1 2 3 4 5 6 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 7 Budget Workshop 8 Tuesday, August 26, 2003 9 10:30 a.m. 10 Commissioners' Courtroom 11 Kerr County Courthouse 12 Kerrville, Texas 13 14 15 16 17 2003/2004 BUDGET WORKSHOP 18 Unresolved Remaining Budget Issues 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 On Tuesday, August 31, 2003, at 10:30 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: I'll call the -- I'll call the 8 meeting to order. This is a workshop scheduled for this 9 date. It's now 11 o'clock. We were supposed to begin the 10 meeting at 10:30. I apologize to the members of the Court 11 and to those present here for the delay. We were hearing 12 cases at Kerrville State Hospital, and they took longer than 13 anticipated, so we got here as quickly as we could. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Making money for the 15 county, weren't you? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: As a matter of fact, I believe 17 that's a correct statement, Commissioner Baldwin. Somebody 18 tell me exactly where we were in this rodeo before -- before 19 we got to this point. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a suggestion how 21 to start, if you want to listen to it, Judge. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Might just as well start with 23 that, if nobody's got anything they want to jump in with. 24 What is your suggestion, Commissioner Letz? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I found several 8-26-03 wk 3 1 differences between what you gave Tommy -- what Tommy put in 2 versus what I had written down. And they're, I think -- I 3 have three of them, and if we just go through those to clean 4 this up, then we can get into the more -- bigger picture 5 topic. That would be my recommendation. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. There's -- there are 7 some items that -- that are contained in the new print 8 that -- that the Auditor prepared after he and I met that 9 don't meet with your recollection of -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: -- where we were? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: First one's on Page 44. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under Parks. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 44? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 44, Parks, Operating 17 Equipment. I show that we changed that to $1,200 instead of 18 $2,000. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I thought that change was 21 made. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It says $2,000. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Well, that change 24 should have been made. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8-26-03 wk 4 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you recall our discussion 2 of that, Mr. Auditor? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: I remember. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: That was the one where 5 apparently you picked it up from another line, and -- and -- 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Actually -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: -- the maintenance man brought 8 to it my attention that I -- I'd given him more than he 9 asked for. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, that was in -- that was 11 in one of his budgets. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that was in the 13 maintenance -- Parks Maintenance budget. That's where we 14 are. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Parks Maintenance, Page 16 44. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. I was under -- looking 18 under Parks, Parks funds. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Parks Maintenance, I'm 20 sorry. The other one. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: That was easy. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was easy. The other 23 one is under Road and Bridge. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 75, Fund 557. I 8-26-03 wk 5 1 showed we'd increased the right-of-way surveying to $10,000. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I have. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 557. Probably just -- I 4 mean -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I apologize. Let me go get 6 my -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 507? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 557. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 557. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You showed what? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $10,000. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I showed. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You did. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're probably just -- 15 I mean, just inputting, missing -- you know, no big deal. 16 Just easy to clean up right now. Those are the only two 17 errors that I saw. There are some others that I think we 18 need to relook at, but those are the only two that I saw 19 that I had a change noted that I did not see that change 20 reflected, just those two. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have any that 22 they wish to note in that regard? 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In the jail budget, 24 uniforms are miscoded. They should be 316, and they're 25 coded 315. It's books and fees. 8-26-03 wk 6 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What page? 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I forgot. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to raise a 4 possible change. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: That's on Jail; it's on 42. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 42. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me, let's get this one 8 resolved. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 42? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jail Uniforms should be 11 316? 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mm-hmm. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do you figure that? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Adding up the cost 15 of books and fees. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say it again, 17 Commissioner. What's it supposed to be? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Jail Uniforms are 19 miscoded. They're coded 315, which is books and fees, and 20 they should be coded 316. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought I was being 23 detailed. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: What now? 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just -- 8-26-03 wk 7 1 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm still not following this. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Page 42, County Jail. The 3 line Item Number shows 315, Jail Uniforms. Commissioner 4 Nicholson believes that should actually be 316, because 315 5 is apparently a Books, Dues, and Subscription line item. Is 6 that correct? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We don't have a Books, 8 Dues, and Subscriptions line item. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what he's saying. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, my printout shows 11 that 315 is Jail Uniforms. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: That's an issue in all the 13 departments, so it's difficult for me to make that change 14 because of -- of prior -- of changing the history. It's 15 always been -- 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm okay with it if 17 you are. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm fine with it. I had to 19 move the history of the account to another one. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So it's okay the way 21 it is? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In due course, I'd 25 like to talk about this page that's got the -- the minimum 8-26-03 wk 8 1 salary -- cost to set the minimum salary and the money for 2 the jailers, in due course. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's first be sure if we've 4 got any other items similar to what we've been talking about 5 on the latest run of 24 August. That's noted in the upper 6 right-hand corner of the run. Do you have any -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sir, I do not. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 2? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to make a 10 suggestion; that under the 216th, Line 417, we plugged in 11 $150,000 for the special trial. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What page? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's on Page 17. 14 I'd like for the Court to consider, instead of putting it in 15 there under the 216th, that we put it in Nondepartmental 16 Contingency, and move it over as needed, if needed. And 17 that leaves it in Nondepartmental Contingency, and if there 18 are other things that arise, that's a possibility there as 19 well. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather leave it where 21 it is. I mean, I think -- you know, 'cause I think if we -- 22 that's more -- I mean, it's being budgeted for that trial. 23 If, for some reason, the trial doesn't happen, I mean, we 24 could -- it's available funds if we were to use it, or we 25 could let it go back into Reserves. My gut feeling -- and I 8-26-03 wk 9 1 shouldn't say that. After talking to the District Attorney 2 in the 216th, I'm pretty certain we're having a trial. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, probably. 4 MS. UECKER: At least one. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: At least one. I mean -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: We will have a competency 7 hearing at a minimum, is the indication I'm getting. 8 Whether it goes beyond that, of course, is going to depend 9 upon the resolution of that case. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's pretty confident 11 it's going to a trial after the competency hearing. How 12 that trial turns out is -- a lot of questions start coming 13 in, all that stuff. But -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have any 15 particular thoughts on that subject? Commissioner Baldwin? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm fine. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have any more that 22 you'd like to address? Anything that we've talked about? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Similar. A little bit 24 different, 'cause these aren't -- this is something that 25 came up out of yesterday's meeting, really. On Page 53, 8-26-03 wk 10 1 Juvenile Probation, and I'm looking at Line 402, Attorney Ad 2 Litem, and Line 482, Alternate Housing. Based on the budget 3 amendments of yesterday, I'm concerned that we don't have 4 enough budgeted for those two items, and that's something 5 that I probably rely more on -- on your knowledge, 'cause 6 it's more related to the juvenile cases. But -- 'cause 7 we're over already. Well, we're over for this year. Are we 8 going to -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I think your observation is 10 well-taken. Commissioner Nicholson raised this issue. Is 11 this just an aberration for this particular year, or can we 12 look forward to a trend here? Frankly, I don't know, except 13 to say that, from my perspective, I believe the number of -- 14 of juvenile cases is increasing, number one. And number 15 two, the -- the degree of involvement in any particular 16 juvenile case, or in more of the juvenile cases, seems to be 17 more extensive, which means the more extensively you get 18 involved, that means you have more detention hearings, which 19 means you have more detention orders. And as you get more 20 involved, you're looking at alternative placements, which 21 creates expense for outside placement for juveniles. So, I 22 guess my bottom-line answer would be, probably. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think if we 24 look at the estimated actual for this year, we probably have 25 a pretty good guide. What I would recommend, anyway, based 8-26-03 wk 11 1 on what I -- you know, we've heard, is just to take Line 2 402, Attorney Ad Litem Fees, to $35,000, and Line 482, 3 Alternate Housing, you know, $130,000, something like that. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We just transferred 5 65,000 yesterday, right? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's for last -- I 7 mean, the estimated actual is 195 there. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hope we're not quite that 10 high, but maybe 150,000. I mean -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 150 at least. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 150,000? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, I think 14 it's just a wild guess. I could see how you're going to be 15 possibly hiring more attorneys. You know, I see a trend of 16 that. But the alternate housing thing, I mean, you just 17 don't know. You don't know what of kind of kid you're 18 getting. You know you're going to have more, but you don't 19 know what kind of kid. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I guess it's better to 22 be safe up front than come in at the end of the year and 23 bust the budget. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't want to 25 be -- you know, belittle your point. I think your point's 8-26-03 wk 12 1 well-taken. You don't want to overbudget either, because 2 that has negative consequences to the taxpayers and to every 3 other line, you know. I think somewhere, within 100 to -- 4 100,000 to 150,000, based on this year's -- I don't -- I 5 mean, I don't -- it is a guess. I don't know. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we just do 7 100? Which is -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm with 100. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 100,000? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A hundred here and a 11 hundred there, first thing you know, you come up with real 12 money. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did you do with 15 the lawyers? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 35,000. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: You got any more, Commissioner 18 Letz? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see more tabs. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is more of a -- not 22 really budget; just a matter of consolidating one account. 23 We can deal with that later, I think. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the last one I 8-26-03 wk 13 1 have goes to that 4,000 -- the $4,000 under County Court, 2 the judicial supplement. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Page 11. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 11. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And more just to -- we've 7 talked about it a lot, but I'm not sure I've heard a 8 definite answer as to what you'd recommend. I guess what 9 you're recommending is to leave it at $4,000, but I just was 10 unclear of that point. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you talking to me? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. Or anyone else on 13 the Court. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have some thoughts 15 here a little bit different from, I guess, everybody at the 16 table, probably. What I'd like to see happen is pull that 17 $4,000 out of that particular budget and put it back 18 wherever it was before now. Not delete the fees, but just 19 let it -- I mean, I -- I don't know where it was, but I know 20 it was -- when the fee's collected, they're going into the 21 General Fund, and I think that's the best place for it right 22 there. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Only possible issue 24 I can think of that would complicate that, Commissioner, if 25 the law reads that these fees are collected for this purpose 8-26-03 wk 14 1 and then we put it to use for another purpose, maybe 2 we're -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I asked that 4 question the other day and didn't get an answer, so -- 5 MS. PIEPER: Buster, I don't think you can 6 use it for anything else. Am I correct? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have a new lawyer. 8 County Attorney did not say anything anywhere near what 9 you're saying. He didn't know. That's what I'm saying. 10 Been running pretty good with it for -- since 1999, and no 11 one's ever said anything. And I asked that specific 12 question of the County Attorney, and he didn't have an 13 answer. So, I just think that's the best place for it. You 14 know, there's a -- I want to get around so I can look at the 15 Judge. There's -- I know that in your opening statements, 16 you talked about business versus politics, but in my mind, 17 they're -- you know, you can't separate those two all the 18 time, and I think that there is a political arena involved 19 in this, and -- and it's not -- not any one member of this 20 Court, but all members of the Court. Anytime we do 21 something as a body, if we do something that is maybe not -- 22 that doesn't look right to the taxpaying public, then we're 23 all -- we're all in that -- it's not one single person that 24 the rocks are thrown at; it's all of us. Just my view. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm still confused on 8-26-03 wk 15 1 where those dollars -- what are those dollars? Are those 2 the dollars that are generated from fees paid by other 3 counties for the out-of-county hearings that the County 4 Judge does? Or are those other fees? I'm not -- I'm not 5 clear in my head where those dollars come from. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I'll try and answer that, 7 Commissioner. Every county that files a mental health case, 8 each of the counties that file mental health cases or that 9 cause them to be filed that we hear at the Kerrville State 10 Hospital are responsible for paying the costs incurred in 11 that case. And one of the fees that is charged, 12 specifically adopted by the Court in '99, was that judge's 13 salary supplement fee. There's another provision of the -- 14 of the Mental Health Code that says that if there is such a 15 fee imposed by the Commissioners Court, that particular fee, 16 if it is imposed by Commissioners Court, then the Judge who 17 hears those cases is entitled to receive that fee. The 18 source of these fees coming from those cases, the percentage 19 of cases heard from out-of-county are approximately 20 80 percent. The percentage of cases heard that are Kerr 21 County cases, for which Kerr County's responsible for the 22 cost, is approximately 20 percent. So, simple answer to 23 your question is that 80 percent, or 80 cents on every 24 dollar received of that particular kind of fee comes from 25 other counties. 8-26-03 wk 16 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I want to bring 2 up another point in that, too. You kind of brush over it 3 lightly, but I think it is a very, very important part of 4 all of that, is the definition of "entitlement." I think 5 that is important to this conversation, and what that fee 6 does and where it goes. Entitlement. What it -- to me, 7 that is like the word, "shall." A legal word that says you 8 do this. Am I wrong? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think the people in 10 the federal government structured -- when you go to talking 11 about entitlements in the military or -- or similar programs 12 for the payment of benefits or compensation, we would 13 probably tell you that's an absolute. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolute, mm-hmm. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: But the word "entitled" is 16 used in that particular -- particular statutory section 17 where it addresses that. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In other words -- in 19 other words, if the Court says that we shall collect that 20 fee, then it definitely goes to the County Court's -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the way I interpret it. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- budget? Yeah. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the way I interpret it. 24 I'll be happy to give you the specific information on the 25 record so that when it -- when it's reviewed by whomever 8-26-03 wk 17 1 wants to review it, why, they can have the benefit of that. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, in other words, 3 the word "entitle" doesn't mean there's an option. That 4 you -- you, as the judge, are the person that hears those 5 hearings, has the option of accepting it or not accepting 6 it. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if you -- if 8 you throw that analogy to Social Security or Medicare, as an 9 example, it's always referred to as an entitlement to people 10 in the United States. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But you never pick up 12 the phone and tell them, "I don't want any of that." 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the point I 14 was going -- that's exactly the point I was going to make. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It may be a moot 16 point. Correct me if I'm wrong; this Court has the -- the 17 power to set the Judge's compensation. