency hearing will -- I don't think there's any 10 question but that there will be a competency hearing, is 11 there, Sheriff? 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's no doubt there 13 will be one. There could be more than one. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Why would there be more than 15 one? 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Depending on the 17 evaluation of this one psychiatrist. And I'm sure that the 18 D.A. could ask for their psychiatrist, and I don't know how 19 Judge Ables is going to handle that, whether he'll hear that 20 in one or two actual hearings or just postpone it, try and 21 get everybody in on one. But the evaluations themselves are 22 going to be separate. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, your best guess is 25 that we will not receive any state assistance to help with 8-20-03 wk 148 1 this trial? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, there is -- there's 3 assistance available for capital cases, but it doesn't pay 4 for attorneys. And there's also a stipulation that -- that 5 your -- the expenditures -- the total expenditures 6 county-wide have to be more than the revenues which you 7 produce. If your -- if your revenues exceed your 8 expenditures, you're not -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: For one trial? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: No, county-wide for one year. 11 You're not eligible. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, if you -- the only 13 way you're eligible is if you deficit-spend? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: From what I heard years 16 ago, when this first went into effect, counties like Bandera 17 could qualify for that capital assistance, but counties like 18 Kerr could not. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: I applied -- I applied for 20 Bandera three years ago. I applied for, like, $30,000, got 21 six, and they didn't include the attorney's fees. They will 22 not pay the attorney's fees. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we probably shouldn't 24 bank on much. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 8-20-03 wk 149 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, if we get it 2 back, great. I don't see how you can budget, really, less 3 than $150,000. I mean, you know, and the -- and if, you 4 know, by some chance the defendant's declared incompetent, 5 you just wouldn't spend the money. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. I 7 don't know if 150 is an accurate number, but it just appears 8 to me that we need to put more in there. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, we need -- I mean, 10 and maybe we can put the hundred and count on 50 coming out 11 of Court-Appointed Services. I mean, I think we need -- 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is not the kind 13 of so-called emergency that you would use reserve funds for? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You could, but you're 15 still deficit. Then you're -- 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Deficit? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Deficit spending. You 18 can do it that way. I think you -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Might have to. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you could budget 21 $100,000, and if you go over that, you say we didn't know 22 how much, and go, you know, into reserves. I mean, you 23 could do that. But either way, you're still deficit 24 spending, though, more than likely. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Be more responsible 8-20-03 wk 150 1 to budget for it. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's responsible, 3 certainly, to budget a pretty large number for it. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: The key is "reasonable 5 anticipation," I believe is what the statute says. Could 6 not be reasonably anticipated. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On this one, to me, 8 reasonable anticipation on this one, Judge, would be to get 9 through the competency hearings. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would be what, Rusty? 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Get through the 12 competency hearings alone. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: You've got a gut feeling about 14 this one, I'm gathering, Sheriff? 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm not going to 16 deliberate, but I think that would be -- I don't know. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you or do you not have a 18 gut feeling? I'm not asking you what it is. Do you or do 19 you not have a gut feeling? 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I would definitely 21 budget for at least competency hearings in this thing. I 22 don't know what it's going to do after that. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just like on the 24 Steve and Harley show this morning, and he wouldn't answer 25 that question then, either. 8-20-03 wk 151 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right, he tried 2 to zing me on that. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sounds like you can 4 budget $25,000, betting we don't have a full-blown murder 5 trial, or you can budget $100,000 to $150,000, betting we 6 are going to have it. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we've got to 8 take the hard route. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you don't spend it, 10 you don't spend it. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, so much the better. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, my preference is 14 to budget for a murder trial. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me too. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, are we saying 150? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I'm hearing, 19 Buster. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Okay. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: How's your list looking over 22 there? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're cutting into it. 24 We're not there yet, though. One that popped up today, and 25 that's Road and Bridge secretary salary increase. I just 8-20-03 wk 152 1 wanted to address that. It's -- and I'm working off memory 2 here; I have not talked to personnel people at all. Seems 3 like year before last, we stepped her up because she had 4 some increased duties and one thing and another, and she was 5 helping us with some 9-1-1 issues. We stepped her up 6 probably to the same level as court coordinators, which is 7 kind of the high level of our secretary force, and that was 8 year before last. And now we're being asked to increase 9 that even again, and then that would put her, then, above 10 the court coordinators. And I'm just going to tell you that 11 history shows that if you do things like that, then you're 12 going to have every elected official in this building in 13 here wanting the same thing. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't we make a 15 second adjustment because of that same argument, parity with 16 something? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we did. 19 MS. NEMEC: She was also just given a merit 20 increase last month. She was one of those that was given a 21 merit increase in that department. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: That expires at the end of 23 this fiscal year, though. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: That evaporates at the end of 8-20-03 wk 153 1 this fiscal year, this current fiscal year. 2 MS. NEMEC: Does it? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Well -- 4 MS. NEMEC: Does it go back to what she was 5 making? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Under -- under what was passed 7 by this Court, that particular increase does. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My recollection was 9 we said it's an increase in your salary, but then all 10 salaries are subject to review in the budget process. But 11 if we take it back, then all you've done is given a bonus. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what we did, is 13 we gave them a bonus. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: See, that's exactly what -- 15 MS. NEMEC: I don't -- you know, when the 16 Court did that, I did not feel comfortable with it, and I 17 just don't see how you can go -- we cannot -- county 18 government cannot give bonuses, and I don't see how you can 19 go back and take a salary away once it's given to a person, 20 unless they get demoted. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you're right. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Once you give a 23 merit, you can't take it back -- or shouldn't take it back. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My understanding of 25 that, when it was given, he just had it figured in this next 8-20-03 wk 154 1 budget to where it wouldn't show an increase, but they 2 wouldn't go backwards. But where he cut because of his 3 retirement people, it would stay as the merit increase for 4 those employees. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This may get us 7 offtrack a little bit, but on that same subject, I would 8 like to see us think about budgeting some money and put into 9 a merit increase fund, with some definition of what merit 10 is, and probably used at the discretion of Commissioners 11 Court. If you give cases of outstanding performance or 12 extraordinary effort or something, the department head can 13 come in here and say, "I've got something that needs to be 14 reinforced and recognized," and we -- we would have some 15 money to spend. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One pool -- 17 county-wide pool? Or by department? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One county-wide 19 pool, is my thinking. It wouldn't be a whole lot of money, 20 but it would be -- it would be a merit increase program 21 where we currently don't have one. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What happens, then, 23 when three elected officials come in and request those 24 funds, and you deplete the pot, and you -- then you have 25 another elected official come in wanting it? It's -- 8-20-03 wk 155 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a possibility. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a possibility, 3 and it's not fair, and they're going to give us hell. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Probably dancing 5 around the issue, Buster, but if they would bring it in -- 6 truly bring in examples of outstanding performance, the 7 answer is, how much outstanding performance can you stand? 8 "All you can get" is the answer. But -- but also, I can see 9 that it's got the prospect for favoritism and all that sort 10 of thing, so it would have to be carefully managed. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I really think that the 12 -- the changes -- I won't say the changes; the direction I 13 see the Court going this year is -- is doing merit 14 increases. I mean, people that are getting more 15 responsibility and do better jobs are getting more money. 16 And, you know, we're trying to achieve some -- an area of 17 staff reduction or more responsibility or things of that 18 nature, and that is merit increase. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I think -- I mean, we 21 have a policy, and it's up to the department heads if they 22 want to -- I mean, you get attrition over time, and they 23 have the ability internally in their departments to pick out 24 someone and promote them within, and that's a merit 25 increase. 8-20-03 wk 156 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to award 2 that. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think we do now 4 without having a separate fund. I think a separate fund -- 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We may not -- that 6 may not be a bad idea. I'd just like more flexibility -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- for this Court to 9 be able to award that kind of money. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, I think the -- 11 I mean, I don't know how you budget for it real well. I 12 think you almost need to do it with -- I don't really want 13 elected officials coming to us to make that decision, 14 because -- 'cause I don't know, you know. And just because 15 you may have a -- a better salesperson, the employee 16 shouldn't be rewarded for that reason. I mean, so I'd 17 rather have it -- if we have a fund, I think it needs to be 18 during the next year's budget or sometime during the 19 process, budgeted at the discretion of the department heads. 20 And make it a step increase or something like that for one 21 employee or two or -- 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Would you consider, 23 then, for those -- I don't know how many we have -- three or 24 four departments who have lowered their head count, would 25 you consider providing that department with a little more -- 8-20-03 wk 157 1 one department gets -- the departments that don't get "X" 2 percent; then the departments that do get "X"-plus-something 3 percent? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes and no. The problem 5 comes with smaller departments. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you've got a 7 one-person department, you can't do anything with it. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- you know. But, I 10 mean, I think we're -- at least we're inching towards the 11 direction I think we need to be going, but it's hard to 12 figure out a policy that works for us real well. 13 MS. NEMEC: I think the only fair way is, if 14 you have the funds, to give merit increases one year; then 15 it's up to the elected officials to decide who in their 16 departments are worthy of that increase. I don't see how 17 else you can do it. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We did that before. 19 How'd that work? How did -- 20 MS. NEMEC: Well, there were certain 21 departments that felt all their employees were worthy, and 22 the Court didn't agree with it, and so that's why that just 23 got cut. But that was several years ago, maybe. You'd see 24 something different this time. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it was three 8-20-03 wk 158 1 years ago -- three or four years ago, we did it. And, like 2 I said, something -- some gave it to everyone, and some gave 3 it to one. 4 MS. NEMEC: It's been a while. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. The Sheriff, who 6 normally has nothing to say -- 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Never. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: -- wants to say something. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Personally, the Court 10 used to have that it had to be addressed during the budget 11 year. You know, the -- and giving an example, the one with 12 Road and Bridge came in and gave several employees a merit 13 increase 'cause of the hard work they did during the flood. 14 Well, I also had a lot of people that put in a lot of hard 15 work, and several that came down with pneumonia and 16 everything else, that they worked hard. I just feel that it 17 needs to be addressed during the budget year. Maybe each 18 department head's only given so many, that you can give two 19 employees or three employees a merit increase, period. But 20 then, during the budget year, when I come to you with those 21 individuals' salaries -- like this year's the first time 22 I've asked, and it's in the budget for my merit increases, 23 and I've asked for it for two employees in different 24 departments, one employee in one and one in another. And 25 then I think I, as the elected official, should justify to 8-20-03 wk 159 1 y'all that that's an appropriate merit increase, and then if 2 you want to give it, you give it, but it's during the budget 3 process and not tied to how much extra money I have in my 4 budget or anything else. To me, a merit increase is tied to 5 the employee's entire performance evaluation or what they're 6 doing above and beyond or how they're working, not just 7 to -- I have this extra money or I have this and I think it 8 needs to be given. One time a year, just like I may pick an 9 employee of the year in my -- in my department. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Merit increases are 11 usually given after the fact. They're demonstrating their 12 ability -- or their extra ability, and after the fact, and I 13 think I agree with what you're saying. And Dave's on that 14 same page. Department heads could come in at the time of 15 budget and say, as the Judge is reviewing each department, 16 "Well, I've got Joe Blow and Pete Jones and Jane Jones, and 17 they've done this and this and this, and I think they should 18 be entitled to 'X'," and justify it, and then the Court 19 hears it and so forth. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think it should be in 21 there. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Built into the 23 ensuing budget, which would mean that all merit increases, 24 whenever, however many, would be given on October 1. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 8-20-03 wk 160 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think they should be 2 built in with -- you know, if it's an employee that's called 3 in sick 40 times during the year -- I mean, just a whole lot 4 of evaluations need to go into that, that that employee is 5 -- is heads above the rest of the employees in that 6 particular department. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And if you got a 8 large enough group of people and you're measuring some kind 9 of performance, whether it's job performance or how fast you 10 can run or anything else, it's always going to follow a 11 bell-shaped curve. Going to be 15 percent of them are dogs 12 and probably shouldn't even have them on the payroll, and 13 then 15 percent that are just front runners. So, if you -- 14 if you have a merit program, and then department heads 15 decide to give the same amount of money to everybody, then 16 it's not a merit program. It's just -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you budget for 19 it. I think what you do -- you used 15; I was going to say 20 10 percent. You just figure -- I mean, I'm sure we can come 21 up with a dollar figure of a one-step increase on however -- 22 I mean, the average employee is a 15. You know what a 23 one-step is at -- or one at 15. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Something like that 25 would work. 8-20-03 wk 161 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Figure out how much, you 2 know, and say, you know, that's how much you get. I mean, 3 because you can't have, like I said, 100 percent of the 4 employees qualifying for merit increase. That's not a merit 5 increase. You should have really no more than 10 percent -- 6 10, 15 percent county-wide that are above the others. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dr. Morgan, we're up 8 to about 150 percent tax increase here. I'm glad you came 9 in. 10 MR. MORGAN: I just wanted to know how did 11 you do it, save the taxpayers all the money that you guys 12 do, and I just wanted to observe and learn a little bit. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you sit right 14 there. (Laughter.) 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You don't have any 16 budget issues over at Headwaters, do you? 17 MR. MORGAN: Oh, no, not at all. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Can't have too many in a 19 one-cent tax rate, can you? 20 MR. MORGAN: No, that's right. We're sort of 21 limited, thank goodness. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, my -- my issue 23 here with the -- with the secretary is that, you know, he 24 came in and justified -- in my mind, I thought he did an 25 excellent job, and -- and told us about supervising people 8-20-03 wk 162 1 and that kind of thing. That was a justification. But the 2 thing is, any department head or elected official in this 3 courthouse can do the same thing. They can come in and 4 justify in the same way, and request that we keep those 5 salaries the same, and we have to lift everybody. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you're right. I 7 think if you do one, it's hard not -- you have to do pretty 8 much across the board. And that's the reason -- well -- 9 well, David Motley's a prime example. I mean, we gave a 10 lot -- we gave several chief deputies increases, and -- 11 "Well, we're at the same level; we need the same increase." 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: What your argument is, we're 14 now creating one more step that everybody else has to 15 follow. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly right. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Or is going to try to follow. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly right, 19 and I can guarantee it will be attempted. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Floodgates will be opened. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Floodgates will be 22 opened. And, of course, this Commissioners Court can reject 23 anything that we choose to reject, but not likely. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Commissioner Baldwin, 25 which department was that that came in? I'm trying to -- I 8-20-03 wk 163 1 didn't understand which one came in. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Road and Bridge. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. Because I would 4 be one of those, you know. When you look at -- and this 5 goes right along with what Buster says. My administrative 6 secretary that's been there, and is really the boss, is 7 making less than the J.P. clerks; is making less than that 8 one by far, and everybody else. Yes, I'd be the first one 9 in line to say it needs to be equal. 10 MS. NEMEC: Speaking of his administrative 11 clerk, I have said for several years that she is 12 misclassified. She's a 17, and she should be a 19. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She should be. I 14 agree with that; she should be a 19. 15 MS. NEMEC: And I would -- I really wish the 16 Court would consider that this year. Because -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we did this one, 18 she would be a 20, 20.3. 19 MS. NEMEC: His department is the only 20 department -- well, I shouldn't say the only one without 21 really looking, but it's probably the only department that 22 doesn't have a 19 position. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 24 MS. NEMEC: She runs that office. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: She tells me to go to my 8-20-03 wk 164 1 room real quick. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And she should. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I listen to her. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: We need to ascertain her 5 secret. (Laughter.) 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, we do. 7 MS. NEMEC: She's a woman. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I already knew that part of 9 it. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, I -- personally, I 11 believe, because of all those factors, I think that we 12 should leave the Road and Bridge -- whatever her title is -- 13 secretary, for lack of a better word, where she -- where she 14 is. Just my opinion. I'm just trying to make some 15 decisions here so we can move on. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I don't 17 disagree with that, 'cause I think -- I don't know how you 18 stop it, but the -- I don't know what's going to happen. If 19 Leonard makes the changes that he was talking about before, 20 you're going to have that person supervising two other 21 people, and then -- and then, unless you require a new job 22 description and we start keeping consistency between other 23 departments and his own department, I don't know what that 24 does. I mean, that may create a problem there, that all of 25 a sudden, you have -- he's -- he wants to put her the same 8-20-03 wk 165 1 level as his other supervisors. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: County Clerk, does 3 your administrative assistant or coordinator or chief 4 deputy -- chief deputy, does she supervise people? 5 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See? There we go. 7 Same thing. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One thing -- 9 MS. PIEPER: So do my administrators. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 11 MS. PIEPER: So do my administrators. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good question. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we may be 14 looking at -- there's a tendency to value blue-collar 15 workers and blue-collar supervisors more than you're valuing 16 white-collar, so -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's the 18 best point I've heard all day. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- if Truby truly is 20 a supervisor and she contributes as much as the supervisors 21 of blue-collar workers, then we got a -- a gender issue. 22 You know, how do you measure contribution to an 23 organization? I can't figure it. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's contribution to 25 the department, like an organization as a whole. The value 8-20-03 wk 166 1 to that particular department. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this one staying 3 unresolved? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, it's not resolved. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't see it as resolved. 6 It's -- there's a lot of very valid viewpoints. The level 7 of supervision, I think, may be a -- a variable here, but I 8 know I don't -- I do not want even a perception of a gender 9 problem. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: There was an issue in another 12 department that I'm -- I work very directly with, and I 13 literally told the head of that department, you equalize it 14 right now. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that, 16 Judge. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: It was something that had to 18 be done, and it was. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could have an 20 E.E.O.C. case if you don't. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we'll -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I've cast my vote 23 on that issue, and I'd like to see it resolved if we could. 24 We have to either do that today, or we can do that Friday. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Friday. 8-20-03 wk 167 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, maybe we need to give it 2 more -- 'cause I don't think the case that I just mentioned 3 is -- is -- is parallel to this particular case. I think 4 this case is somewhat different. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To add another -- are you 6 finished? Another piece to that, I also see that position 7 changing based on the County Engineer situation. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was just going to 9 reference that. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because there's a big 11 chance a lot of that could be shifted down here -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there's also -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that Truby is now 14 doing. So, there's -- as I see it, you end up with a domino 15 effect if you change one thing. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could be just the 17 opposite, Jon. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: It could. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It could be just the 20 opposite, shifting more out there to coordinate it and 21 facilitate it, make it happen. Really could. I think we 22 need to think it out carefully. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. I see -- I see that 24 viewpoint a whole lot -- a whole lot stronger than where 25 you're coming from. 8-20-03 wk 168 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Shifting platting? 2 Subdivisions? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we eliminate the 4 top spot that we've been talking about and we go to 5 outsourcing, who's going to coordinate all that, the various 6 things that have to be coordinated? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: The administrative support 8 that he's talking about. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I'm 10 talking about. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The administrative 12 support. Well, right now it's being coordinated by Truby. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it's going to 14 continue, and probably even greater. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so. If you 16 don't have somebody out there, I don't think that's the 17 right place to put it, based on my working with the 18 Subdivision Rules for six years. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where would you put 20 it? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Down here. I think the 22 Commissioners are going to have to get far more involved in 23 that process. I think we need to be hands-on down here, 24 'cause I don't think you can have someone -- you know, I 25 think there would be a problem if we did that. 8-20-03 wk 169 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Your eyes are getting 2 big. 3 MS. PIEPER: Isn't she on the same level as a 4 chief deputy now, the same step? 5 MS. NEMEC: Yes. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: 19. Which I -- I think is 7 comparable to your chief deputy, is it not? 8 MS. PIEPER: Right. 9 MS. NEMEC: There is no -- as far as 10 administrative positions, there are no other positions 11 higher than a 19. That is the highest. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My question to the 13 County Attorney -- that's what I was looking for. That's 14 it, isn't it? 15 MS. NEMEC: That's it. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 19, isn't it? That's 17 what I thought. The request was a 20.3. What do you have 18 for -- 19 MS. NEMEC: A nurse, that's a 20. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A nurse? 21 MS. NEMEC: And we have a Jail Administrator 22 that's a 21, and those are -- as far as administrative, we 23 don't have any; 19 is the highest. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you do anything, you 25 increase the -- 8-20-03 wk 170 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The levels within 19. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the level. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's our crew 4 foreman -- Road and Bridge crew foreman? 5 MS. NEMEC: Crew foreman is 20. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My -- my mind's not 7 made up on this issue, Commissioner. I see both sides of 8 it. One way to look at jobs is what -- what capability do 9 they have to make decisions? And I -- I wonder if Truby 10 doesn't make decisions that have greater impact than a crew 11 foreman. I don't know. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If I were going to 13 respond to that, I would probably say this. If I did 14 respond to it. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's sleep on it. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's take leave from him for 17 a minute. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did we decide 19 about the Road and Bridge reserves? Are we going to 20 reinstall some of the tax rate? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would like to see Flood 22 Control moved. I think if we can move it down there, and -- 23 I'd like to see Flood Control, and I'd like to see part of 24 the tax rate -- you know, it was on the table. I think the 25 Judge said three-quarters of a cent. Start there and see 8-20-03 wk 171 1 what that looks like. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Three-quarters of a 3 cent. And what -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then move Flood 5 Control down there, which has a lot to do -- would do the 6 same thing. Flood Control right now -- one of the reasons 7 Flood Control has never been -- is never tapped is because 8 it's not down there where it's easy to see. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: You talking about the Flood 10 Control? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: That fund is a reserve 13 account. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, but leave it as 15 Flood Control; move it into Road and Bridge. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that require -- 18 to move it from one department to another department, does 19 that require a court order? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: I'd like to have one. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Okay. And -- 22 and definitely -- and I understand. I don't blame you. 23 Definitely, dealing with those reserves and moving those 24 numbers around would require a court order. Yes? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, at some point, you're 8-20-03 wk 172 1 going to approve the -- the schedule of tax rates, and that 2 would -- that would, in effect, do what you're going to do. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. By adopting 4 the whole budget with that in there? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would be -- I see. 7 Okay. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Actually, we have not 9 assigned a tax. We have not collected any taxes for Flood 10 Control the last four or five years. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: The only change in that has 13 been through interest. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My thinking is the 15 same as Jonathan's on that. Three-quarters of a cent -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- to Flood Control. 18 I may be talked out of that, but makes sense to me. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I just -- until 20 you see -- you need to get a new budget run or something and 21 see what that does to it. I mean -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three-quarters of a 23 cent is going to produce about $165,000; is that correct? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: 180 is what's I figured. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: About 180. 8-20-03 wk 173 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Would that be about right, 2 240 -- using 240 as one cent? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, that's correct. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you gotten to COLA 6 yet on your list? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, not yet. I'm 8 trying to group all these together, that some of these 9 things are going to require an agenda item for us to pass a 10 court order, and some of them will not. I think about 11 everything that we've agreed on so far will require court 12 orders, and we're going to bring the Road and Bridge 13 secretary back on Friday? Or some other time? Or -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes and no. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can discuss it. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you like coffee or tea? 18 Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. Take the fork in 20 the road. That's all I'm going to do right now. I don't 21 want to take up y'all's time. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm listening. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a list. I 24 want to talk about salaries. I want to take the approach 25 of -- of doing two things, trying to put some -- some 8-20-03 wk 174 1 numbers on what it would take to, one, pay employees who are 2 paid less than a living wage, and my definition of that is 3 less than the maximum amount it takes to qualify for 4 Medicaid payments. What would it take to solve that issue? 5 And then the second one is, what would it take to resolve 6 issues of local market equity or competitiveness? And here 7 I'm speaking only about law enforcement people. So -- and 8 I'm also taking the approach that I don't trust two- or 9 three-step approaches. If we deemed it was desirable to 10 solve this issue, that we ought to go ahead and bite the 11 bullet and do it in one fell swoop. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you mean, one 13 fell swoop? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we thought it was 15 desirable to pay our Sheriff's Department a rate that's 16 competitive with the Kerrville Police Department, we ought 17 to identify what that is and do it now, and not try to step 18 it out over a two- or three-year period. I see that trying 19 to step something over a several-year period -- that, for 20 various reasons, it probably wouldn't happen. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think you're 22 100 percent correct, 'cause that's what we have tried to do 23 in the last few years. We've given them little bumps, and 24 somehow the City just keeps getting further and further out 25 there. However, I really think this issue with the E.I.C. 8-20-03 wk 175 1 money that they used is going to maybe not put a screaming 2 halt to it, but it will slow that little program down quite 3 a bit. Just my opinion. And, of course, we'll have to wait 4 and see on that, but -- 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we follow that 6 approach, it would take, by my rough calculations -- and 7 we'd need the personnel officer to run the numbers on it -- 8 to bring every employee in the county up to a level that was 9 a little bit ahead of the Medicaid entitlement rate would 10 take probably $20,000. That's my rough estimate. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is that number 12 to get them above? 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: $20,820, or 14 something like that. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It doesn't vary with 16 the number of dependents? 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, and I should 18 explain that. Now, you can't go setting salaries by how 19 many people are in the family; you got to simplify it some 20 kind of way. I used the three -- my numbers are based on a 21 family of three. We can't be giving people an increase 22 every time they have a baby. Dealing with -- it's much more 23 difficult and more costly to deal with the law enforcement 24 issue. I'm talking about Sheriff's Department uniformed 25 personnel and jailers, persons -- jail uniformed personnel. 8-20-03 wk 176 1 To -- to bring the -- the deputies up to parity, it would 2 take about a $4,000-a-year, across-the-board increase for 3 all deputies, parity with -- with the Kerrville Police 4 Department. 