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if -- if that 20 $4,000 must go into that Judge's compensation line item, and 21 we feel -- this Court feels like that's too much money, we 22 have the power to cut the basic compensation by a like 23 amount. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, absolutely. 25 Absolutely. 8-26-03 wk 18 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. I just -- 3 and I'll go along with that if that's -- if the majority of 4 the Court wants to do that. I'm just -- I'm just telling 5 you how I think about it. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm agreeing with 7 you. The -- the County Attorney had an opportunity to 8 object to our past practice, and he didn't do that, so I'm 9 assuming, like you are, that it's okay to continue our past 10 practice. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It just seems to me 12 that this thing of taking some of the -- today's salary off 13 and adding the fee -- you know, to me, that's -- that's way 14 too much stuff to do. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sounds like a shell 16 game, doesn't it? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, it is a shell 18 game. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it is. Just -- 20 you know. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think -- I think the 22 more important issue here is, is that an obligation that's 23 been created? And, if so, are you honoring that obligation? 24 You know, what you do from a standpoint of what's believed 25 to be just compensation, what's believed to be -- be a 8-26-03 wk 19 1 political solution, that's a whole 'nother issue. From day 2 one, as I've told you, the reason I put it in there is 3 because this Court, in 1999, in Commissioners Court Order 4 Number 26048, adopted that fee, and the Mental Health Code 5 provides, in Section 574.031, that a judge who holds 6 hearings at locations other than the county courthouse also 7 may receive a reasonable salary supplement in an amount set 8 by the Commissioners Court. The Commissioners Court has 9 elected to set that amount. The operative statute, however, 10 comes into play in the Mental Health Code provision, 11 571.018, in which it says a judge who holds hearings at 12 locations other than the county courthouse is entitled to 13 additional compensation, as provided by Sections 574.031(h) 14 and (i), (i) being the one that's being referred to. So, 15 that -- that's how I reach the conclusion that I reach. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One more question, 17 Judge. Is it your understanding that the state supplement, 18 105, in the County Judge's budget of $10,000 does not 19 include the special -- the special supplements for 20 conducting those hearings? Is it your understanding that 21 those hearings were not covered by the $10,000? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't believe it is. They 23 come -- they show up from different -- different sources, 24 different ways. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think, going 8-26-03 wk 20 1 back -- I mean, I've tried to follow; you're going back and 2 forth reading the law, which is, you know, fine. I mean, 3 I'm going back to what I think -- you know, I don't have an 4 exact recollection of what we did in '99, but the idea was 5 there was a fee available that we could get money into the 6 County budget, into our fund, and we never budgeted those 7 funds to go anywhere. So, it seems to me -- and, I mean, we 8 obviously did that intentionally. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we -- didn't we 10 put some in the J.P.'s? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not out of that fund. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, we did. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Different fund. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: No, the J.P.'s get paid out 15 of the tax dollars. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The extra money that 17 they get for hearings? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Now, I think that 19 -- you know, I think that the idea was -- and I don't know; 20 maybe the research wasn't done all the way. The thought was 21 that the $4,000 would go into the General Fund, and the six 22 -- the money would come out of the General Fund to the 23 J.P.'s. That may have been, you know, part of the mind-set, 24 but -- I don't know, but the proper thought process was to 25 try to get additional revenue from other counties into our 8-26-03 wk 21 1 general stream of revenue. And it was not, you know, 2 directly disbursed, and probably, maybe, incorrectly. Maybe 3 enough research wasn't done, but -- I don't know, but the 4 intent was to increase revenue, not to give the County Judge 5 a salary increase. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I don't think 7 we heard that part in 1999. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it could that be it 9 wasn't researched thoroughly enough. So -- you know, but 10 that's just kind of what my recollection is of what happened 11 back then, and this was just a way to increase revenues. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: With respect to Commissioner 13 Williams' comment about the funds going in to -- to 14 supplement the salaries of the J.P.'s who are holding the 15 probable cause hearings, I don't know whether you gentlemen 16 have noted or not, but in that same budget of that 17 particular item, that has been $6,000 for some significant 18 period of time. You'll now note it reads $14,000. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I noted that. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that is -- that is there 21 for that reason because, using the same rationale of using 22 someone else's money, or at least 80 cents on the dollar, 23 rather than Kerr County spend $6,000, as it's now doing from 24 Kerr County funds, by following a proper procedure and 25 documenting things properly, we can expend that amount plus 8-26-03 wk 22 1 the $4,000 at a net cost to Kerr County of $3,600. Now, if 2 you want to reduce the net cost to Kerr County, certainly, 3 you're free to do that. That's a decision -- you know, if 4 you want to make it an offset, that's fine and dandy. My 5 whole point in adding the $14,000 at this juncture -- number 6 one, I added the $4,000 initially because I saw it as an 7 existing obligation. I've added the 14 now because the 8 light of day has become -- become shown on all of this, and 9 I see a method whereby we can use additional funds from 10 other counties to support that line item. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that a -- is that a -- 12 refresh my memory -- a per-case or a flat supplement to the 13 J.P.'s? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the $6,000 has been 15 utilized as a compensation fund. It is not dependent upon 16 the per-case basis. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's -- the three of 18 them each get $2,000 -- or this year, $2,000 supplement for 19 the three J.P.'s? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the way it has been 21 operating, correct. 22 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Excuse me, I have a question 23 for the Court. Does the Court have any idea what the total 24 revenues are from these other counties that come into our 25 general budget -- our General Fund? 8-26-03 wk 23 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. About 80 percent of 2 these -- of these amounts. 3 JUDGE ELLIOTT: 80 percent? I mean of the 4 revenue coming in, not the going out. Do we have an idea -- 5 does the Commissioners Court know what moneys from other 6 counties came into Kerr County General Revenue Fund? And 7 then -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Insofar as a dollar 9 amount? I don't know that figure. 10 JUDGE ELLIOTT: If you know what that number 11 is -- if you know what that number is, and then you know 12 what you're using for J.P. supplements and the County Judge 13 supplement, then you kind of have an idea of where your wash 14 is. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, we just went over 16 that. It's about 3,000 -- $3,800. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: 36. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $3,600. Out of the 19 18,000 total in those two items, about 3,600 of that is Kerr 20 County money. The rest -- so, 14,400, about, is 21 out-of-county money. I mean, you know, whatever -- that's 22 estimates. I mean, you're maybe $1,000 off, but that's 23 pretty close. So, I mean, it's -- clearly, it's to the 24 County's benefit to maximize the revenues that are coming in 25 and to pay it out. Now, what do you -- how it gets paid out 8-26-03 wk 24 1 if it sits in the General Fund's the only issue. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, as I said, my -- my 3 initial -- my initial objective was to satisfy existing 4 obligations with respect to any compensation, whether it be 5 longevity, educational, or whatever. This, I think, fell in 6 that category. Now that -- now that we've reviewed some of 7 these other things, I think we can use some of these same 8 types of funds to compensate the J.P.'s who are holding -- 9 holding those hearings, and use somebody else's money for 10 that, too, instead of our own. That's why I changed it. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The 14,000 of the J.P. -- 12 that group, likewise, I think -- I mean, if we can legally 13 let it go in the General Fund, to me, that's a lot simpler. 14 But if we can't, if it has to be -- if it's kind of like 15 earmarked for those specific, you know, funds, then I would 16 propose reducing their salaries by a like amount, and -- 17 same as I recommend reducing your salary a like amount. But 18 in both instances, those are the two options, to me; leave 19 it the way it is, put the money in the General Fund, leave 20 the supplements, you know, as it was, or pay it out to the 21 J.P.'s and the County Judge, and reduce salaries by a like 22 amount. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: The 14,000 that I've got 24 there, by utilizing other people's money, my analysis is 25 that we've got to pay that money to those persons holding 8-26-03 wk 25 1 those hearings. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: So that's the only way we can 4 get it in to pay it out that way. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: So, if you want to get the 7 benefit of 80 cents on every dollar in your obligation, 8 that's how we've got to do it. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then I'd budget $4,500, 10 reducing -- well, they're already getting 2,000. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: 35. 12 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Excuse me. All the J.P.'s 13 don't perform those hearings. I don't perform hospital 14 hearings. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 16 JUDGE ELLIOTT: So -- and I don't -- I'm 17 certainly not in support of J.P. 1's salary being cut four 18 or 6,000 bucks. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You don't get a 20 salary supplement. I'm talking about those that do get it. 21 I think, reduce their salaries by the amount of that 22 supplement -- well, I mean, above, 'cause right now they're 23 currently getting 2,000 above. I think you net it out. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, should -- should only 25 those J.P.'s who've elected to participate heretofore and do 8-26-03 wk 26 1 the extra work, should they be the only ones to -- to bear 2 that burden? Or should that be spread? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's only those. 4 They're getting paid more now than the other -- than the -- 5 J.P. 1's the only one that doesn't. They're getting paid 6 $2,000 a year more than J.P. 1, and now they're going to get 7 paid about $4,500 more. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't it think it 9 shows up in their salary line item right now, does it? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm-mm, no. 11 JUDGE ELLIOTT: It's not required. It's not 12 part of this judicial requirement code. As -- as everyone's 13 already stated, the J.P.'s salary and the supplement comes 14 out of the General Fund. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I guess -- I guess the 16 question is, is it equitable? Suppose there's only two 17 J.P.'s that have been doing it. Should we just cut -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Suppose there's just two. 20 Should we just cut two J.P.'s salary? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pretend. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, pretend. I'm 23 sorry. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: What's equitable, is my point. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if one does it, 8-26-03 wk 27 1 you give them the whole amount. I mean, if we're going to 2 charge a supplement and it's got to be paid back to them, 3 you give to it who's doing it. I mean, I don't see any 4 reason to give a supplement to someone who's not doing the 5 work. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: If you're going to add on top, 7 I would agree with that. If you're going to use an offset, 8 then I think you got to look at equitable distribution. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we start looking 10 at every -- every job, whether it's more than one person 11 that performs that job, and trying to say, well, one does 12 more than another, we get -- we'll make this thing so 13 complex that we'll never get to the bottom of it. Same 14 thing would apply to the constables. Some of them do 15 certain things; others don't do those things. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, if you're going to add 18 on top, -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's true. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: -- whoever performs it is 21 compensated. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think the simpler 23 way is to specifically ask the County Attorney if we have to 24 disburse these funds, and if we don't have disbursements -- 25 MS. PIEPER: He just went out there to 8-26-03 wk 28 1 look -- he's looking up that judicial supplement. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But -- but, you know, 3 there's another option, which I will -- I will not 4 participate in, and that's rescinding the order of 5 collecting the fees. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that would be -- from 7 a business standpoint, that would be absolutely insane. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. But there -- 9 but there is that other option. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: That's an option, certainly. 11 That would resolve the issue, wouldn't it? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It sure would. I'm 13 not in favor of that. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, not in favor of that. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Net effect would be that you'd 16 just be taking more out of Kerr County's pockets when you 17 can get it elsewhere. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not going there. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it would seem to 20 me that -- going back to what Commissioner Baldwin's 21 original thought was, is let the money stay in the General 22 Fund, 'cause we haven't set up a separate fund to keep track 23 of this money. Every other -- like, Law Library and 24 everything else, we have a separate fund; it gets paid out 25 of that fund. You can't use it for anything else. This 8-26-03 wk 29 1 isn't set up that way, so I don't know why we can't just not 2 -- not pay it. Not pay it out. Collect it and not pay it 3 out. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who's going to do the 5 hearings if you don't compensate them for it? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you may -- you 7 compensate the J.P.'s the $6,000 that's been there all 8 along. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Don't -- it depends on which 10 hearings you're talking about. Are you talking about the 11 probable cause hearings? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probable cause hearings. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The J.P. salaries 14 that are currently in this printout are those that are 15 established by the Court; is that correct? And when they do 16 those supplemental hearings -- those hearings, that comes 17 out of these extra funds and is paid to them. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How's it happen? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: The fee that's being paid to 21 the J.P.'s started before we ever collected this fee. We 22 started -- we started paying the J.P.'s a supplement for the 23 probable cause hearings back in '95 -- '94, '95. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, can I stop you? 25 You started down the road of history here, so would you 8-26-03 wk 30 1 stand up so we can all -- I can't hear any better than Bill 2 can. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, in '94-'95 -- I think 4 that's the year -- Betty Burney was the J.P. in Precinct 2; 5 used to live in Center Point. Jack Burch was the J.P. in 6 Precinct 4, who lived in Mountain Home. Well, the J.P.'s 7 asked for a $900-per-year supplement to offset the cost -- 8 their cost of -- of coming to Kerrville for those hearings, 9 because the hearings apparently are not the ordinary duty of 10 a Justice of the Peace. So -- so, because of the cost 11 involved and their transportation to the hospital, the Court 12 agreed to supplement them for $900 a year. It started at 13 $3,600. It started there in '94-'95, and was not changed 14 until 2001-2002, is when it changed from $3,600 a year to 15 $6,000 a year. That's my rationale that -- that it never 16 has been fee-related, because we weren't even -- we weren't 17 charging the fee when we started. So, it's always -- I 18 contend that the $6,000 has nothing to do with the fee. 19 It's all tax dollars. 20 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Tommy, isn't it added in 21 there, two different fees that they're talking about here? 22 One is this fee from the other counties that's been on the 23 books all along, and then in '99 came this other $10 fee, 24 which is totally separate. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, but the supplement has 8-26-03 wk 31 1 nothing to do with -- with the collection of the fee. I 2 just know that that's when it got started. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Tommy. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we can work off 5 principle, and that principle was we're going to pay all the 6 J.P.'s the same and we're not going to pay them any more, 7 then the disposable -- or the revenue that comes from these 8 fees is a matter to be resolved by the County Attorney 9 and -- and the Comptroller. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand what 11 you're saying, and that really makes pretty good sense, 12 except that in this case, based on what Tommy just said, you 13 have four J.P.'s. Three of them do these hearings, 14 regardless of how the compensation got in there, and one of 15 them does not. So, the playing field is not quite level. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think the -- the 17 -- with the J.P.'s, the hearings are not part of their job 18 description, so it's a supplement. They're doing something 19 beyond being the J.P., and they need -- and those that 20 participate in that should get the -- the funding. And I 21 don't see why we need to change it from the $2,000 a year 22 we've been paying them. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or $6,000 total. They 25 can divvy it up. If J.P. 1 wants to start doing these 8-26-03 wk 32 1 hearings, they can divide it up $1,500 apiece. I don't care 2 how they divide it up. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Where is that $2,000 4 in the budget? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's Page 11, 104. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, Mental Health. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It says 14 now. It 8 should be -- I think it should go back to 6. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But are you telling 10 me that, in addition to the $32,055 that J.P.'s are getting 11 now, some of them are getting more? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three of them. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They're getting part 14 of this $6,000? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, getting $2,000 16 each. And the reason -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Getting all of that $6,000. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why they get all of that 19 $6,000, the reason is -- it's like Linda. Linda also serves 20 as the Law Librarian. Has nothing to do with her being a 21 County -- I mean a District Clerk. She gets 1,200 a year 22 for being Law Librarian. 23 MS. UECKER: 2,100. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cut it back to 15. 25 (Laughter.) 8-26-03 wk 33 1 MS. UECKER: Good. I resign, then. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- you know, I don't 3 have a problem with paying somebody who's, you know, a 4 County employee for agreeing to do a different -- has 5 nothing to do with their elected position -- a fee. Don't 6 look over here, Rusty. I know you have something up your 7 sleeve. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: There's only one problem 9 with -- I mean, the way I see it, if you collect the fee and 10 you don't pay it, then the -- then the fee gets collected 11 and the balance just continues to grow and grow and grow, 12 and it's there for perpetuity, and it never gets spent, 13 because if the law says that you can't spend it for any 14 other purpose, then -- then if you don't use it for that 15 purpose, then it just has to sit there. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Personally, I think if 17 the contract -- contracts say that that fee goes to the 18 Judge for doing those hearings, then the fee ought to go for 19 the Judge, and this four-day-long conversation ought to end. 20 MS. PIEPER: Well, that's what this says, 21 that the judge who holds hearings at locations other than 22 the county courthouse -- 23 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Is that for the $10 fee? 24 That's the $10 fee. The new one? 25 MS. PIEPER: Yeah. 8-26-03 wk 34 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one little 2 problem, however, with -- Tommy gave us the history, and I 3 appreciate that. But if that holds up, then what I'm 4 looking at for J.P.'s is the standard salary in the current 5 budget, $32,055, and they're all identical. Now, since, 6 given what you said, one J.P. has opted not to do 7 hearings -- 8 MR. TOMLINSON: That comes out of the County 9 Court budget. That's the supplement. The amount that I'm 10 talking about is not in their budget; it's in the County 11 Court's budget. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're telling me 13 that Bill Ragsdale gets a second check, a separate check 14 from his -- 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, he gets one check. 16 It's on the system rolls that -- yes, but he -- he gets -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's getting $34,000 a 18 year instead of 32,3. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be the 20 same for mine, too. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's interesting. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, it's beginning 23 to clear up somewhat. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Got an $18 million 25 budget; we're spending more time on this $4,000 issue than 8-26-03 wk 35 1 anything else. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Did you reach any conclusion 3 on whether or not those funds can be utilized for anything 4 else, Mr. Motley? 5 MR. MOTLEY: Well, all I can say is that it 6 just -- the plain reading of the current version of the 7 statute -- it doesn't really speak about a $10-per-case 8 amount of money. It just says the judge who holds hearings 9 at locations other than county courthouse also may receive a 10 reasonable salary supplement in an amount set by the 11 Commissioners Court. And the way that was done originally 12 was, $10 per case was deemed to be a reasonable amount, 13 estimated number of cases, and that was the salary 14 supplement. And as far as whether it can be used elsewhere, 15 there's no case on it -- there's no A.G. opinion on it. All 16 you would be able to do then is go to the construction act, 17 and, you know, it's -- the first rule of it is just to read 18 it. The plain reading of it, if it's capable of 19 understanding, then it just -- it is what it says. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: What does the plain reading 21 say to you, Mr. Motley? 22 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I mean, it says the judge 23 may receive a supplement in an amount set by the 24 Commissioners Court. 25 MS. NEMEC: May? 8-26-03 wk 36 1 MR. MOTLEY: Moneys collected for that, it 2 seems to me, should be spent for that. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: What about 571.018, I believe 4 it is? 5 MR. MOTLEY: 018? I didn't print that off. 6 I don't -- let me see. I do have it with me. This is last 7 year's version. It -- it is pretty long, but it -- the cost 8 per hearing shall be paid by the county that initiates 9 emergency detention. The county responsible for costs of a 10 hearing or proceeding under section -- Subsection (a) shall 11 pay the cost of all subsequent hearings or proceedings for 12 that person under this subtitle until the person is 13 discharged from mental health services. Costs shall be 14 billed by the clerk of the court conducting the hearing. 15 Costs under this section include attorney's fees, physical 16 exam fees, compensation for the court-appointed personnel 17 listed under another section. That includes attorneys 18 physicians, language interpreters, sign interpreters, and 19 masters. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: What about Subsection (d), 21 Mr. Motley? 22 MR. MOTLEY: (g)? A judge who holds hearings 23 at locations other than the county courthouse is entitled to 24 additional compensation as provided by Section 574.031(h) 25 and (i). (i) is the one we're talking about. (h) is 8-26-03 wk 37 1 reasonable and necessary expenses, which I understand has 2 never been billed or collected. The reason that was not put 3 in the contract -- I spoke to General Counsel at -- at the 4 Mental Health in Austin, and he said that's really intended 5 for places where the hospital is -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: What wasn't put in the 7 contract? 8 MR. MOTLEY: The reasonable and necessary 9 expenses. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: That's not an issue here. 11 MR. MOTLEY: No. You asked -- it says -- let 12 me check under (h). Under (i) -- under (i) and (j), I 13 guess. So, (i) is the $10; (j) is the $50. That goes as 14 general county -- goes into the general pot, the $50. And 15 if anybody wants -- it says the judge who holds a hearing 16 under this section may assess for the judge's services a fee 17 in an amount not to exceed $50 as a court cost against the 18 county responsible for the payment of the costs. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that in issue, Mr. Motley? 20 MR. MOTLEY: No, but that's what it read 21 right here. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Did you understand my 23 question, Mr. Motley? 24 MR. MOTLEY: I think so. Costs and salary 25 supplements authorized under Sections 574.031(i) and (j). 8-26-03 wk 38 1 And (i) is the section in question, and it says that those 2 -- those costs -- you know, the county shall -- the court -- 3 the costs under this section include costs and salary 4 supplements authorized under this section. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: What does the plain reading of 6 those particular statutory provisions say to you, 7 Mr. Motley? Since we're relegated to statutory 8 construction. 9 MR. MOTLEY: It says they shall pay the 10 costs. They shall pay the costs, and one of the component 11 parts of the cost is salary supplements authorized. So, 12 those counties shall pay those costs -- those counties who 13 are responsible for emergency detention procedures, and 14 which all -- virtually all these people come under emergency 15 commitment. Then they have a probable cause hearing here 16 which our J.P.'s hold, and then they are committed under an 17 order of application -- or a motion for application -- an 18 application for commitment under the -- general commitment. 19 They're committed by the County Judge. So, all costs 20 associated with it, and one of those component parts says 21 and they shall pay the cost. So, these counties -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: You remember what the question 23 was? 24 MR. MOTLEY: You asked what was in 25 571.018(g). As I recall it, one of them was a judge who 8-26-03 wk 39 1 holds hearings at locations other than the county courthouse 2 is entitled to additional compensation, as provided by 3 Sections 574.031(h) and (i). 4 JUDGE TINLEY: The question, Mr. Motley, was 5 what does your plain reading of those statutory provisions 6 tell you is permissible to be done with the salary 7 supplement fee that's in 574.031, I believe it is, when you 8 read those two statutory provisions together? 9 MR. MOTLEY: Well, first step would be 10 assessing the fee and collecting the fee, which is provided 11 for in 571.018. General provisions relating to hearings 12 entitle a judge -- it says the judge may receive a 13 reasonable salary supplement in an amount set by the 14 Commissioners Court. My recollection is -- and I think it 15 may be faulty -- back in, I think, '99, that amount was set. 16 I thought it was set at 6,000 -- $6,000 based on 600 17 hearings. I believe that's my recollection, was $6,000. 18 That was what that was set for. So, the judge may receive 19 this fee. And, to me, if it says "may," he may or may not. 20 If he may not, then we have a situation where -- you know, 21 if the Commissioners Court should say he's not to receive 22 that fee, then you got a situation where we're collecting 23 the fee and screwing up Tommy's books, or else we don't 24 continue to collect the fee. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Once that fee is set, 8-26-03 wk 40 1 Mr. Motley, under 574.031(i), I believe it is, is there any 2 other statutory provision in the Mental Health Code that 3 mandates where that may be expended or where it must be 4 expended? 5 MR. MOTLEY: I'm not aware of anything other 6 than that. I'm not aware of anything other than that. I 7 can -- I believe it's ordered to be collected, and says it 8 may be paid. I don't see anyplace where it says pay it 9 anywhere else, under the plain reading. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: You don't see it under 11 571.018 -- 12 MR. MOTLEY: Oh. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: -- (g)? 14 MR. MOTLEY: Right, absolutely. Says a judge 15 who holds the hearings is entitled to additional 16 compensation. Yeah, you're right about that. I'm -- I'm 17 sorry; I didn't understand what you were saying. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I had hoped, when I 19 asked you what time it is, you wouldn't tell me how to build 20 a watch. All I needed was a simple answer of your 21 interpretation of those two statutory provisions, 22 Mr. Motley. 23 MR. MOTLEY: It says a judge is entitled to 24 the money. Says here that they -- he may receive a 25 supplement in an amount set by the Court. So, I think there 8-26-03 wk 41 1 is a -- there is a -- you know, they're somewhat 2 inconsistent on those two, but it does say here that he's 3 entitled to the money. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it doesn't say 5 that you can't spend it somewhere else, either. And it 6 doesn't have the word "shall." 7 MR. MOTLEY: Yeah. If you want to get into 8 the -- no, it says "shall" on this one, under (g). Well, it 9 says he is entitled to. He's entitled to. That's pretty 10 close to shall. Doesn't say, "may be entitled to," but when 11 you talk about it doesn't say he can't do it, you're talking 12 about undoing every -- virtually every bit of law in the 13 Black Statutes. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know. I know. 15 MR. MOTLEY: If you wanted to play that deal. 16 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Is there a difference between 17 "may" and "shall"? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't want to play 19 any games; I just want to know what we can do and what we 20 can't do. 21 MR. MOTLEY: I'm telling you right now, 22 there's no case on it. There is no A.G. opinion on it, so I 23 take the plain reading. And, I mean, your plain reading is 24 as good as my plain reading. Says here the judge who holds 25 the hearings is entitled to compensation. And the way the 8-26-03 wk 42 1 compensation is raised is by the county who sends the guy to 2 the State Hospital is responsible for those costs. One of 3 those costs is a salary supplement authorized under this 4 section, which then says that the Commissioners Court sets 5 that amount of reasonable compensation. To me, that's 6 pretty clear. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can set it at zero; 8 the money goes into the General Fund. Why can't we do that? 9 MR. MOTLEY: Well, again, if you set it at 10 zero -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what you're 12 collecting. 13 MR. MOTLEY: If you do that, then that money 14 can be spent for purposes other than -- you know, do I have 15 a section that says you can't spend it on anything else? 16 I'm -- I don't. It says this is what it's to be spent on. 17 This says he's entitled to the money. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my -- or the 19 thinking with this, most of the -- we have lots of fees in 20 this county. Some of them go into designated funds; some of 21 them don't. And the Judge is talking about another fee, I 22 guess, to get up to the 14,000 on the mental health on Line 23 104. To me, if we're going to, you know, collect the fee, I 24 don't -- the intent -- my intent is not to give raises 25 through these fees, especially when there's no additional -- 8-26-03 wk 43 1 nothing's being done differently this year than last year, 2 or the year before or the year before. 3 MR. MOTLEY: And I hear what you're saying. 4 But, again, they specifically use the word "supplement." 5 So, I -- if a supplement is to be given, it's for something 6 -- it's additional funds, the term "supplement." If you 7 delete -- or if you reduce somebody's salary and give them 8 the supplement, then that's not a supplement. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or the -- 10 MR. MOTLEY: It's an equalizer. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are the county judges 12 required to do mental health hearings? 13 MR. MOTLEY: Well, in our county, that's the 14 statutory authority, is probate judge. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, then, that's part 16 of his job description, to me. That's his job. 17 MR. MOTLEY: Then why -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not my job. 19 MR. MOTLEY: Then why have the thing in 20 there? Why even worry about a supplement if that's -- I 21 mean, why are they -- why are they entertaining the thought 22 of getting a salary supplement if that's the job? If they 23 know that's the judge's job? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, then, why couldn't 25 I lower it, or the Court? Why can't we lower the salary 8-26-03 wk 44 1 $4,000, and they can collect a supplement? 2 MR. MOTLEY: I'm not saying you can't. I'm 3 saying that I found no case law on it one way or the other, 4 anything dealing with this updated section. The only thing 5 I'm saying is, again, the term "supplement" is used, and I 6 think if you pick up a Webster's dictionary and not a 7 Black's dictionary, and you look at Webster's, I think 8 "supplement," you know, connotes something in addition to. 9 So, I -- I don't know. I don't know. I'm telling you 10 that's the way it looks to me. If you want my plain 11 reading, that's my plain reading of it. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have any 14 questions for Mr. Motley? 15 JUDGE ELLIOTT: I have a question for the 16 Court. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have any 18 questions for Mr. Motley? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 20 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Can I address the Court, Your 21 Honor? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Is it on this issue? 23 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Yes, sir, absolutely. 24 Especially since we all understood that there was this 25 $4,000 or $6,000 split among the J.P.'s as a supplement, 8-26-03 wk 45 1 which is $500 per month to go out to perform the probable 2 cause hearings. My understanding is that the -- how they 3 ended up going there was because one of the former County 4 Judges preferred not to go out there as much, so then they 5 -- he has the ability to pay magistrates to go out there. 6 That's how it started out at 3,600; then it ended up 500 7 bucks. For some reason now, after the recommended budgets 8 came out, all of a sudden this money has jumped to $14,000, 9 with the idea that, well, we could reduce salaries and use 10 that as -- or use that as a supplement. 11 Quite frankly, you know, I asked the other 12 J.P.'s, "Listen, it's a few hundred bucks a month to go out 13 there. If you want to make this extra money, that's fine. 14 I can use my resources better in a private business than I 15 can going out and doing that." They all liked that 16 opportunity to go out and make an extra $300 or $500 per 17 month, so they all volunteered -- wanted to do that. So, we 18 had an agreement among the four of us how that would be -- 19 how that would work. But to come in now and say, well, 20 that's really $14,000, not four, and we would back down on 21 the salary, would certainly not be an incentive any more. 22 You know, it would be a punishment for -- for the J.P. 1, 23 who does not go out there. And I just wanted to make sure 24 that the -- I wanted to address the Court to make sure that 25 this $14,000 that has now changed from 6,000 to 14 is not 8-26-03 wk 46 1 misconstrued, not misunderstood. That this shouldn't be 2 taken away from the salary, if the County Judge was 3 recommending that that money be put into a supplement for 4 J.P.'s and then reduce their salaries, because I don't go 5 out to the hearings, and so, therefore, there would be no 6 reason to reduce the actual salary of the J.P. down by 7 14,000, divided by four. So, I don't mind. I think it's a 8 great idea that we compensate the J.P.'s that go out and do 9 the work, but we're certainly not going to come in here and 10 all of a sudden punish the J.P. who's not. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you in favor of 12 compensating the judge for doing the work, too? 13 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Absolutely. That's why this 14 -- and I'm -- that's why I'm saying I think the J.P.'s who 15 go out there and perform probable cause hearings should get 16 the supplement that they're getting, just like the County 17 Judge gets a $9,000 supplement for going out there and doing 18 the other hearings already. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9,000? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What 9,000? 21 JUDGE ELLIOTT: The 9,000 supplement. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, they're both 23 fee-driven. What you're saying is that the J.P.'s that go 24 out there should get a little over 4,500 a year supplement; 25 the Judge should get a 4,000 supplement. Those are all 8-26-03 wk 47 1 fee-derived. 2 JUDGE ELLIOTT: No, what I'm saying is -- is 3 that the current system works where the County collects fees 4 that goes into revenue, and we pay our elected officials 5 salaries and supplements. It doesn't say you have to pay 6 all of it as a supplement, or what. It's part of the salary 7 goes in the general revenue fund. They're being compensated 8 for it. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's -- I'm not 10 sure what the definitive answer is on that point. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: You're not advocating that, if 12 given the opportunity to use funds from other counties to 13 discharge Kerr County's obligations, that we shouldn't use 14 those funds, are you? 15 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Well, no, of course not. We 16 should use funds from other counties, and we already are, 17 and we have been for four years. We have been since '99, 18 and so why change now? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that correct, 20 Mr. Tomlinson? Have we been using other counties' funds 21 since '99? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: From -- from the definition 23 of what "fee" is, no. I mean, we've used -- if those fees 24 are for a supplement for that purpose, then we -- then we 25 should -- we should have a fund balance of -- for those fees 8-26-03 wk 48 1 of $12,000. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: All cases heard since this 3 Commissioners Court order went into effect, times 10. 4 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 5 JUDGE ELLIOTT: What? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: But -- so my point a while 7 ago was -- is that -- that, because of what we'd done in the 8 past, I think we've set a precedent that -- that that line 9 item was specifically for a reimbursement of costs, and not 10 -- not a supplement. I think -- I think that was the intent 11 of the Court originally, was that it wasn't, quote, 12 supplement for that duty. It was a way to offset the costs 13 of performing that duty. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: But if we can recognize that 15 as an obligation generally, would it not be wiser to use 16 other counties' funds to discharge that obligation? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, sure. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 19 MS. NEMEC: Judge, may I address the Court? 20 I want to try to simplify this in the way that I'm looking 21 at it. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Please do. 23 MS. NEMEC: I believe that when the $9,479 24 was put in the budget, and the $3,600, whatever that amount 25 is now, was put in the budget for the J.P.'s, that was 8-26-03 wk 49 1 because we were not given the opportunity -- we were not 2 able to collect fees to pay these salaries to them for doing 3 something that they did not have to be doing under their job 4 description. Now, in '99, we're now able to collect those 5 fees, so I think it's just the Court's decision whether they 6 want to continue paying the salaries to these elected 7 officials that are going out there and, you know, also give 8 them the amount that is being collected in fees, or if, like 9 Jonathan said, they want to offset the salary, because now 10 they will able to collect fees and pay from those fees 11 collected. But, initially, when the $9,000 and the $36,000 12 (sic) were put into the budget, that was because we had no 13 other way of paying those elected officials for going out 14 there. Now we have a way of collecting fees to either pay a 15 supplement or to take away from what's already been paid. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll stand in recess till 17 1:30. 18 (Recess taken from 12:03 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 19 - - - - - - - - - - 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to 21 order, if we could. We went into recess at approximately 22 noon, to be reconvened at 1:30. It's a couple of minutes 23 after 1:30 now, so we will reconvene the budget workshop. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you want to talk about 25 salary supplements? 8-26-03 wk 50 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. Why not? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else you want to lay 3 on the table, Mr. Letz? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's got to be resolved 5 before we finalize the budget. I'm waiting for someone to 6 put together a recommendation at a future date. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think the County 8 Attorney -- we sat here through the entire lunch break, and 9 I think he just recently trotted off to find something, so I 10 think he's planning on coming back and -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if he does 12 something -- I mean, my final summary or statement is, you 13 know, I don't care if it's a supplement or what you want to 14 call it. If it increases the salaries, it's a salary 15 increase. I don't care if it comes out of a different line 16 item, different budget. If you're increasing the net 17 they're taking home, it's a salary increase, bottom line. 18 Okay, that's all I'm saying. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could you be a little 20 more clear and specific? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Whether it's fee-based, 22 other-based -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Still an increase. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: -- broad-based, narrow-based 25 or whatever. Commissioner Nicholson, you have some items 8-26-03 wk 51 1 you probably want to discuss. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I want to 3 look at this page that outlines the data that the County 4 Treasurer put together to show what the impact would be 5 given certain pay increases. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the one titled 7 -- this one right here? Minimum salary-type deal? 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, right. Starts 9 off with minimum salary. So -- and I want to check with 10 Barbara to make sure I'm understanding this. 11 MS. NEMEC: I believe Tommy put this one 12 together. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Tommy did it, okay. 14 Thank you, Tommy. 15 MS. NEMEC: But we work together. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you have it there 17 with you? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: I have it right here. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. So, I want to 20 check my understanding, and I want to make some changes to 21 it. To bring the people up to this minimum salary's going 22 to cost $59,140. That includes payroll taxes and all the 23 roll-up. Now, the next line is increase for deputies, and 24 the strategy here is to bring deputies up to parity with 25 police officers. And, instead of making that $4,000, we 8-26-03 wk 52 1 want to make that $3,000 for each sworn officer. The 2 rationale behind that is that that will bring them up to 3 within $1,700 of the police officers, and we're thinking 4 that $1,700 is about the value of taking a patrol car home. 5 We can quarrel about how much or how little that's worth, 6 but we believe giving them $3,000 would generally bring them 7 up to equity or parity with police officers. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, that would reduce 9 the 176 to what? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: 132,103.50. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, there's 43 of 12 them. I calculate that to be 129,000. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because I guess you have 14 the FICA and everything else built in. If you increase the 15 salary, that includes the -- 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's right. Okay. 17 And then -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it's 132-what, Judge? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: 103 or 104. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, yeah, that's 22 probably right; not everything goes up with salary. Not all 23 the payroll roll-up. Jailers and dispatchers, I want to 24 change that number to $4,000. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To 4,000? 8-26-03 wk 53 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. And, at the 2 same time, we currently have 43 jailers and dispatchers. 3 We'll cut the number to 39; cut it by four. And the 4 rationale there is that -- that, by having fewer people and 5 giving each one of them a slice -- a larger slice of the 6 pie, we'll be able -- we'll have a chance to eliminate all 7 this costly turnover. For example, now we're eight -- as of 8 today, we're short eight jailers. Maybe by paying a rate 9 that's more attractive, we -- we would gain four more 10 jailers, eliminate turnover. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: And you say we've got how many 12 now? 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 43 now. That's 14 jailers and dispatchers. We'd reduce that to 39. And this 15 is in the spirit of doing more with less. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the new number, 17 about? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I had 156,000, but 19 I'm not sure that includes roll-up. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: 43 to 39? I get 172,665. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: On the 23 County-operated O.S.S.F., that's like a number of other 24 things we've discussed. It's too late in the process to 25 consider doing anything much different than we're doing now. 8-26-03 wk 54 1 If we have any interest in that, I'd suggest that we start 2 early next year on that and some other topics. So, I would 3 drop that issue. Tommy, elimination of positions at entry 4 level, where's this data come from? The number -- number of 5 positions being eliminated? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: I think, during a previous 7 workshop, we talked -- we talked about numbers of positions 8 in each of those departments, and I -- that's what I used as 9 a recollection of what I remember. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, where we stand 11 right now, you can scratch Sheriff's deputies, that we're 12 not going to eliminate there. And under Jail, we can change 13 that from two to four. Now, I think I understand the County 14 Clerk has eliminated a position; is that right? 15 MS. PIEPER: That is correct. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. So, has the 17 Tax Collector eliminated two positions? No, we have -- Tax 18 Collector has not weighed in on that issue yet. 19 Maintenance, same thing. That's just a guideline. 20 Maintenance hasn't -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maintenance cut one. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Maintenance cut one. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. The bottom 24 line on all this is, if we were to swap productivity 25 increases for pay increases, we would need to have 8-26-03 wk 55 1 reductions of something on the order of six or seven more 2 employees. If we had six or seven more reductions, the 3 productivity increases would approximately offset the 4 recommended pay increases. I missed one other item; didn't 5 talk about the $25,000 merit increase pool, and that's okay. 6 I don't think I have anything else to say on that, so 7 that's -- that's where I'm at on these for the moment. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about the 26,500 9 for the Sheriff? 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's what it takes 11 to bring him up to parity with Chief of Police. I view his 12 job as -- the law enforcement component of his job is at 13 least on par with the Police Chief's, and then he's got the 14 complexity of having jail responsibility on top of that. 15 So, I -- I see -- actually see the Sheriff's job as a -- 16 scoring higher than the Chief of Police job. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, that's the easiest 18 one to tackle, because while I -- you may be right that it's 19 more responsibility, but if you look, you know, of the -- I 20 think any county sheriff versus any kind of comparable 21 police department, police department always get paid more. 22 I don't know why that is, but I believe -- I don't know -- 23 you know, I know counties close to our size or anywhere in 24 that spectrum, the Sheriff is paid about where he should be. 25 You know, within 5,000, anyway. I think -- and if you go to 8-26-03 wk 56 1 some of the bigger cities, I don't think -- like, in Harris 2 County, I don't think their Sheriff is paid near what their 3 police chief's paid. I don't know that; I haven't looked up 4 their numbers, but I know that other police chiefs get paid 5 a bunch. Plus I just think the -- you know, I don't think 6 it's a fair comparison, necessarily, you know. So, I'm not 7 going to go along with that one. I think it also -- that 8 really gets out of whack all the other elected officials' 9 salaries in the county, and I don't see how we can just go 10 and pick one and say, well, you know, I can -- by that same 11 logic, Pat should be right around -- right around 100,000, 12 because he's not much different than the County Court at 13 Law, you know. And then J.P.'s should be 90,000, 'cause 14 they're just below. And, no, we're not giving y'all 90,000. 15 JUDGE WRIGHT: That's what they get in Harris 16 county. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I think that -- you 18 know, that that logic just gets us in big trouble down the 19 road. These are elected -- he's an elected official. I 20 think we need to give him comparable to other elected 21 officials around the state for counties of our size. If he 22 doesn't think it's proper compensation, he doesn't have to 23 run again. So, anyway, that's just my feeling on the 24 salaries for elected officials. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One other aspect to 8-26-03 wk 57 1 that salary number is, what you commonly see in good salary 2 structures is a 15 percent differential between pay ranges. 3 Grade 5, Grade 6, Grade 7, whatever; there's about 4 15 percent difference between minimums and maximums in the 5 range, and then you typically would see anywhere from two to 6 four salary group levels differential between supervisors 7 and subordinates. So, if you applied that compensation 8 principle to this case, and you worked off the Chief 9 Deputy's salary, he would get up somewhere close to what the 10 Chief of Police makes. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That argument goes with 12 every elected official in this county, I'd say. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all I've got 14 on that. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me see if I 16 understand the total, then. On this particular category on 17 your sheet, with these revisions, instead of total salary 18 increase considerations of 409,754, would they now be 19 355,968? Is that the way you see it? What do you see, 20 Judge? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I see 436,986. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 436 -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: If you reduce -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- 986? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: -- by one-fourth the 4,000 8-26-03 wk 58 1 increase for each deputy, increase them from 25 to four on 2 the jailers, you would bring them up to -- if you're now at 3 43, a total of 190,043. And if you reduce down by four, 4 you'd bring that down to 172,365. You take those totals, I 5 come up with 436,986. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's something 7 wrong with those numbers. The -- cutting back the deputies 8 by -- by $1,000 on 43 people, that's 43,000 plus roll-up, 9 and increasing the jailers and dispatchers to a $4,000 10 increase, by dropping them to 33, comes up to on the order 11 of $40,000, including roll-up, so it actually, at 409 -- 12 409,000, should come down to about 400,000. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The increase on the 14 jailers and dispatchers would be something closer; in excess 15 of 60,000, probably. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Well -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1,500 times 39 times 18 the roll-up. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me tell you how I arrived 20 at that. I took 118,777, and in order to get a factor, I 21 divided by 5 into 25, which is 5. And then, to get to 22 4,000, I multiplied it by 8, same 5 factor. That gives me 23 the equivalent of that increase for all of the current ones 24 there now, 190,043. If I then divide that by 43, that gives 25 me the per-jailer cost. Multiply that back times 39, I get 8-26-03 wk 59 1 172,365. 2 MS. NEMEC: Judge, I have a question. I'm -- 3 I'm just wondering how -- when you're saying $3,000 for 4 jailers, $4,000 for deputies, are we going to go off the 5 position schedule completely on this department? Because if 6 that's how you're doing it, this is not going to work. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand there are some 8 significant effects by this kind of action, but all we're 9 doing now is crunching numbers, as I see it. Are you 10 gentlemen doing anything else? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just trying to 13 understand it. 14 MS. NEMEC: I'm just wondering if -- and 15 maybe this position schedule should be looked at and you 16 should take this to make your decision on where you're going 17 to put them, because the numbers are going to change by 18 anywhere from 1,500 to 500. I'm -- as you're talking, I'm 19 trying to figure out where we're going to put them, and it 20 doesn't -- it doesn't go. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's not hard to 22 solve. If we did this, we'd -- one solution would be we'd 23 have a separate schedule for law enforcement personnel than 24 we do for others. 25 MS. NEMEC: We do have a separate schedule 8-26-03 wk 60 1 right now, but -- 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can -- we can 3 take a blank piece of paper and plug in the numbers. I'm 4 not getting the same numbers as you are, Judge. I'm getting 5 about a -- about a wash. On the -- on the $1,000 decrease 6 in the proposed amount for sworn officers, and the $1,500 7 increase in jailers and dispatchers, I'm getting about 8 $50,000-minus for Sheriff's officers, and -- and 9 $50,000-plus for jailers and dispatchers. But -- but we can 10 refine the numbers. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the numbers I'm using 12 are based upon the numbers -- the beginning numbers on this 13 sheet. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: The 176 and the 118. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The numbers I'm 17 using are doing the same thing, but we're getting a 18 different result. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- you know, what 21 I -- I'm trying to split these things apart a little bit. 22 Clearly, to me, we have a problem with salaries in the jail. 23 If the Sheriff is willing to reduce staff by four, that 24 saves about $83,000. I'm willing to take that $83,000, 25 apply it to the other -- you know, and I -- I agree, 8-26-03 wk 61 1 Barbara's got to work it out, but make that $83,000 -- you 2 know, increase to the 39 remaining employees. And how 3 that's done, I'll turn it over to the Sheriff and Barbara, 4 and hopefully they'll -- they can come up with something 5 that works in the current position schedule, or close. I 6 mean, 10,000 one way or the other doesn't make that much 7 difference. That's a -- I mean, that's a plus, to me, for 8 the -- you know, the staff positions remaining in the jail. 9 I think it should enable us -- or enable to Sheriff to keep 10 those positions filled better. And, obviously, we're way 11 off base; we can't even hire people in that position. So, I 12 think we need to do something there. Sheriff? 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only problem I have 14 with that, Jonathan, is I'm not sure with that division, 15 okay, what that would actually mean for each employee in the 16 jail. And if it doesn't mean a -- a -- you know, a decent 17 amount, we're not accomplishing anything other than me 18 really eliminating employees. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm getting -- 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 2,129 is what I get. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2,128. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Boerne's already up to 23 just about that with us. It won't help me, you know, on 24 that. You're going to have to increase that a little bit 25 more so that we can attract these people in the jail. 8-26-03 wk 62 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, 3,000 -- I 2 can go to 3,000, probably. I mean, 3,000 gets it. And 3 still, you're fairly -- that's pretty close to a trade, to 4 me. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: In fairness to those that have 6 already voluntarily agreed to be part of the Sheriff's 7 sacrifice, and have -- who have, in the preparation of the 8 original budget, agreed to not fill positions or to 9 relinquish positions or to adjust positions from part-time 10 to full-time, whatever, their shared portion of the 11 sacrifice was, in every single one of those instances, they 12 didn't get all that money back. In fact, they got probably 13 less than half of that money back. I know, in one case, 14 they only got about 25 percent of it back, maybe slightly 15 less. I don't have the other -- my point is, the shared 16 sacrifice is such that -- that those that have voluntarily 17 stepped up and said, "I want to help," have not gotten all 18 that money back. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a good point. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: That they've given up. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a good point, 22 and it's got to do with equity. And I've thought about 23 that, and I think that that's what the merit increase pool 24 would be used to rectify. If the people who work in 25 Jannett's shop are going to be more productive because 8-26-03 wk 63 1 there's fewer of them, then that should be a consideration 2 in granting individual merit increases to people in that 3 group. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- I hear what 5 the Judge is saying, but the other side of it is, I think 6 that, for some reason, we have more salary inequity 7 problems, it appears, in the jail than probably anywhere 8 else in the county. And, you know, I think that that's 9 something that we need to address. And I think a -- you 10 know, I'll -- if the Sheriff's willing to reduce some of his 11 staff to help -- help the -- you know, our overall budget 12 out, you know, I'll -- I applaud the Sheriff for agreeing to 13 do that. Either way, I think we need to address the 14 salaries in that one spot, 'cause, I mean, clearly, if we 15 have eight openings and can't fill them, there's a problem 16 somewhere. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that raises 18 another issue, and I want to examine it. The fact that the 19 Sheriff can willingly reduce his staff by four to 39, how 20 does that fit in with his minimum staffing requirements to 21 meet the jail standards, and what does that do to your 22 ability to take in prisoners from other counties, which 23 provides revenue? I'd like somebody to tell me that. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We can still do it, 25 still meet jail standards, still take in those inmates. 8-26-03 wk 64 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't we meet jail 2 standards now? Why do we have to hire those other four? 