5 To -- to bring the Sheriff up to parity -- 6 and in my thinking about the Sheriff's job versus the Chief 7 of Police, the Sheriff, in my view, has a bigger job, simply 8 'cause he's got a jail. He's got the same thing as the 9 Chief in most regards, plus he's got a jail. To bring him 10 up to parity, that would take on the order of $25,000, 11 $28,000. I don't know what the number is on jailers, 'cause 12 I don't have -- don't have jailers locally to compare with, 13 but I do know that we're short some eight jailers right now. 14 We've got a big and expensive turnover problem, and it's 15 related to stress, but it's also related to money. You can 16 -- when you've got stress and low wages, the turnover's 17 going to be higher. Turnover's very expensive. We have to 18 train them, and there's lost time in there. I'm guessing it 19 would take $2,000 to $3,000 a year per jailer to -- to deal 20 with that, that pay inequity. Okay. Well, those two 21 things, the bringing people up above Medicaid and dealing 22 with the law enforcement people, I'm guessing probably would 23 cost on the order of $350,000, $400,000 easy. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we have instances 25 of this inequity in places in the county employee family 8-20-03 wk 177 1 other than the law enforcement? 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, that's -- 3 that's county-wide. I mean, employee population-wide. A 4 lot of our clerical people are paid $17,000, $18,000 a year. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: That's in the Medicaid 6 ceiling? 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: The group that you were 9 talking about? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would your estimate, 11 350 to 400, be for everybody? Or just -- 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Solve law 13 enforcement plus the low pay. I calculated we have 60 14 people who are under -- paid under the Medicaid amount. 15 Some of them not very much under, and some of them a lot 16 under. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That it? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's it. I'm just 19 laying a potential and expensive solution out on the table. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is that. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the only thing -- 22 I mean, other than the fact of the cost, I don't object to 23 the -- to that at all, and trying to figure out how to pay 24 for something. But I think, really, before you even do 25 that, I think we have an obligation to at least keep 8-20-03 wk 178 1 everybody where they are, which is a COLA, and I think that 2 has to go in first. I mean, I'm pretty adamant that we 3 don't start paying employees less than they made the year 4 before, and to keep at least at the same level playing 5 field -- or same playing field, whether it's level or not. 6 We need to go with the COLA. I know I've talked to 7 U.G.R.A., how they're handling it. They're using the 8 Consumer Price Index, the federal number. I think they're 9 using a 2.1 percent, I believe, increase. I haven't looked 10 into what other indices show, or if that's accurate for 11 Consumer Price Index. I assume it's pretty close to being 12 correct. So, I think you need to -- you know, I don't know 13 if this is number one in the priority, is to put that COLA 14 in there as recommended, 2.1 percent, which I'd be willing 15 to change that if there's a better number or that number's 16 not accurate, but I think we need to stay up -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 2.5 is a better 18 number. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with both of 20 you. I think it's of paramount -- 21 MS. NEMEC: Position schedule-wise, it's 2.5 22 increments. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's imperative. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: That -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can't ask people 8-20-03 wk 179 1 to work this next year for less money than they worked for 2 last year, and I think 2.5 is a minimum. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Now, this -- there's a 4 preliminary estimate furnished in my request. I -- I'm not 5 sure if this includes mandated longevity, et cetera. It 6 indicates it's based off of '02-'03 salary, but the figure I 7 have is 160 -- roughly $165,000. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For what percentage? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: For 2.5. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 2.5 equals what, 160? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: 164. $164,494. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It has to be based on 13 current salary; can't be taken into other considerations, 14 'cause that's where they are right now, so you're going to 15 lay a COLA on where they are right now, the way I see it. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Well -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Other things come in 18 on top of that later. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if you've got mandated 20 longevity increases that are due this year, then I think the 21 COLA attaches after that point. If -- if it's a committed, 22 mandated -- we're not talking about a great sum of money. 23 What you're probably talking about is another two and a half 24 percent of -- of that figure right there. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We may be talking 8-20-03 wk 180 1 semantics. If we change that policy -- we change our policy 2 that permits those other increments to go in when they're 3 earned, as opposed to calendar year, then we'll get to where 4 you are automatically. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think y'all are 6 talking about that much money. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's 8 semantics. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: $3,300 is what I calculate, 10 which is basically 2 and a half percent of -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: -- of the $165,000. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Am I hearing -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: 165 to 170 for COLA, is what I 16 calculate, 2 and a half percent. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fair. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the other thing 19 that we definitely -- on the table that we need to resolve 20 is our information specialist, what we're going to do with 21 that department, whether we're going to keep it or outsource 22 that. And same goes with the County Engineer, whether we're 23 going to keep that or outsource that. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to ask the 25 Judge a question. 8-20-03 wk 181 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would those two 3 subjects not be better discussed in executive session? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I -- and I think Commissioner 5 Nicholson would probably concur with that suggestion, 6 because when you're talking about specific individuals, I 7 think the -- even though we're talking about budgetary 8 considerations -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Performance. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: -- we're talking about -- 11 well, not necessarily performance, but specific individuals. 12 And these two particular cases, because these are -- if we 13 were talking about an entire department that had 10 14 employees, that would be one thing, but we're talking about, 15 in one case, a single position, and in another case, a 16 department that has a single employee. So, wouldn't that be 17 your suggestion, Commissioner Nicholson? You've been in the 18 personnel business for over 30 years. You ought to know 19 something about this. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But I haven't been 21 in the government business very long. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it too early to 23 make the evaluation which is easier? 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In both cases, I see 25 that we're making a budgetary and organizational decision. 8-20-03 wk 182 1 It's not based on performance. But, to err on the side of 2 caution, I think we ought to talk about it in executive 3 session and then come back out and decide what we can -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think the law 5 allows us that liberty. I think if we're talking about 6 organizations, it's in public. I think if -- if we're going 7 to talk about the individuals' performance, which I think 8 may be part of the discussion, I think -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my point. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think those specific 11 parts are in executive session, but I think we're talking 12 about outsourcing a department. I think that's public. I 13 think it's pretty clear. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Outsourcing a function? Yeah, 15 I'd definitely say that's public, absolutely. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So then -- so I think the 17 discussion, 90 percent of it's public, in my mind. Very 18 little of it's in private, in executive session. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll bet you're 20 right. I'd like to attempt to outsource both of them, and 21 not for any performance reasons or anything else, except 22 that we -- I think on the one hand, we need more flexibility 23 in the computer function, and on the engineering function, 24 we need a different skill set. We need -- and you can't 25 find that in my approach with them, somebody -- a 8-20-03 wk 183 1 hydrologist, civil engineer, a couple other things. I think 2 it's just a logical business decision that you have to 3 outsource to get those. You can't afford to hire four 4 different things. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- and I don't 6 disagree with that, but I think we need to narrow what we 7 want each of these people to do, or -- you know, or 8 companies, however we outsource it. I mean, and the County 9 Engineer has never, in their mind -- and I think, you know, 10 in the -- based on the pay, I would agree, he's supposed to 11 analyze, do engineering work for the County, as in testing 12 hydrology and -- you know, or testing that we should be 13 doing. But doing, you know, engineering studies and things 14 of that nature and really putting their seal on it, I don't 15 know how all the engineers work that well with their seals 16 and what they seal, what they don't seal. You know, he's 17 been more of a coordinator before. That's the way he's 18 turned out to be. And if we need specific work done, I 19 think the only way we're going to get it done is through 20 outsourcing. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we -- we need to have 22 the flexibility. No reflection upon what our current 23 engineer has done or the manner in which he's performed, but 24 we need the flexibility to be able to choose whatever 25 particular discipline or area of subdiscipline, as far as 8-20-03 wk 184 1 that goes, to obtain our -- our services from him. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I'm saying is that 3 if we're going to want to get an engineer to work with us on 4 drainage, we're going to have to seriously look at the 5 amount of money we're putting in that budget item. I mean, 6 we're not going to get it for $35,000, or whatever we're 7 spending now, and get an engineer to come in here and do 8 studies for us. I think that's the same -- you know, a lot 9 of what we're doing right now is coordinating platting, and 10 some coordinating -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can probably get 12 one to review plats and go over them, and you can get one to 13 go out on the road and do test compaction and a few of those 14 kinds of things, not much more. We might be able to, you 15 know, have a guy that can tell you how much water a ditch 16 will hold and what size of pipe to put under a road and 17 those kinds of things. Leonard Odom can do that sound 18 asleep, that kind of thing. But as far as getting someone 19 to go out to those ponds, an engineer to say that that pond 20 is done exactly right, we don't have enough money to do 21 that. That's my opinion. That's a whole different deal. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a different 23 issue. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I mean, I don't 25 know how far you're talking about the engineering. 8-20-03 wk 185 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'm -- that's what 2 I'm saying. We just have to settle on this when it comes to 3 funding. I think I have no problem with -- you know, in 4 seriously looking at outsourcing both of those functions. I 5 have a -- my gut feeling is that it's going to be easier to 6 outsource the County Engineer position than the computer 7 specialist, just because of the -- I'm afraid the cost is 8 going to eat us alive on the computer side if we outsource 9 that. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to withdraw 11 my suggestion we take the engineer topic up second, since we 12 just finished the discussion. But I do -- I am sincerely 13 concerned about the dynamics of the other topic, because 14 this has been brought to my attention at least -- on more 15 than one occasion, situations that go directly to 16 performance, and I think we need to talk about it in 17 private, performance and how it relates to our desire to 18 outsource, and what the net result of that decision will be. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we get into 20 performance, that's executive session. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So the engineer 22 thing does not have a performance element to it, but the 23 other one could have. To be cautious, we're going to do it 24 in executive session. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd rather err on the 8-20-03 wk 186 1 side of caution than get beat up later. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or get sued later. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I mean by 4 "beat up." 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see, okay. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And executive session may 7 be -- that's at the choice of the employee, not ours. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In terms of the 9 engineer, I don't have a problem with what we're going to 10 do. I just -- I want us to think it out very carefully in 11 terms of logistics behind the decision. I don't have any 12 problem with the decision to outsource that work, based on 13 the different types of skills that the County may require 14 from time to time. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think the big thing 16 that we really have to look at is -- is platting. Who's 17 going to -- how is that going to work without a County 18 Engineer, and how does that work, you know, if you outsource 19 it? You just -- we just give that all to them, or to 20 whoever we outsource that function to? Or are we going to 21 have multiple people we outsource to? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think that call's yet 24 made. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, doing that, -- 8-20-03 wk 187 1 doing the engineer's side of it, I -- I don't see it's that 2 colossal -- that difficult to do, but I do see that with the 3 computer guru. You know, of the -- of how much we want him 4 to do -- him or her, what he's supposed to do, you know, the 5 details of all the programs and the computers. And it seems 6 to me that it would take us from now till the end of the 7 year to just figure out what we would ask that person to do, 8 much less find somebody to do it. It's just -- to me, that 9 is a -- to me, I would rather keep -- keep the guy we have 10 now, and then, you know, if you continue to think about 11 outsourcing it, start putting the plan together and take our 12 time and do it right, and then do it in the following budget 13 year. That's the way I see it. I just see it as -- as that 14 being a big deal. Plus we have -- nobody's come by and beat 15 your door down wanting a job. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we just went out for 18 that one, though. I think it was just advertised last week, 19 wasn't it? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: It was right after the 21 last -- not the last court date, but the one before, I 22 believe. Wasn't it? I don't remember -- yeah. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think the 24 advertisement's been that long ago. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Commissioner Letz 8-20-03 wk 188 1 and I had a conversation with a fellow yesterday that had -- 2 has hired a guy to come in and take care of his office, his 3 computers in his office. And, I'm sorry, I can't remember 4 how many -- was it 80 bucks an hour? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 85. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $85 an hour, the guy 7 charges. And he basically requires that when he goes from 8 this computer to this computer to this computer, they all 9 need to be the same function -- same operation inside the 10 computer. He doesn't want to deal with one -- for that $85, 11 he doesn't want to deal with one that does one thing and 12 this one here's different and has different functions in it. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He doesn't want to 14 work for us, then, does he? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Want to bet? $85. 16 But all the computers have to do the same thing. So, I'm 17 thinking of that; with our system that does so many 18 different things, there's no telling what it would cost. I 19 mean, I don't know that; I'm just basing that on Jon and I's 20 conversation with our friend yesterday. So, again, that 21 looks like -- I mean, to me, that just gets bigger and 22 bigger and bigger, and it just seems like it's something 23 that we really need to be careful about and take our time 24 doing and putting that together. It would be -- to me, it 25 would be difficult to outsource that in a hurry. 8-20-03 wk 189 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. Plus the 2 fact I think it's imperative upon us to set -- to set 3 guidelines for computer use so that we can eliminate some 4 abuses and it becomes a court order, and it has to be 5 system-wide. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: There is an issue about 7 outsourcing that technical work that -- that I didn't know 8 until just recently, but -- and I don't know -- I can't tell 9 you what law -- what the statute is offhand, but somewhere 10 I read that if a county outsources I.T. technology to an 11 outside source, to -- other than -- other than in-house, 12 that the person that the County contracts has to be approved 13 by the Secretary of State. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And bonded? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: And because -- and in our 16 case, that's correct, because our system includes the voter 17 registration. And -- and the Secretary of State requires 18 that they approve the person that you contract with. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Person or firm or whatever. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Would you -- would you get us 22 that -- the text or -- 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. Yeah, I don't -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Whatever that -- I don't know 25 whether it's in the Texas Register or Administrative Code or 8-20-03 wk 190 1 where it is. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't recall which -- I 3 think -- I think Paula may have it. But I can -- 4 MS. PIEPER: I'm sure that call would go 5 through with my office too, with all those confidential 6 records I have. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I can see Secretary of State 8 on voter reg -- on voter records. In your particular case, 9 I'm not sure. 10 MS. PIEPER: My birth certificates are closed 11 for 75 years. My death records are closed for 50 years. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand that. But you've 13 got confidentiality requirements across-the-board in 14 virtually all the private industry, and all areas of the 15 public sector. It may well be that Texas Department of 16 Health is -- Vital Statistics there has put out some sort of 17 bureaucratic regulation that says we got to bless this or 18 bless that, whatever the case may be. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think your only 20 question would be, on doing an outside agency, is how much 21 control you have of that outside -- who they pick in their 22 department or in their organization to be the one to work 23 with us in all our confidentiality -- you know, nonpublic 24 stuff; somebody you really have to trust that's not going to 25 go out and sell our information. It's a liability-type 8-20-03 wk 191 1 deal, more than -- than I think a requirement, other than 2 probably voter registration. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, whoever you contract 4 with, they're going to have to be insured, bonded in some 5 way, and -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, that's 7 exactly the reason that we did it this way in the beginning, 8 is having an in-house staffer to do that. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Does that -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not saying it's 11 right or wrong. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Does that give you better 13 security? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. I don't 15 know if it's right or wrong or not, but I'm just saying that 16 was one of the reasons that we went that route. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure there's any -- 18 any correlation one way or the other. In fact, when that 19 question was raised earlier, the thought that occurred to me 20 was, if -- if you got an outside source doing it -- and in 21 most cases, except for routine backup and that kind of 22 stuff, it's being done -- whoever the custodian of those 23 records is was there while it was going on by that 24 outsourced service, as opposed to an in-house, where there 25 was all sorts of -- 8-20-03 wk 192 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: -- freedom otherwise. It 3 would seem to me that the opportunity would be greater for 4 the in-house individual. But, you know, I don't have any 5 numbers to back that up. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, how -- when 7 are we going to make the decision on those two items? We've 8 discussed them quite a bit. Are we going to have executive 9 session with the individuals? Or -- I mean, we're running 10 out of time. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we've 12 probably disposed of one. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's an agenda item 14 for Monday, from what I understand. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That will trigger -- I 17 don't know what it is, but I'm sure it's going to trigger 18 the whole system -- the whole process. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're having the 20 County Engineer problem solved Monday? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: We're having it available for 22 solution Monday. Whether or not we solve it or not, it's up 23 to you. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Come prepared to 25 solve it. 8-20-03 wk 193 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, bring your engineer 2 solution with you. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would encourage anyone 4 who hasn't read the Subdivision Rules to read through them, 5 because there's a lot in there. We got to figure out who's 6 going to do that, and I don't know if we can afford to 7 contract a lot of that out. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You think we can or 9 cannot? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cannot. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cannot. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll be glad to do it for 13 my precinct. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Golly. Jonathan Letz, 15 comma, P.E. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Consultant. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Consulting -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Consultant P.E. for 19 Precinct 3. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hopefully. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A pretty -- probably 22 a pretty elementary question I hadn't thought to ask, the 23 administration of the Subdivision Rules, does that take an 24 engineer? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. No. 8-20-03 wk 194 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the 2 question? 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Admin -- if you had 4 an employee that was going to administer the Subdivision 5 Rules, does that person need to be an engineer? He needs 6 some expertise and knowledge about Subdivision Rules, but 7 doesn't have to have a degree of engineering. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a real important 9 point, expertise and knowledge. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sounds like we ought 11 to subcontract it out to Jonathan. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nope. Nope, not 13 interested. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we have a candidate 15 for engineering assistant, don't we? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We do. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Already had one offered. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That mean he gets 19 only half a staff? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- another point 21 on that -- on the engineer's issue has been the debate 22 around here for a number of years as to what the law says 23 about a unit road system requiring an engineer. The way I 24 understand it to say is that it says you shall hire an 25 engineer, but if you can't find one, you have a road 8-20-03 wk 195 1 administrator. I mean, that's the way I understand it. It 2 may have -- the legal terms be different, but that's the way 3 I understand it. Which means that we can have an 4 administrator or an engineer system, or both, but we don't 5 have to have an engineer, from what I understand. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think we can -- 7 even if we had to have an engineer, I don't -- I haven't 8 read the law exactly, but I don't think you -- you can 9 contract for that service, I would think. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would think so, too. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Would you buy a used car from 12 the guy? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that -- we're -- so 14 that issue will be addressed Monday? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: On the engineer, yes. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I knew we had a 17 long day Monday. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know why this 19 was passed out now, because I'm going to suggest we put this 20 discussion off till Friday. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree, but there is 22 one comment, and this is what -- I was trying to compromise 23 on that a little bit, Commissioner Williams -- compromise or 24 work out a solution, okay? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Playing poker? 8-20-03 wk 196 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This one I think y'all 2 will go for. If the Sheriff's Department continues to get 3 four cars, or six cars -- these are the six cars, 'cause 4 this is something Mr. Williams brought up, that we would be 5 able to rotate out to pass down to the constables. I know I 6 just showed Constable Pickens those, and any of those 7 cars -- you can ask him his opinion about them, but for at 8 least a year, because the next year we will be rotating out 9 the first set of those six white cars. This year I couldn't 10 do it. These are those yellow ones, and then one old one 11 that used to be Charlie Seale's D.P.S. sergeant car before 12 we did one of those D.P.S. purchases. But as you -- I think 13 those are cars that -- those are three in there that could 14 go to the constables that I think they would be satisfied 15 with. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: These are all different units? 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right. Each 18 one's a different unit. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I thought it was a copy 20 for each one of us. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, that's just the six 22 cars that would go, and we could solve the problem for at 23 least a year. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll let the Judge 25 have them. 8-20-03 wk 197 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He's our used car 2 boss. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And maintenance records 4 with them. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can y'all find four cars 6 -- three cars out of there you like? 7 MR. PICKENS: We're talking with the Sheriff 8 right now. If it were me, I'd be willing to work with the 9 Court on this. I personally drove one of those units, I 10 believe, when I was at the Sheriff's Office. The former 11 Sheriff, she had it; it was passed on to me when I was the 12 D.A.R.E. -- I used it on patrol. I took good care of it, 13 and from then I went over into warrants. And the miles that 14 are on there, I can agree with the Sheriff, is going to be 15 just highway miles; it's not going to be that hard, hard 16 driving, chasing calls left and right. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And this is number one. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At the risk of being 19 repetitive, I'd like for us to discuss this on Friday. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I do have a couple of issues 22 that I'd like to get clarified with the Sheriff, if I might. 23 And -- and I'm a little confused. How many -- and I'm not 24 talking about the jail. Let's put the jail over there to 25 the side. How many patrol deputies do you presently have in 8-20-03 wk 198 1 your position schedule? I'm speaking about authorized. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, Rusty, you're on 3 camera. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I figured that. Lately 5 I've always been, Buster. I'm one short because of the 6 retirement of one of our sergeants this month. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Authorized. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sorry? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Authorized. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. Authorized, I 11 have one, two, three, four, five -- 12 (Discussion off the record.) 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where's your 14 hamburger bean bag? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: It's down here. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Patrol alone, 22. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, 22. And, in addition, 18 we've got your chief deputy and you, correct? 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, and we have 20 warrants and civil and -- and investigators and -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the only ones we're 22 concerned about are patrol. I think that's where the 23 confusion exists. So, you've got 22 in patrol? 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's patrol sergeants 25 and patrol officers. 8-20-03 wk 199 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When you say 2 "concerned about," what's the issue we're talking about? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm not sure how many 4 positions we've got filled at one time. There may be one or 5 two that's filled more. We're trying to get a handle on -- 6 on the number of health insurance, and that's a sub-question 7 to this. How many actual officers do you have that are 8 filling those 22 slots? 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 22. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, you're up to -- 11 you've slotted every one of those slots? 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We will have one vacancy 15 at the end of the month when Sergeant Stokes retires. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Now, you've got one 17 slot -- how many slots are you presently paying? 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I am presently paying 19 those 22 slots. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What about the workers 21 comp slots? 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The workers comp slot is 23 the County's paying 20 percent of that slot, separate. And 24 the -- and then there is the reserve -- reserve military 25 that was called up that is gone, that we are not paying at 8-20-03 wk 200 1 this time. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you paying the health 3 insurance on the workers comp slot? 4 MS. NEMEC: Definitely. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 6 MS. NEMEC: Yes, we are. By law, we have to. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The workers comp slot 8 ran out of family medical leave, he ran out of everything. 9 And, according to workers comp and that, he was -- and I 10 don't know how this works, Judge. It's all in F.L.S.A., but 11 he was actually terminated from our department. He's no 12 longer employed by our department because of that, but under 13 F.L.S.A. or under the workers compensation stuff, he is 14 entitled -- I guess workers comp pays 80 percent, but due to 15 the fact that he was law enforcement, he's entitled to pay 16 -- to be paid 100 percent of his salary until my term of 17 office is up. 18 MS. NEMEC: Vote him out. No. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So y'all can vote me out 20 and be done with it. Or, actually, when my new term starts 21 and he's no longer on the payroll -- don't ask me how that 22 works through workers comp. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: But he's no longer carried as 24 an employee of your department? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. We sent in F-50's; 8-20-03 wk 201 1 we sent in all the termination stuff. Everything's done. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: But we're still carrying him 3 on our health insurance? 4 MS. NEMEC: By law, we have to carry him on 5 the health insurance until the Sheriff's term is up. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I think that answered my 7 question. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Until this Sheriff's 9 term is up? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: He's not an employee. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: But we have one additional 13 health insurance that we've got to pay because of that 14 anomaly. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Correct. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Now, one of those slots 17 was previously filled by somebody that's now military. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: What's going to happen if that 20 guy marches in here end of the week and says, "I'm ready to 21 go back to work"? 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We stay in touch with 23 him. This is what I came to your office and talked to you 24 about the other day. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 8-20-03 wk 202 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He's been in the 2 military now almost two years. After he went into the 3 military -- after he was called up and left, at that time, 4 County Judge Henneke -- 'cause I posed this question to him. 5 I can't do without this position for a year and a half or 6 whatever, so they allowed us to go ahead and fill that 7 position. That position's been filled, okay? Brown Stokes' 8 retirement, like I said, at the end of this month will give 9 me an opening that I -- that if he were coming back right 10 away, I could put him in; we'd be all right. The best I 11 have in staying in touch with Officer Fernette is he won't 12 be able to come back until, the soonest, sometime in 13 January, if he's not extended again by the military, and he 14 doesn't know that. Okay? And at this point, yes, the 15 County is definitely obligated to give the man his job back 16 when he gets here. If all my positions are filled, I'm 17 going to be right here at a Commissioners Court deal trying 18 to get that position so that we can put him back to work. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be that position 20 until you have an attrition, in which case -- 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Then I just wouldn't 22 fill it. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: On the military leave, we're 25 not paying health insurance on that one, are we? 8-20-03 wk 203 1 MS. NEMEC: No, sir. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Okay, that's why 3 we've got one additional health insurance obligation, 'cause 4 we've got all of those 22 slots filled, but we got 23 that 5 we're paying health insurance for. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: In essence. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I think that finally 10 clarifies it in my mind. I've been stewing on this since we 11 talked about this a few days ago, and I -- I couldn't figure 12 out -- I knew we had an overlap somewhere, but I wasn't sure 13 -- I couldn't identify it. Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Brown Stokes is 15 retiring? 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Brown -- we have -- and 17 this entire Court, you will be getting your notices. You're 18 invited to it. He's retiring -- we have a retirement party 19 set for August the 29th at, I believe, 6 p.m. or 6:30 p.m. 20 at the Cailloux Center at Schreiner College. I think he is 21 the first deputy that is taking a full retirement. It's 22 fabulous. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He fell off of Noah's 24 Ark. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, he did. 8-20-03 wk 204 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That it? 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Brown Stokes, believe it 3 or not, has worked for five sheriffs in this county. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe it. Judge, at 5 what point are you going to ask Tommy -- or what is your 6 process going to be to get modifications and things like the 7 COLA and all that to the Auditor and then back to 8 Commissioners Court? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me give you this 10 microphone; you can speak into it a little louder. Maybe he 11 can hear back there. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: I can hear him anyway. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. The question to you, 14 Mr. Auditor, is Commissioner Letz is curious as to the 15 turnaround time to make all these changes in the budget. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So is Commissioner 17 Williams. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: I represented to him that you 19 were most accommodating last time and told me a day to make 20 changes, and I felt certain that, with all the recent 21 experience you've had, you could certainly do it in that 22 time frame. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Are we talking Friday or 24 Monday? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whatever it takes. 8-20-03 wk 205 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Friday would be good. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Friday would be great. I 3 really -- I was really -- the first part of my question, the 4 Judge skipped over that part. I presume the Judge has the 5 master list of the changes, and when he's going to give you 6 that master list, and because I know that you haven't been 7 present through all of the workshops, I don't think. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I missed this morning, 9 but I've been -- I don't have it all. 10 MS. PIEPER: He's present; he's just not 11 taking notes. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have them all down, 13 because I was under -- the outcome was not clear. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: If you gentlemen will recall, 15 when I laid the budget on the table, I said, "Here's what 16 I've done. It's now up to you." 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're part of the "you," 18 though, 'cause you're going to be raising your hand at some 19 point. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He will on the budget. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, maybe yes, maybe no. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it's a maybe yes. I 23 think it's a "shall." 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's a voice 25 vote. 8-20-03 wk 206 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Raise hands on the 2 tax rate, for sure. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: The Sheriff had something that 4 he wanted to -- 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One issue -- I mentioned 6 this to Buster and I mentioned it to you. The 216th Task 7 Force budget, okay, the part -- the benefits that we do. 8 Charlie Hicks left the employment. He's going back to South 9 Texas; him and his wife are moving back down there. So, the 10 Sheriff's Office appoints two people to the task force. 11 Charlie was one of those, and now I have an open position to 12 appoint that. All the County pays is the benefits. I have 13 been approached by the task force commander to take him on 14 as the Sheriff's Department employee, okay? For some 15 reasons that he has. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where was he 17 previously assigned? 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Previously, his benefits 19 were paid for by Gillespie County, okay? If I use him to 20 fill that slot, still as commander -- he's just trying to 21 change it over -- there will be an increase in the budget 22 for the task force for the difference in the benefits of -- 23 and Barbara and I sat down; we tried to figure this out this 24 morning. About $2,354.87 is what it will cost this County, 25 compared to what it was costing for Charlie Hicks to what it 8-20-03 wk 207 1 would cost for this -- for the commander. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dependents or what? 3 Why? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Difference in his, he's 5 the commander; his salary difference is so much higher that 6 the benefits and the retirement -- we don't -- insurance 7 would be the same, but the benefits and the retirement and 8 FICA and that would -- would go up that much. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the reason for 10 his requesting a transfer from Gillespie to Kerr? 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Stability. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gillespie County is 13 not stable? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're stable. Told 15 you I was. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Now tell us the kicker. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The kicker is -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was it. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 2,000 bucks. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what it would 22 increase the cost to Kerr County. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand, but there's 24 potentially something on the far end -- 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh. The other -- y'all 8-20-03 wk 208 1 will remember, and I talked to Chuck about -- Chuck 2 Dickerson about this again this morning. The task force, 3 the host for the grant that runs the task force, funds it 4 totally, is the City of Kerrville. Okay? If y'all will 5 recall, there was some discussion -- and I know, Judge, part 6 of -- Buster's part of it. The City of Kerrville, their 7 attorney stated this is going to be the last year; they're 8 not going to be host any more. I talked to Chuck this 9 morning, and the attorney's saying, "Well, I don't know; 10 we'll see." You know, "Chuck, you decide." So there's -- 11 there may be some second thoughts in there. But if what 12 they had said, okay, that they would not be the host any 13 more -- and they've been the host of that since day one, 14 since the task force began in existence. They have asked 15 that I then, at that time, approach the Court and approach 16 y'all with being the host and taking over that grant. You 17 know, that grant doesn't cost Kerr County anything. It 18 doesn't cost the City of Kerrville, but the potential 19 benefits are the host -- if the Legislature -- and they did 20 try it this last Legislature, and I'm sure it will come back 21 up again in the next one. If they defund and defunction the 22 task forces all across the state, then they're dissolved; 23 they're gone, okay? Which I think would be a true hardship 24 on especially our department and the police department. But 25 whoever the host agency is owns all the equipment that they 8-20-03 wk 209 1 have, okay, that the task force currently has at that time, 2 and that would be all their vehicles. And I think they got 3 11 officers total, so you're talking 11 vehicles and you're 4 talking all their computers, their surveillance stuff, 5 mini-cameras, anything they use would become -- any of their 6 office supplies, all that, would become the property of the 7 host agency to use as that host agency wants. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But the down side 9 is -- and it's what's scaring the City off -- the State 10 says, "Well, in case we run out of money, then you have to 11 pick up the tab, the whole tab." 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I figured the shoe 13 would drop someplace. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we don't know 15 that. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Or the task forces go 17 kerplunk. You either pick it up or they just dissolve, 18 they're through; they're not funded any more by the State. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what scared the 20 City, is when that verbiage came down from Austin. I don't 21 think that this is really concrete yet. I don't think 22 they've -- the State -- I think that was just kind of a 23 hint. I don't think that they've -- that's a firm 24 statement. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 8-20-03 wk 210 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wasn't the funding 2 reduced a little bit this year? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. Yes. But there 5 were a couple senators or representatives, one being a 6 former sheriff in Travis County, that tried to get it 7 dissolved, period. And they had some bills in there to get 8 it dissolved, and they attached them as riders, and it got 9 real close. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Got a lot closer than 11 it's ever been. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And at that point, if it 13 ever were dissolved, that's going to be something the County 14 and City, I think, then would have to look together and try 15 and create a task force, a narcotics unit to work Kerr and 16 Kerrville, because it is something drastically needed and 17 saves us a lot. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, with those two -- 19 the last two things you said really have no relationship on 20 the -- except the commander? 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, is there an 23 obligation, though, or is there an obligation that if 24 it's -- once he's under Kerr County and he's our appointment 25 over there, do we have to take him back at some point? 8-20-03 wk 211 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No obligation? 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The way everybody that 4 was ever assigned -- and Buster was around when the task 5 force first became -- or came into existence. The actual 6 agreement with any officer assigned to the task force, if 7 the task force goes kerplunk, actually those officers are 8 without a job. There is no guarantees by any agency that 9 those officers stay employed. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay? That was done 12 back then. Now, I will tell you one thing, and this -- Bill 13 doesn't really realize this -- Bill's the commander right 14 now, I'm talking about, so this isn't his reason for doing 15 it. But because of the salary scale, Bill would be getting 16 an increase in his salary, okay? That still would be 17 covered by the grant, just 'cause of his certificates. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We just need to decide 19 whether we want to add $2,000 to our budget. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: To that task force 21 budget to cover those benefits. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: 20? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 22-something, I think. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $2,354.87. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's growing. We'd 8-20-03 wk 212 1 better make a decision quick. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what -- and that 3 would only take effect October 1, of course. We wouldn't do 4 it before. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, actually, if you 6 wanted to look at personality, Bill's one of ours, anyway. 7 I mean, he was on the Sheriff's -- 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Bill Hill came from -- 9 this task force commander came from Houston originally, went 10 to work as a deputy sheriff here, worked for us for quite a 11 while, went back to Houston, came back and went to work at 12 the task force. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So he's been around us 14 a long time. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, very long time, and 16 a very good employee and administrator. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is Charlie going, or 18 is he gone? 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He's already turned in 20 his letter; he's gone the end of the month. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can't believe he 22 didn't come by and say bye. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We did appoint him 24 Sheriff for a while. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Charlie? 8-20-03 wk 213 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, is that it for today? 2 See y'all Friday? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hopefully. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, no. One more 5 thing here. I have one, two -- three issues here that are 6 going to require court orders. Do we want to put them on 7 Monday's agenda to do? Or are we -- can we afford to put it 8 off two weeks? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we have the time -- 11 I'm asking, do we have the time frame, enough time to put it 12 off two weeks? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, do they require public 14 hearings? If any of them require public hearings, I think 15 we need to get them on there for Monday. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. Anniversary date, 17 Road and Bridge reserves -- would that require a public 18 hearing to change? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- 21 MR. TOMLINSON: But -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The flood balance 23 control -- Flood Control balance. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Moving it over. 8-20-03 wk 214 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reserve one, we would 2 just take care of that as part of setting the tax rate. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other two, I think we 5 might as well get on Monday and get them done with. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: There's -- the number that 7 the Judge read off about the COLA included 100 percent of 8 everybody in this county, public officials. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I asked for, from 10 top to bottom. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Right, that's what you have. 12 And so, if -- if the COLA extends to elected officials, we 13 have to have a public hearing. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that part and 16 parcel of the public hearing on the budget? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Separate from the public 19 hearing on the budget. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we do them probably 21 one after the other there, right? Bam, bam, bam. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 23 MS. PIEPER: Have y'all discussed elected 24 official salaries yet? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry? 8-20-03 wk 215 1 MS. PIEPER: Have y'all discussed the elected 2 official salaries yet? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: That issue has not come up, 4 but we probably need to put that on the agenda for Monday 5 for public hearing purposes, like you and I discussed, and 6 make sure that hasn't been -- 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Do you have enough 8 notice now to be able to put it on Monday's agenda? 9 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Judge does. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The Judge -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't put it on. 14 MS. PIEPER: But his $4,000 has to be a 15 public hearing, doesn't it? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we adjourned? 17 MS. PIEPER: It's in the budget. 18 (Discussion off the record.) 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He's an elected 20 official. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure that's -- 22 that's in the -- well, that's a proposal at the moment. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's that? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Judge's $4,000 25 increase. 8-20-03 wk 216 1 JUDGE TINLEY: It's on there. 2 MS. PIEPER: It needs to be a public hearing. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: We have public officials' 4 salaries on the agenda and setting a public hearing, if 5 necessary. 6 MS. PIEPER: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute. Wait a 8 minute. We're still not through. So we're down here 9 talking about policy, changing the policies, and one of 10 those things would be the anniversary date issue. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And pay them when 12 they get their anniversary. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And from the other end 14 of the table, there were several things I think brought up 15 that were policy changes. What was all that about? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One of them was 17 eliminating the policy that prevents getting multiple raises 18 in a row. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, there were 20 several things eliminated. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think there's -- 22 there was a letter that specified policy. That, I 23 believe -- Barbara, don't you have a copy of the -- it kind 24 of designates the policy regarding -- I have a copy of it, I 25 know, as to how you can't have three years in a row and all 8-20-03 wk 217 1 that stuff. There's a letter of that. We just have to 2 rescind that whole letter. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then, you know -- 5 MS. NEMEC: I have a proposed one typed out 6 also, ready -- ready for the Court's consideration. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it's ready for Monday, 8 and it's in line with -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- what we talked about? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, this is it, the 12 August 4, 2000 policy. Revise adopted longevity, 13 educational pay increase policy, plus -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Establishing anniversary 15 dates. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- anniversary dates. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we just abolish that 18 criteria, and Barbara's already got a letter -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Set up a new line item for 20 consider and discuss establishment of policy concerning 21 longevity, educational, and other scheduled pay increases 22 for County personnel, and establishing anniversary dates in 23 connection with same. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: As effective dates. 8-20-03 wk 218 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just think we need -- 2 we need to make sure we take -- we rescind that so there's 3 no confusion as to what our policy is. That's what I'm 4 saying. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: As part of a new policy, you 6 rescind any policies that are -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That one supersedes 8 it. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: -- in conflict with it. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The more specific, I have 11 found, the better we are. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're talking about 13 what I'm looking at here, so you want to rescind law 14 enforcement personnel required to hold peace officer's 15 license -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The footnotes on the 17 bottom. Well, the one letter that I -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not sure I got the 19 right document. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Barbara should have 21 it. 22 MS. NEMEC: I have it. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Buster, you have the 24 right document, 'cause the new one that's proposed puts -- 25 all that part just equals out when they can get what and 8-20-03 wk 219 1 everything else. You're adopting a whole new one that 2 reiterates some of those same things, but not all of them. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that we 4 even discussed law enforcement today, and there's a lot of 5 law enforcement language on there. I'm not sure that's the 6 right document. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we have the 8 County personnel officer develop a new policy and put it on 9 the agenda? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. 11 MS. NEMEC: I have it developed, ready for -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ready for Monday? 13 MS. NEMEC: -- your consideration. So -- and 14 I also have a position schedule based on -- on that change, 15 should y'all approve it. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Including the -- the 17 anniversary date issue? Okay. That's a biggie. And, 18 Tommy, we want to also move the Flood Control balance to 19 Road and Bridge, and so that will be an agenda item for 20 Monday. I guess that's about it, is just that one item, you 21 know, that we do from up here. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Policy. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Policy and Flood Control. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Flood Control. She's 25 going to do policy. 8-20-03 wk 220 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, but they're both on 2 the agenda for Monday. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, she's going to 4 put it on the agenda Monday. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That our agenda? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I was -- Marc didn't 7 leave a set of those heavy gloves here, did he? 8 MS. NEMEC: In redoing the position schedule 9 to be current with everything, may I have the Court's 10 permission to change the step and grade from the 11 Administrative Assistant in the Sheriff's Department to a 12 19-3? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would do that as an 14 agenda item for Monday. We can't make that decision right 15 here. Or does it -- 16 MS. PIEPER: This is a new step and grade. 17 Then when she proposes it and y'all adopt it -- 18 MS. NEMEC: It's in the budget. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't the same apply 20 for the County Attorney's request? I mean, I'm saying if we 21 do -- I mean, seems easier to me if we're going to change 22 any of them, we do them all at one time. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know -- I mean, I 25 think it's -- 8-20-03 wk 221 1 MS. NEMEC: I don't know what the County 2 Attorney was preparing; I wasn't here this morning. Or what 3 his reasons were. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think all elected 5 officials have been instructed to get with you about any of 6 these changes, and I think they are, in my mind, up to date. 7 Should have been to-date. 8 MS. NEMEC: Only one I've gotten with is the 9 Sheriff and County Clerk. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Motley's hanging 11 out there. 12 MS. NEMEC: Okay. And, really, the -- the 13 Administrative Assistant in the Sheriff's Department is not 14 a reclassification. Now, I don't know what the County 15 Attorney's office is trying to do or what Road and Bridge is 16 trying to do. This isn't really a reclassification. What 17 it is, is to correct a misclassification, step and grade. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you, 19 Barbara; you don't have to sell me. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If we can do it just 21 along with the budget, I think it may save everybody and go 22 in effect October 1. 23 MS. NEMEC: Because, if not, then when you 24 get Road and Bridge in here and the County Attorney's office 25 in here, you're going to be comparing apples to oranges, 8-20-03 wk 222 1 because that's not the reason. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're good at that, 3 though. That's all we do. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One basket for apples 5 and one basket for oranges. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I had my wife get out 7 some apples and oranges the other night; I've been hearing 8 that so much lately. We set them on the table and had this 9 long discussion, "This is an apple, Buster, and this is an 10 orange." It just wasn't the same thing. It wasn't the same 11 thing. Kind of like Angora goats. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are they like apples or 13 like oranges? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, we have -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I shouldn't have asked. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Following the 17 Sheriff's way of thinking of comparing everything, I just -- 18 I don't know that we can give anybody a raise, because 19 Kimble County has more Angora goats than we do. It's the 20 same kind of thinking, in my opinion. There's no -- 21 absolutely zero comparison, apples and oranges. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about Real County? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Real County, 24 we'll let them go. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I had a pear in there, 8-20-03 wk 223 1 Buster. I threw a pear in there once in a while. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we done? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't tell. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know; Judge 5 is still writing. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Was there an answer on 7 the administrative assistant, the secretary at the Sheriff's 8 Office? 9 MS. NEMEC: I'm going to change it. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whose assistant? 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mine. 12 MS. NEMEC: I have to change it. Really, it 13 is mis -- the step and grade for all administrative 14 assistants is a 19, and she's the only one at a 17. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess if the 16 Sheriff can jiggle some of his money around from one pocket 17 to the other. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems to me that we're 19 finished, and I see Kathy's still typing. That's the reason 20 I asked that question a minute ago. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: She's waiting on the presiding 22 officer to declare us finished. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I was maybe trying -- 24 trying to prod the presiding officer along a little bit. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Have we got any more budget 8-20-03 wk 224 1 discussions that we need to do in workshop? If not, I'll 2 declare us adjourned. 3 (Commissioners Court workshop adjourned at 3:44 p.m.) 4 - - - - - - - - - - 5 6 7 STATE OF TEXAS | 8 COUNTY OF KERR | 9 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 10 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 11 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 12 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 13 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 5th day of March, 2004. 14 15 16 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 17 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 18 Certified Shorthand Reporter 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8-20-03 wk