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If we don't hire those 4 other four, the biggest problem you're going to have and the 5 biggest problem I'm having is the workload it puts on the 6 current staff, and it's going to put a lot more workload on 7 it. But the problem that I'm facing right now, because 8 of -- of salary contingent and that that we have going on, I 9 can't keep a full staff anyhow, so the workload's already 10 doubling on those people that are there. And I need some 11 leeway to be able to finish filling our positions, and yet 12 compensate our employees so that we can keep long-term 13 employees. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that 15 part of it, but I'm not sure I understand the staffing 16 requirements. If we're reducing it by four, how does that 17 not affect your staffing requirements by reason of your jail 18 population? 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. If I was fully 20 staffed right now, I would have seven employees per shift in 21 that jail, okay? Seven employees per shift. One of those 22 is out in -- in control room; you can't count that person, 23 so that drops you to six. One of those is in booking. You 24 got one or two in cook, so you're still going to have about 25 five that I would have on the floor, okay? Five times 48 is 8-26-03 wk 65 1 -- what, offhand? Real quick? 2 MR. MOTLEY: 240. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: 240. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. 240 would be the 5 four officers. If I go down to six per shift, which is 6 cutting the four -- which it does put a heck of an increased 7 load on our current employees, there's no doubt. Jail 8 Administrator and I have talked about this for the last 9 several days, since it first came up. But if we can get 10 employees that stay there, that will put us to six; one in 11 the control room, one in booking. That puts us to four. 12 Four times 48 -- 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Another way of 14 looking at it, his choices are not to have four less; his 15 choices are to have four more. He's got eight less right 16 now. And paying them a better -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 192. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- better salary -- 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Which is where we would 20 be. Our problem right now, I just -- I need some incentive 21 for us to be able to keep employees. We just -- and this is 22 a deal that's been looked at as organized crime. We just 23 uncovered a plot through phone call interception through 24 that jail where there is one shift that some of our gang 25 members don't like, and they're planning on -- on attacking 8-26-03 wk 66 1 those people off duty, where they're at their home or 2 wherever. And so now I've got employees that, even when 3 they're not at jail -- it's a serious thing to those people. 4 And that hurts when you're trying to keep good employees, 5 and, you know, their families are being brought into their 6 livelihood and threatened. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just don't see how 8 more money would help that situation, though. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: More money is always 10 going to help a situation like that. That's the only thing 11 that we can do to help a situation like that with these 12 people, is let them know that at least they don't have to 13 have three jobs. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, wait. No, what 15 I'm talking about, though, Rusty, is if your inmates are 16 angry to where they're going to -- going to retaliate 17 against your jailers, more money's not going to correct 18 that, would it? 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's stress level; it's 20 a little bit of everything. But if I look at it that I'm 21 making $20,000 a year, and yet I'm having to deal with those 22 threats, to where if I look at it, I'm making 25 to 30,000 a 23 year and have to deal with those threats, it does have a 24 different -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I look at it 8-26-03 wk 67 1 differently. If my life is threatened, I get out of it. I 2 don't care what the hell you're paying; I'm going to get 3 out. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me too. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The bottom line is, 6 gentlemen, it's an extremely dangerous position for our 7 staff. Jail staff are on the lowest rung -- one of the 8 lowest rungs of employees in the county, and I think it's 9 time -- we definitely need to take care of our jail staff. 10 They put out a lot. They work a lot, and we need to look at 11 them. And I'll try and help that by keeping us within jail 12 standards, giving up those four positions, if we can help 13 our jail staff. Now, if we give up those four positions and 14 don't help the jail staff, I'm adding the workload on them 15 and not helping them, and that's useless. Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, help me with 17 the number right quick. How many -- what did we do with the 18 jail staff last year? 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You gave me five. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gave you five new 21 staffers, okay. Thank you. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Question. Speaking of the 23 Sheriff's sacrifice, is -- is there -- is there any way -- 24 any area that you can reduce expenditures or cut back to 25 become part of this doing more with less, shared 8-26-03 wk 68 1 sacrifice -- call it what you like -- exercise that we're 2 trying to engage in here? If -- if we -- if you give up 80 3 thousand and you get back that same amount or some greater 4 amount, I really don't see how we -- how there's much shared 5 sacrifice there. One thing that concerns me, you've got 42 6 vehicles in that fleet out there. Do we really need -- do 7 we have a compelling need for all those 42? 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: How many of those are marked 10 vehicles? 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: At least 24. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: 24 out of 42? 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, those are -- 24 14 are patrol vehicles. Other marked vehicles that I have out 15 there are warrants. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Some of the warrants 18 ones are, some aren't. I'm using a marked one in C.I.D. 19 It's the old ones rolling down. But my transport vehicle is 20 marked, two jail vehicles are marked. My three School 21 Resource Officer vehicles are marked, okay? Those are all 22 in addition to the 24. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: So we're talking about what, 24 maybe 32? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Our civil deputy's is 8-26-03 wk 69 1 marked. 33 -- anywhere 33 to 35 is marked. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 33 to 34? 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 35 -- 33, 35, somewhere 4 right in there. The other ones -- as you recall, we have 41 5 vehicles, but in the last three years, we have also 6 replaced, okay, some of those unmarked ones outside of what 7 the -- the Court's given us, all right? We have been able 8 to replace those by either seized property, or taking some 9 old junkers and grouping them all together and getting what 10 we can. We've replaced, with three program Ford Tauruses, 11 used cars that still had a warranty; that there'll be there 12 for 10 more years. We won't have to replace them. Two in 13 C.I.D., and one is the Warrants supervisor, okay? So, 14 those -- true, you have 41 cars, but they're not rotating 15 that quick. Those cars don't have that kind of mileage, and 16 we replaced them with regular, off-the-lot Ford Taurus 17 program cars. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Of those marked units, how 19 many -- how many officers that are assigned to those marked 20 units live inside the City of Kerrville or outside Kerr 21 County? 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: None of them live 23 outside Kerr County -- outside of Kerr County. All my 24 employees that drive marked vehicles all live within Kerr 25 County. 8-26-03 wk 70 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. How many of them live 2 within the city limits? 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I couldn't tell you that 4 offhand, without -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: You don't have a ballpark? 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'd hate to even guess. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'd have to go back 9 and -- and look at where they all actually live. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you aware of any studies 11 that may have been made in Texas or elsewhere about whether 12 or not the presence of a marked law enforcement unit reduces 13 the incidence of crime or not? 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm not aware of any of 15 the studies. To me -- to be perfectly honest, to me, it's 16 common sense. If you got a marked unit, just like the 17 constables' deal, it's part of the crime prevention mode of 18 law enforcement. The more marked units you show out there 19 and the more they see, the better presence you have, and it 20 is a crime deterrent, okay? That's why they even take 21 marked units with nobody in them, park them alongside the 22 road just to help keep speed down, because the unit does 23 mean something. People do react to a marked unit. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Any departments use cutouts, 25 to your knowledge? 8-26-03 wk 71 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Any department what? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Use cutouts. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know which ones. 4 I wouldn't. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Parks and Wildlife use them 6 on -- on buck deer to -- 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, they use a target. 8 They put a buck deer out there so somebody will shoot it. 9 I've seen that one. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Same principle, though. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. My investigators 12 are on call all the time, and -- and warrants -- you know, 13 one thing that we hadn't ever looked at, like the warrant 14 cars, the one transport car averages over 10,000 miles a 15 month, per month. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I'd sure be interested in 17 knowing what portion of those marked units are driven by 18 officers who live within the city. Also be interested if 19 there are any studies out there that -- that reflect whether 20 or not just the mere presence of those units scattered 21 around the residential neighborhoods, because that's where 22 the officer lives and leaves the car parked at the house, 23 whether that -- whether that's shown by a study to reduce 24 the incidence of crime. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One other thing, and 8-26-03 wk 72 1 this is just a quick example, okay? This morning, for 2 instance, 7 o'clock this morning, I'm at the office. We get 3 a call of a major wreck on the interstate, 488 mile marker, 4 one car rollover with entrapment, where somebody's trapped 5 in it. D.P.S. is going around shuffling cars, picking 6 people up. They're wanting us to respond to it. My closest 7 units that responded to it were the guys that just came on 8 duty that live at Mountain Home and Ingram, that never had 9 to come into the office, change cars, do any of that kind of 10 stuff, and we had units on the interstate directing traffic, 11 waiting for D.P.S. to get there, and helping out E.M.S. And 12 they had to airlift the person out of there after they got 13 them. The -- there's just so many advantages to having 14 those marked units. When we do end up with floods, if I've 15 got officers living on both sides of the river, it sure 16 helps out. They've got units that we can go out and do 17 things, you know, with -- while you're there, and without 18 having to report, "well, I can't come in. I can't get out 19 there," you know. "I can't come in to pick up a car." 20 There has been studies by this county -- by 21 our department in the past. I'd have to go back and 22 research them. One of the sergeants is the one that did 23 them a lot on the -- the cost-effectiveness of rotating cars 24 to where you have a pool, and they're -- and they're doing 25 them, compared to the maintenance, and offering those cars. 8-26-03 wk 73 1 Where we are, our cars are going to last a lot longer. I 2 honestly believe, you know, you're still going to be 3 replacing the cars. You're going to replace them faster if 4 you do a pool, where you're going to replace them slower if 5 you do the other, but you're still going to come up with the 6 same cost analysis no matter what you do. And, as Sheriff, 7 we get a lot better effect having the cars scattered all 8 over. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I guess everything is a 10 cost benefit analysis. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sure. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: This is what basically 13 we're -- we're required to do in making this decision. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, getting back to 15 your original question you were talking about, about helping 16 cut and -- and cost-save and do things, I think I've stepped 17 up real well sacrificing four jail positions, for one, okay? 18 We have cut, and as you can see -- and I'll pick up my 19 notebook. All right, for food, we've increased our inmate 20 population, but our food costs have cut over 50,000 in the 21 last three years, because we have -- and I've got very 22 diligent, dedicated people that don't just believe in 23 spending money. We went back to doing a lot of different 24 things. 25 There's a lot of cost cuts in our budget that 8-26-03 wk 74 1 we have done to try and save this county money, and I think, 2 you know, our people have done everything in the world to 3 keep those costs down. I know they get upset with me at 4 times because we try and keep those costs down, but there 5 are some -- I don't know what else my department can do to 6 try and benefit -- or benefit the county with costs -- cost 7 cuts. We're trying to do a whole lot of our training 8 indoors, okay? True, it still costs. True, I ask for that, 9 'cause we're doing Thunder Ranch. That's one training issue 10 I won't -- I don't think I should back off on. I think 11 officers need to be -- but we're doing everything that we 12 can possibly do, and I think we have cut costs drastically 13 in a lot of areas. If you look at the notebook I gave y'all 14 in presenting the budget, and on each line item where I 15 wrote out what it was, what we've cut since I took office to 16 where we are now. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate the efforts your 18 department has made, especially in those big-ticket items 19 like prisoner meals and whatnot. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I had a meeting with the 21 hospital; we cut our hospital medical costs on the inmates 22 down to almost half of what it was, 'cause the hospital 23 administration and I came to an agreement on what we're 24 going to pay for and what we don't think we should. That 25 has cut over 50,000 out of that, you know. Raising the 8-26-03 wk 75 1 grant money, I know you get tired of hearing that, but that 2 was a way to get a lot of stuff without costing the County. 3 The bulletproof grant program, all of those. I don't know 4 what else we can possibly do. I think we've given our share 5 to try and get costs down. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I guess my point, Sheriff, 7 is -- and I appreciate you doing what you're doing, 8 especially when you find these areas where you can use other 9 people's money, because, you know, that's certainly a huge 10 benefit. But I guess it behooves all of us to be on a 11 diligent lookout to try and find areas where we can continue 12 to save money. But I just wanted to make that inquiry to 13 see if maybe there was some other way that -- that it might 14 be possible that -- that there were some other areas that 15 you could be of benefit to reduce the taxpayers' costs. We 16 thank you. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A lot of things that we 18 even do is, when inmates come in and they're on Social 19 Security, the County's getting a benefit from that, 'cause 20 we notify Social Security about it, and there is a deal the 21 County gets from that. We changed the inmate phone system; 22 that's netting the County an actual profit for the county of 23 over $40,000 a year. You know, I can go on and on where we 24 have honestly tried to do everything we can do. And 25 sometimes my employees get a little bit disgusted, 'cause 8-26-03 wk 76 1 they don't feel any rewards from it, but I think they have 2 done a fabulous job in trying to limit this. While I'm up 3 here, there's one -- two line items, one in each of our 4 budgets, that I'm concerned about. And the way the budget's 5 presented, I'd like to just bring it to your attention, and 6 that's the overtime line items in both the jail and the 7 Sheriff's Office. Sheriff's Office has always been 25,000 8 for the last several years. I believe it's Line Item 111. 9 What page is the Sheriff's Office in your new printout? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff's Office? 11 Page 51. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Line number 111, 13 overtime budget. It's been 25,000 for the last several 14 years. In the recommended one, it's down to 16,000. I'm 15 concerned about that. I'm concerned about that due to 16 trials coming up, due to everything else. I've always tried 17 to return money to the County. We don't get it very often, 18 but we also don't allow comp time to be built up anywhere 19 past the first pay period. If they get -- they put in 20 overtime during the -- during -- before the 28-day pay 21 period's up, we try and give it to them off, but if they 22 don't, they end up getting paid overtime for it, so we don't 23 have a problem with compensation time being built up. And 24 I'm just really concerned that, just with what I can see 25 coming on the horizon, I would like to have that back up to 8-26-03 wk 77 1 the 25,000, or at least higher than the 16,000 that's 2 recommended there. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: You see where I got the 16? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I see where you got it, 5 okay, but if you look at the estimated costs for the year, 6 with the way things are going, it would be 20,000, okay, 7 compared to the actual would end up being around 16. And 8 I'm -- I'm just concerned that I'm going to come in with 9 some overtime requests. I don't give it freely; I try not 10 to. It's not something we use, you know, unless we have to. 11 But I have investigators on call 24 hours a day, and if they 12 get called out anything beyond the normal working hours, 13 it's overtime. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that used to some degree to 15 compensate for comp time? 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We don't build up comp 17 time at all. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You don't fall under 19 that rule? 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What we do, we're 21 allowed to build comp time for the 28-day pay period, okay, 22 where if they put in overtime this week, as long as I give 23 to it them before the end of the 28-day pay period back off, 24 right, then we don't pay; it's a wash. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: One for one. 8-26-03 wk 78 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One for one, okay? If 2 you don't give it to them in the same period -- pay period, 3 then they're entitled to it at time and a half. What we 4 found when we were doing that and just keeping it in a bank 5 for them, well, I was ending up with people in -- not I; we 6 ended it right after I took office. You had people with 400 7 and 500 hours of comp, and then if one left, Barbara was 8 stuck trying to figure out how much pay they're going to 9 get, because you had to pay it all, okay? Because they just 10 bank it and you couldn't ever give it to them off. So, we 11 gradually worked that down to where we're just paying it; 12 they don't have comp time built up. They have holiday time 13 built up, is the only thing that they build. But we try and 14 pay it after that 28 days -- try and give it off first, and 15 then pay it if we have to, and it's solved us a lot of 16 problems if somebody did leave and that, having to come up 17 with a lot of money to pay them all of a sudden out of the 18 budget, 'cause they've got all the time built up. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: You try and roll it out every 20 28 days? 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Good plan. 23 MS. NEMEC: What happened one year is that 24 they had so many hours built up, and then when we have to 25 pay it off after a certain amount of time, they get -- you 8-26-03 wk 79 1 pay it at the salary that they're presently making, and that 2 really impacted the budget a whole bunch. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They were there two or 4 three years and built it up two or three years, and they 5 started out at a -- you know -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: At a 1; they were then at 4 or 7 5. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They got paid at 4 or 5. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And my jail one is 11 only -- I think your recommended only dropped it $2,000, but 12 just seeing the trials coming up and the deal -- and if we 13 went to four, I don't know what's going to happen. You 14 know, the other day when I was in here, I told you we had 15 two in the hospital, so you got to sit with them around the 16 clock, unless I start contracting that out to a security 17 company, and I'm not ready to do that. I don't have the 18 funds in my budget. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you for bringing that to 20 our attention, Sheriff. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You had two lines, I 22 understood you to say? 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One's the jail overtime, 24 112 in the jail budget; 112 in the Sheriff's budget. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we changing either of 8-26-03 wk 80 1 them? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think, on the 4 Sheriff's one, Rusty -- 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- if you have overtime 7 related to the trial, the capital murder trial -- 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I think that could 10 come out of that special trial fund, too. I mean, that's -- 11 it's kind of -- there's a bunch of money banked over there 12 for that trial. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's just something I 14 felt I needed to bring, 'cause -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Got a little bit of 16 reserves. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- if we have something 18 happen, I have got have them working. I may have to come 19 after the fact and ask for more in that budget. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, I want to say 21 one more thing about the -- about the salaries now. Then 22 I'll move on to my second item, my only other item. We need 23 to do the $3,000 increase for the deputies. It's a matter 24 of equity and fairness, comparing their salaries to the 25 police officers, and it's a matter of savings to Kerr 8-26-03 wk 81 1 County. There's a cost associated with turnover. It's hard 2 to put a number on it, but it's a pretty big cost. And 3 we're effectively operating as the recruiter and trainer for 4 Kerrville Police Department. That's -- we're their source 5 of staffing. And I believe they're going there -- Sheriff's 6 deputies are going to those jobs because of the pay 7 inequities. In some ways, a Sheriff's deputy job could be a 8 better job than a police officer job. One reason is 'cause 9 we don't have -- they don't have city limits to worry about. 10 They can -- they can go where law enforcement takes them 11 each day. So, again, I make a pitch to increase the salary 12 of every sworn officer -- there's 43 of them -- by $3,000. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dave, on that, you 14 mentioned you were giving a -- a $1,000 allowance because 15 they got to take the patrol vehicles home? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1,700. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1,700 for that. Is that 18 a -- a real number? That seems low, based on what I know 19 cars cost. A car is -- I don't know what it's -- how you 20 figure it into salary; I don't know if 17 is the right 21 number. I do know that one of the reasons that the 22 deputies' salaries are where they are is because when we did 23 one of these reviews, part of the compensation they got is 24 taking cars home, and there is a value to that. And same 25 with Road and Bridge personnel, some of the Road and Bridge 8-26-03 wk 82 1 personnel. And I think there's a value to the County, and 2 there's also a value to the employees for that. I was 3 wondering if the -- to me, it's worth more than $1,700 to be 4 able to take a car home. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It might be. I 6 think, to me, if I'm a Sheriff's deputy, all it's worth to 7 me is what it costs me to go back and forth to work. I 8 can't take that car to the county fair and take my family in 9 it. It's not as good as having a second vehicle at home, 10 but it's worth something. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only other addition 12 to that is, talking to the Police Chief yesterday, okay, I 13 think the City is figuring a raise in their budget this year 14 for the officers. Okay? I'm trying to comp -- you know, 15 take care of all this at one time, like we've said, and 16 everyone on this Court said, "Let's do it once, get it 17 done." 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't say that. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, it will go up to 20 probably over 2,000. Well, if it was done, we'd do it now, 21 instead of trying to do year after year. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, a point has been 23 brought up about what the vehicles can be used for; he said 24 they couldn't take it to the county fair. I don't know. 25 What is your department policy on the use of these vehicles 8-26-03 wk 83 1 by these deputies that have them assigned to them when 2 they're in an off-duty status? 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They don't use them off 4 duty. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Can't use them at all? 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. Only thing that 7 they can do, if they're going home, okay, and stop by the 8 icehouse or Town and Country, that's fine. I don't object. 9 But they cannot use them off duty. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: What about -- 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If they're working 12 off-duty security or anything like that, they do not use 13 county vehicles. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: They cannot take them there 15 for that purpose? 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I would not do that, 17 because that's -- to me, that is us doing private work using 18 County equipment -- County-owned equipment, and I don't 19 think that's legal or proper. They do not. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: So, then, they're essentially 21 limited to -- 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Work. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: -- to and from work, 24 official -- 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Business. 8-26-03 wk 84 1 JUDGE TINLEY: -- duty. And if they have 2 some incidental errand to do on their way to or from, that's 3 okay, but other than that, that's -- 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. And if 5 they're off for more than -- I think it's four days, maybe 6 five days, like if they're going on vacation or anything, 7 the car has to be at the office to where we can use it if 8 we're having vehicle problems with any other ones. It 9 doesn't stay there. There's a lot -- I've got a lot of 10 rules and requirements on cars. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sheriff, are the 12 inequities in the salary between the City of Kerrville and 13 your department, Sheriff's Department, only at the entry 14 level, or are they all the way up? Are there, you know -- 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They're all the way up. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All the way up? 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A sergeant -- there are 18 several police sergeants or sergeants with Kerrville P.D. 19 that make $15,000 more than my investigators. There are 20 several sergeants with Kerrville P.D. that make $5,000 more 21 than me. And if they're making more than me, they're 22 already above everybody else except my chief deputy, who 23 makes more than me, and will continue to in your new salary 24 deal. But there are -- yeah, it's an inequity a lot with 25 the Kerrville Police Department. 8-26-03 wk 85 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A lieutenant is about 3 52,000. A lieutenant with the Kerr County Sheriff's 4 Office -- I only have one, which is my chief investigator; 5 she's a lieutenant. On your schedule, what is she right 6 now? 7 MS. NEMEC: What's the name? 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Twiss. 9 MS. NEMEC: 39,564. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 39,000. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that raises a 12 very interesting point. And I -- I understand parity, and I 13 understand where the Commissioner's coming from on parity, 14 but parity applies all across the county system, not just to 15 law enforcement. And that gives me some heartburn, that 16 when we start talking about parity in the marketplace, we're 17 not talking about parity for everybody. So, I would be 18 interested to know, if anybody knows -- could tell me how 19 many sheriff's departments in the state of Texas where there 20 are police departments in the same -- in the same employee 21 pool or manpower pool, I'd like to know how many sheriff's 22 departments enjoy parity with those police departments. I 23 suggest the number is pretty low, if it exists at all. I'd 24 like to know. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know, 8-26-03 wk 86 1 Commissioner. I don't have any way of knowing. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, those -- 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What I am really 4 concerned about is one thing. Your law enforcement is -- is 5 definitely as effective as your officers are, and I've been 6 fortunate that I've been here as long as I have, so I know 7 90 percent of the criminals and the low-lifes we deal with. 8 When you take an officer that's only been here six months to 9 a year, it's hard enough for him to even find all the county 10 roads quickly, much less identify and know what crooks are 11 doing what and what you have. The longer you keep those 12 employees, the value and the -- and the total value you have 13 added to your law enforcement effectiveness county-wide, you 14 can't even compare. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You can't do a study to 17 even compare that. I mean, I've got, you know, some 18 people -- some of our sergeants have been there a while, 19 that you can see a crime and walk into a burglary, and they 20 already know who probably did it, and our crime-solving rate 21 is great because we can do that. But what I'm finding more 22 and more, you know, is I can't keep them long enough to do 23 that, 'cause what they're going to do is wait for the P.D. 24 to get an opening. That man can get, right now, a $5,000 25 raise without having to move his family, and I -- they're a 8-26-03 wk 87 1 fool if they don't take it. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is a big 3 component of that hidden cost of turnover. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The other deal -- 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're losing 6 effective officers, not because they're not committed or 7 motivated, but because they just can't be as effective as 8 the officers we're losing. So, we're not as able in our law 9 enforcement because of the turnover. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The other deal that 11 Commissioner Nicholson started to hit on a while ago was, 12 being a law enforcement officer is dangerous no matter what 13 you do, okay, period. We all agree. I'm not going to say 14 city -- city officers are in any more dangerous predicaments 15 than our people, but the one thing about it, because the 16 officer ratio to the land mass and everything the city has, 17 if a city officer gets out there and needs help, okay -- we 18 all work one-man units. If the city officer needs help, his 19 backup's probably just going to be a minute or two away, 20 'cause he's not going to be more than a few blocks away. If 21 a county officer needs help, which has happened a number of 22 times; we've asked for the City to send officers all the way 23 to Center Point or all the way to Mountain Home. But if a 24 county officer needs help, it may end up being that his 25 closest officer, deputy backup is 40 miles from him, or 50 8-26-03 wk 88 1 or 60. And I think that is an additional stress level, and 2 I just think we need to compensate our people fairly for the 3 job they do. I think our people do a fabulous law 4 enforcement job in this county. I think it's increased 5 drastically in just the last few years, and I just would 6 appreciate consideration to try and help us in this problem 7 between us and -- and the city, and make it fair to our 8 officers that are putting their lives on the line. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Tell me one more 10 time how many police officers came from the Sheriff's 11 department. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I couldn't tell 13 you exactly. Right now, there's 16 employees at the Sheriff 14 -- at the Kerrville Police Department that used to be with 15 the Sheriff's Department, and I have two right now that are 16 trying to get on at the Police Department because of their 17 new traffic division and things like that. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would be the 19 time period of that 16? One year? Two years? Ten years? 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It could be ten years. 21 I just went back and looked at the names of the ones I've 22 worked with and knew from the Sheriff's Office that are over 23 there. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: About how many 25 officers do you lose a year to resignation/retirement? 8-26-03 wk 89 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's slowed down 2 drastically in the last few years. I'd say probably -- 3 retirements, as I said, we finally got one; I'm tickled to 4 death. When the first officer retires next week, you're 5 invited. But resignations, probably now about six. Six to 6 eight. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, your -- 8 it's in the neighborhood of a $400,000 increase to do these 9 things. Where do you propose the money come from? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We finally got to 11 that, didn't we? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, we're 14 showing -- probably should come from the reduction in head 15 count on County payroll, and we've got some. We've done 16 some of that; we've got a commitment to do a little more. 17 We'd like to see some more of it. In full response to your 18 question, if -- I think these things are important enough. 19 If it takes it, we'll have to get that money in tax 20 increase. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was curious to as to 22 where -- what we were looking at. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you got anything 24 more on your list? 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I got one more 8-26-03 wk 90 1 pretty easy thing. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's your definition 3 of "easy," counselor? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We haven't found one 5 yet. 6 MR. MOTLEY: Don't ask me. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm sure somebody 8 could complicate this if they tried hard enough. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll try. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to talk about 11 a fund that is collected that can be used to pay for books 12 and publications. And what I'm getting at is -- is, can we 13 eliminate some line items in multi-departments that are 14 under Line Item 315, Books, Publications, and Dues, 15 eliminate some things from those line items and pay for it 16 with money that you have collected that can't be used for 17 anything else? 18 MS. UECKER: From what I understand, last 19 count I had from the Auditor, there's a -- there is a -- 20 Tommy's gone. Oh, great. But there's a lot of money in 21 that fund we can't use for anything else, and -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you speaking of Law 23 Library? 24 MS. UECKER: Law Library. County Law 25 Library. And Commissioner Nicholson and I talked about it 8-26-03 wk 91 1 yesterday, that we could -- and we've already done some of 2 this, actually. But we could eliminate, say, the line item 3 in the County Attorney's office, and pay for that with the 4 County Law Library fees, 'cause I think it definitely falls 5 under that category. Same thing in the County Clerk's 6 office. I know she gets all the statutes. We can pay for 7 those. I think we're already doing it in the County Judge's 8 office. Have been. And the Treasurer and the Auditor, 9 everybody has to have copies of those statutes that pertain 10 to their duties, and I don't think there's any reason why we 11 could not pay for those out of the Law Library fund. 12 JUDGE RAGSDALE: I have four or five books 13 that I buy every year that, if I could, say, turn in an 14 order to Linda -- 15 MS. UECKER: No, you order it. You bring me 16 the bill. 17 JUDGE RAGSDALE: Okay, whatever. 18 MS. UECKER: I don't get paid enough by the 19 Law Library to do all that. 20 JUDGE RAGSDALE: I'm not trying to be a smart 21 aleck or anything; I'm just saying I don't mind -- rather 22 than buy them directly from West, if that's -- whatever way 23 facilitates. I don't mind bringing the bill to whoever. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a good idea. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's a -- looks 8-26-03 wk 92 1 like 15 or 18 different line items in various budgets. I 2 don't know how to look at them and say this is for books and 3 this is for fees, but if the various departments would do 4 that, there's maybe a few thousand dollars to be saved. Not 5 much. Not big dollars. 6 MS. UECKER: The Auditor's back, so he can 7 tell us. And while he's looking at that, if you will look 8 and see that the supplement paid to the Law Librarian is the 9 same that it was in 1991 when I was asked to take over that 10 position. And we have money in the fund, and it's a pain in 11 the -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 80,000 -- 81,000 in 13 reserves? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: She'd take that. 15 MS. UECKER: Yeah. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think Linda said 17 she'd help us spend that down by taking a little more 18 supplement. 19 (Discussion off the record.) 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think any of those 21 items that we could take out of that fund, we should. I 22 mean, it's probably a $10,000, plus or minus, savings, 23 but -- 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Could we -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But still, it's -- 8-26-03 wk 93 1 MS. UECKER: And as soon as I get -- right 2 now, I'm dealing with a big turnover at West Law or West 3 Group. I'm having trouble getting a representative, you 4 know, to hang with me for a while. Because what I would 5 like to start doing is, eventually, you know, office by 6 office, add those office's books and publications to a 7 standing subscription so they come automatically every year, 8 so they don't have to order them. Right now, that's what 9 we've got for the County Judge's office, and -- 10 JUDGE WRIGHT: And the J.P.'s offices. 11 MS. UECKER: And the J.P. offices. Well, I 12 may add them -- in other words, combine all of those account 13 numbers into one account number. But I just lost another 14 representative, so now I'm out there looking again. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you through for the day? 17 (Discussion off the record.) 18 MR. TOMLINSON: I estimate 50,000 to 60,000. 19 MS. UECKER: 50,000, 60,000? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: On the total expenditures out 21 of those line items? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: No, the amount in that fund. 23 MS. UECKER: That's the excess amount in that 24 fund, what we have that's not been budgeted for this year. 25 We add to it every year to the tune of -- I think it's up to 8-26-03 wk 94 1 $30, $35 a case. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 3 MS. UECKER: And the other thing, while I'm 4 up here, talking about salary comparisons for the Sheriff, I 5 think if you start comparing deputy sheriff salaries to the 6 City for that purpose, I think you're going to have to do 7 the same thing to the City with other employees, too. And, 8 you know, I just hope that I end up not getting raped in 9 this situation without even getting a kiss -- and it'd have 10 to come from Rusty, I guess. We're giving up -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rusty, where are you? 12 MS. UECKER: -- giving up -- giving up staff, 13 you know, and not getting any of the benefits of it. So -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rusty's not here. 15 Can we wait? He's smoking right there. 16 (Discussion off the record.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Uecker? 18 MS. UECKER: I'm sorry. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: What you're saying, if I'm 20 understanding you, is if we want to get into a parity 21 discussion, we ought to do it across the board? 22 MS. UECKER: Absolutely. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Law enforcement, admin, 24 supervisory. 25 MS. UECKER: Exactly. 8-26-03 wk 95 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Whatever. 2 MS. UECKER: You're going to have to compare, 3 you know, chief deputies -- the Sheriff to chief deputies of 4 the other officers -- the other offices. And, you know, the 5 bottom line is, I'm in law enforcement too. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask you, if I might, 7 what percentage did you get back of what you gave up on -- 8 on that personnel sacrifice this year -- or for this coming 9 year? 10 MS. UECKER: Let's see. Probably $600. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what you got back, was 12 600? 13 MS. UECKER: Those are two merit increases. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm talking about total. 15 You got some additional part-time moneys. 16 MS. UECKER: Oh, yes. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You got about 8,000 18 there? 19 MS. UECKER: I think it would be about seven. 20 7,000. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So -- 22 MS. UECKER: 7,600 with the two merit. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, less than 24 50 percent -- 25 MS. UECKER: Yes. 8-26-03 wk 96 1 JUDGE TINLEY: -- of what you gave up. Okay, 2 thank you. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Madam District Clerk? 4 Now that the Sheriff's back in, would you repeat what you 5 said a moment ago for his benefit? 6 MS. UECKER: No. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, the -- I 8 understand where you're going with the comparison, but 9 without looking at, certainly, the last four or five years, 10 I don't think it's fair to do it that way. Some -- we have 11 asked all departments, elected officials to go on the 12 five-year plan, and during the past three or four years, we 13 looked at that plan and added personnel and did things based 14 on a plan, so that if someone got, you know, a staff one 15 year and they were due to get it in a couple years, I don't 16 see how you can say, well -- you know, you have to take that 17 into account. And some of the -- some -- you know, I 18 think -- Linda, did you get a new person last year? I think 19 you did. Or two years ago. 20 MS. UECKER: Maybe two years ago. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two years ago? Anyway, 22 you know, so I -- you know, that is different than someone 23 who got a person last year, or, you know, someone who may be 24 getting a person this year. I think you can't just say, 25 well, you're cutting back staff by one this year, so you're 8-26-03 wk 97 1 going to get "X" percent savings back. Because -- 2 MS. UECKER: I don't think that I -- that 3 I've gotten a new person for about four or five years, 4 actually. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When we redid upstairs, 6 you finally got space and you got a person then. 7 MS. UECKER: I've had all of those. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe I -- relative to the -- 9 to the Sheriff's Department, there was talk about maybe -- 10 I'm not sure I understand. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you seem to -- you 12 seem to be saying, from what I'm hearing -- maybe I'm not 13 hearing it correctly -- is that we're asking the Sheriff 14 to -- to cut back in the jail four staff, but we're willing 15 to give him that full amount, if not more, back as a 16 productivity issue. And I don't see how you can -- whereas 17 Linda and Jannett cut back their staff, and they didn't get 18 100 percent of their savings back. That's what I'm hearing 19 you say. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I can't look at it 22 that way. 23 MS. UECKER: I'm not asking for 100 percent 24 back. I'm just asking to be fair. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and I agree with 8-26-03 wk 98 1 being fair, but I don't think you can just, all of a sudden, 2 come in with a snapshot and try to make these comparisons, 3 because you have to look at overall what's been going in the 4 budget for the last four or five years. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, when you factor in the 6 Sheriff got five new jailers last year, and he's agreeing to 7 give up four this year, isn't that part of the equation, 8 too? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's part of the 10 equation. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: We don't need to go into that 12 further, but I think it's relevant. Thank you, Mrs. Uecker. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm through. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Baldwin, what do you have 15 in mind this afternoon? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have several things 17 on my mind. I'm going to go -- most everything I had has 18 already been covered, but I want to touch on a couple 19 things. The Sheriff's Office cars, one thing I want to -- 20 and Letz even touched on this. One thing I want to talk 21 about is on -- or just briefly mention, is that Road and 22 Bridge takes home -- some of their people take home 23 vehicles. But I think it's four supervisors in four 24 different areas take vehicles home in case of an emergency, 25 a flood, or many times they're called out at night for many 8-26-03 wk 99 1 different things. But that's -- they're the only ones that 2 are allowed to do that, and that's something, in our 3 conversations here, I think that we may take into 4 consideration for the future visits. 5 Another item I have is constable cars, and I 6 think Mr. Williams is going to get on that one. And then, 7 before we get back to the County Court $4,000 issue, I want 8 to take us to Page 17, to -- I'm sure that nobody wants to 9 address this, but I -- I need to -- need some explanation 10 here. It's in our budget, and we're asking the taxpayers to 11 pay something here, and I think I need an explanation 12 before -- before we approve this budget. This is the 216th 13 District Court, elected official's salary, $1,080. And I'm 14 probably -- I assume that that is just our share of it. 15 Would I be assuming correctly? Who do I need to ask that 16 to, Tommy? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: That would be correct. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the other counties 19 are paying exactly the same amount? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't -- and this is 22 my eleventh budget with Kerr County, and I don't ever recall 23 seeing us paying a district judge. Somebody explain -- 24 would you explain that to me? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: I just -- there is a statute 8-26-03 wk 100 1 that allows a district judge -- district court judge in any 2 district to make within a certain amount of the state 3 appellate court judge. Am I right, Judge? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: That's my understanding of the 5 statute. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: And our district judges -- 7 neither one has ever made that benchmark, but it is allowed 8 by state law for -- for them to make that much, and that's 9 just his request. It's that simple. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To reach some 11 benchmark? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it's -- I don't recall 13 what the -- what the benchmark is, but it's tied to the 14 salary of a state appellate court judge. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Salary increase. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a salary 17 increase, that's true. 18 JUDGE RAGSDALE: Can we take up a collection 19 for J.P. 4, too? (Laughter.) 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Really? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, that would be, 22 Commissioner, in the nature of a supplement, which counties 23 are permitted -- I thought you'd like that word. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true, too, 25 isn't it? 8-26-03 wk 101 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I love that word. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly what it is. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: That's exactly what it is. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we can save 6 $1,080. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I can tell you 8 right now what will happen. You know, if we had the guts to 9 tell the District Judge that he's not getting any money from 10 this Court, which I'm pretty sure that we don't, then you 11 have three or four other counties that are -- possibly have 12 already put this in their budget. 13 MS. UECKER: Those other counties pretty much 14 follow Kerr County's lead. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That doesn't -- that 16 will not get him to this benchmark. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's okay. Maybe he 18 can ask for a raise for announcing Tivy football games. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted -- no, I 20 know. I wanted an explanation; I didn't understand it. I 21 saw this in here, and I know none of us up here have the 22 nerve to ask the question. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we should be 24 consistent and we should take it out. I don't think he 25 should get a salary increase any more than anybody else 8-26-03 wk 102 1 right now. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did Jon say that? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I heard him. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My god. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I heard him say it. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How long will it take 7 him to come down here? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- I think the District 9 Judge will understand our position. If he wants to gift 10 us -- to us, he can give it to himself. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have any 12 thoughts there, Commissioner Williams? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, one of my 14 thoughts is, why one judge and not the other? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good 16 question. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One asked. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: I can't answer that. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, 198th didn't 20 ask for it. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. He has the option to 22 ask for it. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm taking it out of 25 mine. 8-26-03 wk 103 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me see what you're 2 doing. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I've got it 4 highlighted. I didn't mark it okay yet. See where we go. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And so let's go 6 to Page 11. This is the County Court. Line item 426 is 7 judicial supplement of $4,000, and I think that we discussed 8 this and then we broke for breakfast. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was last week. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know -- 11 counselor, did you have anything that you just wanted to 12 throw out here at us on this issue of all of our talks this 13 morning? 14 MR. MOTLEY: People told me I've already 15 thrown enough out, is what I heard. I just -- I think, 16 just, again, the plain reading of the statute is what is 17 required. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To put it in -- in 19 where it is right now? 20 MR. MOTLEY: Yeah. It seems -- that seems to 21 be the plain reading of the statute, to me. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. That's the 23 County Attorney, which is an arm of the Attorney General's 24 office, giving his opinion, so it seems to me that we need 25 to go your route of reducing the salary and throwing this 8-26-03 wk 104 1 in. 2 MR. MOTLEY: Did I say that? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, you did not say 4 that. I'm saying that from up here. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I support that. 6 JUDGE O'DELL: What is that $4,000 for, 7 mental health hearings? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't get it started. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got the fill-in from 10 one of the other J.P.'s, huh? 11 JUDGE O'DELL: Sorry. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've had three days 13 of this. So, there it is on the table. Y'all -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- I think it is 15 -- my opinion is it's a salary increase, 'cause it's no 16 change in the job of a county judge. He was doing this work 17 last year and the year before and the year before, and we 18 were -- you know, the fact we were collecting a fee, to me, 19 you know, enables us to find another alternative source for 20 some of that revenue, but it doesn't mean that we should 21 increase the salary. And I think the same goes, to me, on 22 Line 104, Mental Health, which goes to J.P.'s. I think that 23 should stay at $6,000. If we want to let that fund build, 24 we can let it build, or we can do the same thing and reduce 25 those J.P.'s that participate in that. 8-26-03 wk 105 1 JUDGE RAGSDALE: I would like to speak to 2 that, if I might. That's the reason I sat in here, if 3 you'll let me speak. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait, let's stay on 5 this one issue. That's what we did this morning. We never 6 did finish -- 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Looks like, 8 Commissioner, you may be getting close to putting to it bed, 9 so I'll weigh in and say I'm not asking for them and not 10 going to support an increase for any member of this Court. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that settle it? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 14 JUDGE O'DELL: So, are the J.P.'s okay? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9716 on that same page, 16 that entire amount's being transferred over to the County 17 Judge, correct? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Talk to the Auditor about 19 that. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: What? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What line? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Line 101, Elected 23 Officials Salary. On County Court, Page 11. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the state 25 supplement, right? 8-26-03 wk 106 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, that's our portion. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's salary. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's salary. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know that's what it 5 said. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That salary is going to 7 go over under the County Judge. Are we going to leave it as 8 two different line items? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: I would prefer to leave it as 10 two because of GASB-34. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Then we -- that's 12 fine. That amount then goes to 5,716. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How so? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other 4,000 of it is 15 on Line 426. You can just reduce the elected official 16 salary by $4,000. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does that make sense? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 5716? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, right now it's -- 21 9,716 is elected official's salary, recommended. You take 22 4,000 from that, it's 5,716. And then 4,000 stays under the 23 judicial supplement. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Real close to 25 putting it to bed. 8-26-03 wk 107 1 JUDGE TINLEY: What happened to 140? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 140 goes to 6,000, and 3 those J.P.'s that get a supplement get their supplement. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. That's 5 what it is now. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't want to try to 7 explain the other -- the easier way or the -- probably the 8 better way to do it. 9 MS. NEMEC: I have 9,479 that's being paid. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I have, 11 too. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I looked at the 13 recommended. My "Recommended" line says 9716. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They have different 15 numbers, uh-huh. 16 MS. NEMEC: What does that include? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Is that COLA? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Says Elected Official. 19 MS. NEMEC: We don't put COLA on supplements, 20 unless you want me to start doing that. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: That's a salary. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a salary. I mean, 23 it says, "Elected Official's Salary. Requested, 9479; 24 Recommended, 9716." 25 (Discussion off the record.) 8-26-03 wk 108 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know which is 2 correct. 3 MS. NEMEC: Okay. Well, the COLA -- with the 4 COLA, it's 9,716. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So it has to be 7 reduced accordingly? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the correct 9 number. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So, the J.P. 12 issue doesn't change. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't change. I mean, 14 I think we should do the same thing; I think it makes sense. 15 But -- 16 MS. NEMEC: If that's the case, then the Law 17 Library shouldn't be a supplement either. That's a salary 18 for her doing what she's doing. You know, we've never added 19 COLA to that. 20 MS. UECKER: One time. 21 MS. NEMEC: That's a salary; that's not a 22 supplement. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Shouldn't add a COLA to 24 what? 25 MS. NEMEC: To supplements. We've never been 8-26-03 wk 109 1 able to add COLA's to supplements. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not. This is just 3 a supplement. 4 MS. NEMEC: That's not what I said, Jonathan. 5 I said that hers should not be considered a supplement; it 6 should be considered a salary. You're not supplementing her 7 salary for something else she's doing. She's taken on a 8 different position when she does Law Library, and hers has 9 always been considered a supplement. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That makes sense. 11 JUDGE RAGSDALE: And that's the same thing 12 with the J.P.'s doing the mental health hearings out here. 13 That isn't any part of my job, except that the County Court 14 has said, "Will you do this?" And we said yes. If you'll 15 come -- they said, "Will you do it for this amount of 16 money?" I said, "Yes, I will." It's extra. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, we went through 18 that this morning when you weren't here, and all we were 19 trying to do is figure out a way to get you to get paid the 20 same amount of money; no change in your salary. 21 JUDGE RAGSDALE: I understand that, but when 22 you painted that brush up there and said that the same thing 23 ought to be to the J.P.'s, it's just not really true. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a supplement to you. 25 You don't have to do this job. We're paying you a 8-26-03 wk 110 1 supplement. 2 JUDGE RAGSDALE: That's exactly correct, yes. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what it's listed 4 as. 5 JUDGE RAGSDALE: Because I'm doing extra 6 work. It's not part -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're there. We're 8 on the same page. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're saying the same 10 thing. 11 JUDGE RAGSDALE: Sure didn't sound like it to 12 me. I -- at all. But, fine. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There is no change 14 in our -- the way we're addressing J.P. salaries. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. And -- and, 16 Judge, that concludes my remarks for the month. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: For this segment of the budget 18 workshop? 19 JUDGE RAGSDALE: Can I address the Court for 20 one other item? Before -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Is this on the supplement? 22 JUDGE RAGSDALE: No, totally different. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to get started on 24 yours first, or do you want to go ahead and get his wound up 25 before we take a break? 8-26-03 wk 111 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's wrap him up. 2 JUDGE RAGSDALE: All right. It came to my 3 attention a little while ago -- just by my ignorance, I was 4 not aware of how we have to spend Justice of the Peace 5 Technology Fund money that you just approved; that we have 6 to submit a totally different budget other than our normal 7 budget. I have to present a separate budget to the 8 Commissioners Court to spend that money. So, it's going -- 9 and in order for me to spend any money that we collected 10 this year, which was very small, but I need some technology 11 money. In order for me to spend it -- excuse me -- next 12 year, I have to give you a budget during this period before 13 you approve the County budget, so I'm -- I'm just letting 14 you know that I'm going to try to submit to you by tomorrow 15 a specialized budget that is strictly for Justice of the 16 Peace Technology Fund money. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do you know 18 what's in the fund? 19 JUDGE RAGSDALE: Well, I do. I asked. But I 20 also have -- what we did is, we found out how many cases we 21 had this year; we figured about how much it would be next 22 year. There's no reason to expect that the amount of cases 23 will be less next year than they were this year. Probably, 24 we're looking at $9,600 in -- in Technology Fund money that 25 we're going to collect this next year. 8-26-03 wk 112 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All four J.P.'s? 2 JUDGE RAGSDALE: No, my office. Okay? Now, 3 what that means, in order to spend any of that money in this 4 upcoming year, I have to budget it now or I can't spend it. 5 But I can't -- according to what Tommy told me, because of 6 the way the statute is written, I have to prepare a special 7 budget just for that fund to submit to you, or I can't spend 8 it, or I have to wait another year. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Has to apply to all 10 the J.P.'s. 11 JUDGE RAGSDALE: That's their -- my dog is my 12 dog. What they do is -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. We 14 have four dogs. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. 16 JUDGE RAGSDALE: If you can face that amount 17 of heat, you're welcome to it. I'm just telling you I -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Those are your choice 19 of words, not mine. 20 JUDGE RAGSDALE: I only said about my pup, 21 okay? I didn't refer to anyone else's. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait till you hear 23 what he calls the constables. 24 JUDGE RAGSDALE: I'm not one to start 25 anything, but I wouldn't take that trash if I was them. 8-26-03 wk 113 1 (Laughter.) But I can't speak to what they're going to do. 2 All I can tell -- I just found out a few minutes ago what I 3 have to do, and so -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. 5 JUDGE RAGSDALE: -- I was just letting you 6 know that I'm going to submit another budget. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's hear from the Auditor. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Since -- since we know we're 9 going to collect a fee, I think we need to budget the 10 revenue, and so I had to call each office to ask them what 11 they estimated the collections to be for '03-'04, and I will 12 add those -- the total of those funds on the revenue side 13 for -- for that fund, which is already in existence, because 14 it has a small amount of money in it now. But what I told 15 the -- the Judge was that, in order for either -- any of the 16 four to spend those funds -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: In this coming year? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: -- in this coming year, we 19 need to set -- we need to budget some expenditure for -- for 20 that. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: So, are you suggesting that 22 any of these Justices of the Peace that wish to expend out 23 of those funds during '03-'04 needs to submit a supplemental 24 budget to you? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 8-26-03 wk 114 1 JUDGE RAGSDALE: I'll give it to you 2 tomorrow. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: It's the same issue as with 4 Records Management, because the -- because, you know, we 5 already know that both clerks will spend funds from that, 6 but it's an entirely different fund, and it's not in their 7 budget. So, I -- I just don't want to be in a position to 8 have to increase the budget during -- during the budget 9 year. I'd rather go ahead and anticipate an expenditure out 10 of those funds. 11 JUDGE ELLIOTT: If the Court may, just let me 12 clarify one thing. There's probably three dogs and one 13 black sheep. But, that said, I think these funds are very 14 similar to other funds we've talked about, in that I 15 don't -- you know, we spend through Software User Group; 16 that's technology. My budget expends $3,000 to $4,000 17 already, and the anticipated revenue that we'll probably 18 bring in in Precinct 1 is probably -- in this new Technology 19 Fund is $3,000 or $4,000. So, in essence, we're already, 20 you know, paying for that, so it's just a matter of 21 shuffling numbers around. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's really -- and I 23 was going to bring that up, because -- because this is new 24 for the J.P.'s. And, I mean, to me, the way the Records 25 Management fund has been used primarily by the County Clerk 8-26-03 wk 115 1 and District Clerk is, these aren't new moneys available to 2 them for their budget. These are things that they needed, 3 and they're able to figure out a way to expend them out of 4 this fund. 5 JUDGE ELLIOTT: This is to be used for court 6 technology, and we're already spending $4,000 in court 7 technology, and if we bring in the $4 extra -- the 4,000 8 bucks, it's a wash. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, it's more -- 10 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Less money for the taxpayers 11 to have to pay. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the money that comes 13 out of the General Fund that you've already prepared, and 14 bring that money out of the Technology Fund, if possible. 15 Not necessarily a budget increase; it's more of a transfer 16 of where you -- 17 JUDGE RAGSDALE: But you have to submit a 18 budget for it. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, it has to be a 20 separate budget, and -- you know, but the way we've done it 21 in -- you know, with the Records Management funds, which I 22 think is pretty similar to this, is that when -- during the 23 budget workshop and then working -- talking to the Judge and 24 us, they kind of said, "Well, hey, maybe we can take this 25 out of the Records Management funds," and it was a way, to 8-26-03 wk 116 1 be honest, that they could get things easier than any other 2 way, because it's designated for that. So, it's a pool of 3 money that's easier to -- you know, for the J.P.'s to use 4 for technology. 5 MS. UECKER: And it rolls over from year to 6 year. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It rolls over from year 8 to year. You don't have to spend it. It kind of sits 9 there; you let it build up, buy new software, different 10 things. 11 JUDGE RAGSDALE: I just reminded you that I 12 needed to submit a new budget. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anybody have any more 14 questions of Judge Ragsdale about this item? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely not. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll stand in recess until 10 17 after. 18 (Recess taken from 2:56 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.) 19 - - - - - - - - - - 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to 21 order. We went into recess a bit before 3 p.m. It's now 22 about 10 -- 13 minutes after 3:00. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I need to respond to 24 Ms. Uecker first. I won't give her a kiss. Second off, but 25 on the serious side of it, though, the only thing I'd like 8-26-03 wk 117 1 to say real quick, I don't think you can compare jailers or 2 deputies to any other employees here. I don't think too 3 many employees here have to deal with getting urine thrown 4 at them, ending up in fights, ending up in situations that 5 deputy jailers have to end up with and put up with daily, 6 and I don't think that's a fair comparison on her part at 7 all. Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's pretty good, 9 Rusty. That was 30 seconds. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Was it 30? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin, you were 12 through with yours, correct? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: And then we got J.P. 4 in, and 15 now we're down to Commissioner Williams. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Several days ago, I 17 was going to use the Judge's comments on automobiles to 18 segue into automobiles for the constables, but that was so 19 long ago, I forgot what I was going to say. But, anyhow, we 20 haven't resolved that issue, but there is some new 21 information. And -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What page? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- notwithstanding 24 the Sheriff's offer to provide the constables with 25 automobiles next year, I think it's important that the 8-26-03 wk 118 1 constables get automobiles this year, and I'd like to draw 2 some attention to where we are in terms of capital outlay. 3 If you turn to Page 51 in the budget book, under Item 5 -- 4 Line 507, you'll see that this year, we budgeted $73,194 for 5 Sheriff's vehicles; I assume that equates to four, and that 6 the recommended amount is $46,535. I have some new 7 information that -- with respect to what can be purchased 8 for the constables, and three vehicles for a four-year 9 lease, purchasing them through Philpott and the 10 Houston-Galveston COG purchasing arm, three vehicles for a 11 four-year lease comes to $19,317 for the three vehicles. 12 The difference in the price this time versus last time has 13 to do with the elimination of video cameras and whatever 14 related equipment there is that way, because I suspect that 15 they either don't need them, or we can find a way to get 16 some grant money for them. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Three vehicles, four-year 18 lease is 19-what? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $19,317.76. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four or three vehicles? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three vehicles. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three vehicles, a 24 four-year lease program, and the fifth year would be the 25 dollar buyout. Currently, I think the Sheriff's cars are on 8-26-03 wk 119 1 three-year programs. Is that correct, Sheriff? 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We're on a three-year 3 program. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three-year program 5 with buyout at the beginning of the fourth year? 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One dollar, correct. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Anyhow, if you take 8 the Sheriff's request for 46,535 and allow it to remain in 9 the budget, and add back into that request a -- the request 10 for the constables, 19,717 and change, we're still about 11 $7,342 under what we would have expended for automobiles in 12 this budget year. And I would recommend that we allow the 13 constables to have their automobiles, new ones, on a 14 four-year program, and the new line item for automobiles 15 would be about 7,342 less than we currently budget in the 16 capital items for the Sheriff this year. And the Sheriff 17 would get his cars, and so would the constables, and we 18 don't have to worry about the trickle-down theory, whether 19 it's this year or next. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you proposing any 21 adjustment in constables' salaries? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think -- I 23 think we probably have to take a look at each constable's 24 budget. I'll let them speak to why they think that might 25 not be the case. But I assume that if the County's going to 8-26-03 wk 120 1 acquire the vehicles, the County's going to pay for the 2 vehicles, maintain the vehicles, fuel the vehicles, and 3 insure the vehicles, and so to whatever extent that might be 4 in the current budget, then I think we have an obligation to 5 take a look at it. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before Constable Ayala 7 starts, I just want to make -- I'm going off memory, which 8 sometimes my memory fails somewhat. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mine too. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- we have, in 11 the last four years, significantly raised constables' 12 salaries. As I recall, we did the adjustment in 2000-2001; 13 it was about a $59,000 adjustment. One of the reasons that 14 we did that is because we didn't have cars for the 15 constables. Now, we -- if we get cars for the constables -- 16 you know, we've raised their salaries because we didn't give 17 cars for the constables. Now we're going to give them cars. 18 I don't mind giving them cars, but I think you need to make 19 an adjustment in the salary line. We additionally added in 20 that same year, I think, about $1,800 for each constable, 21 which was used for personal -- for travel within the county. 22 And we also have in their budgets now -- in many of their 23 budgets, anyway, various line items such as vehicle expense, 24 gasoline, and fuel. So, I think that, you know, we need to 25 really look at a -- a big picture of their budgets if we go 8-26-03 wk 121 1 with, you know, any kind of car. But the -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The travel -- the 3 travel line that you referenced to, Commissioner, has been 4 zeroed out since '01-'02. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. And it was 6 rolled in their salary that year. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whatever that amount 8 was. I don't remember what that was. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was 1,800, I believe. 10 MR. AYALA: It was rolled into our salary. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much was it? 12 MR. AYALA: 1,800. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh? 14 MR. AYALA: 1,800. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was it supposed 16 to take care of? 17 MR. AYALA: It was just called Travel. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was for use of your 19 personal vehicle in the county, same as we had. 20 Commissioners had it; all -- almost all elected officials 21 had a similar amount. 22 MR. AYALA: Well, I just want to say that the 23 only reason that we -- that -- and I think I'm speaking for 24 the three of us -- we want cars is so that we can be better 25 utilized. It's just a benefit to the County; it's not to 8-26-03 wk 122 1 benefit me personally in any way. I want the car so I can 2 do my job better and so I can benefit the, you know, 3 County -- the citizens of Kerr County better. If you have 4 to take that $1,800 in travel back, I -- I told you the 5 other day, that'd be fine with me. I think it's a -- kind 6 of a step backwards, 'cause we're wanting to do more, and 7 then you're taking away -- you know, taking away part of our 8 salary because we want to do more. That's just kind of a 9 step backwards, to me. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not part of your 11 salary; it's a part of -- it's a travel allowance that we 12 added into your salary. 13 MR. AYALA: But it was incorporated and now 14 is part of our salary. And, to me, it's a step backwards. 15 That's -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see two line items 17 for certain, 331 and -- 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What page are you 19 on? Excuse me. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm on Page 45, 21 looking at -- 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- 45-46. Line 331 24 is Fuel and Oil Supplement, or a -- or a line item. And in 25 my constable's, Ayala's, we've got 331, Fuel/Oil, 537. 8-26-03 wk 123 1 We've got Equipment Repair, 456, and we've got Vehicle 2 Insurance, which is zeroed out. And so there are a couple 3 lines that probably need to be taken a look at. 4 MR. AYALA: I think in the 2000-2001 budget, 5 each constable was given $500 to do as they saw fit. My 6 predecessor, when I adopted my budget, had it in Equipment 7 Repair. I then moved to it Gasoline. And I don't know 8 exactly where the other guys put theirs, but -- 9 MR. GARZA: That's where I put my $500 that 10 was allotted. 11 MR. AYALA: This is my third budget year, and 12 I've never asked for a thing. You know, and this request is 13 -- is not for me. It's something that we want to do to 14 enhance our jobs and to do a better job. That's it. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The arguments I've 16 heard for doing this are pretty compelling from the 17 constables, and from people in the community and from y'all. 18 I've got a question that needs to be answered. Will the 19 same rules apply to these vehicles as apply to the Sheriff's 20 deputies; that these are for Kerr County work? They're not 21 going to the county fair or -- 22 MR. AYALA: Exactly. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Or personal use? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would think so -- I 25 would hope so. 8-26-03 wk 124 1 MR. AYALA: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- I think it's a 3 little bit more difficult with constables. I mean, I think 4 it's the intent, because they're -- I mean, they're -- I 5 mean, I guess deputies are on 24 hours a day, too, but 6 constables are really -- it's kind of, they want to work 7 when they want to work. I mean, it's -- 8 MR. AYALA: Actually, we're really on call 24 9 hours a day. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're on call 24 hours a 11 day, and it's hard to -- 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you're working 13 the bouncer job out at Crider's, and you're going to take 14 the County -- 15 MR. AYALA: No. No. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or parking it at the 17 theater for three and a half hours. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In my mind, I mean, I 19 think we need to get this budget line item thing cleaned up. 20 On Page 45, we have the travel, which is, I think, in-county 21 travel, which includes your fuel, your -- and roll it into 22 the salary. Let's pretend that we break that back out right 23 now, and we have a number over there on 001. If you go down 24 to 331, there's fuel again. And then 454, there's vehicle 25 repair and maintenance. To me, you have three lines doing 8-26-03 wk 125 1 the -- 2 MR. AYALA: Same thing. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- same thing. So, in 4 my mind, I think we need to get that cleaned up before we 5 take step two. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have -- I have some 8 questions. It looks like that we're -- to me, that we're 9 moving the constables -- and I don't have anything wrong 10 with this -- moving from serving papers for a J.P.'s' office 11 out to doing cop work, traffic control, traffic -- whatever. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Enforcement. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Traffic enforcement 14 and cop stuff. My question would be, would you be 15 dispatched by someone to go to a burglary, or a -- 16 MR. AYALA: Only as a backup officer to help 17 Rusty out. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you hear on it a 19 radio -- hear the call on the radio, and then you just go to 20 it? Rusty or 9-1-1 doesn't normally dispatch you to a -- 21 MR. AYALA: It's just like the shooting in 22 Center Point a few weeks ago. I was out serving papers, 23 heard a call, went -- assisted his officers in apprehending 24 the shooter. Working regs, traffic and -- you know, during 25 wrecks, I assist his deputies, as I do D.P.S., in traffic 8-26-03 wk 126 1 control on wrecks. Last year I made 30-some traffic stops. 2 I -- I don't think I can do that any more this year because 3 of the liability on me personally, in my personal vehicle. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 5 MR. AYALA: So I'm no longer going to do 6 those kind of traffic stops. But working the flood last 7 July, there was a lot of places Rusty's guys couldn't go 8 that I went, and in my personal vehicle, to evacuate people 9 around the Ag Barn, you know. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Traditionally, 11 Commissioner, the constables don't take actual calls, go out 12 and make the reports, have to deal with all the paperwork 13 part of it. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They don't have to do 15 the investigation; they're not assigned a number to -- a 16 case number to track through the courts and all that? 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. Some 18 counties do that, but, you know, this county never has. But 19 they are a great benefit, you know, when officers are a long 20 ways from each other, or in floods or on different things 21 where they do come out and assist us a lot with the -- a lot 22 of different things. While you're crunching numbers there, 23 one thing I would ask -- or just mention to you, you 24 probably want to add into those numbers -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You need some more 8-26-03 wk 127 1 jailers? 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, for the constables' 3 cars. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay? You can probably 6 average the decaling of our cars -- putting the markings as 7 they are marked right now is a little over $300 per car on 8 the -- on the actual decals. Now, if you just put a star on 9 it and constables, it's going to be less. The other 10 expenses we have besides what the lease and that covers, one 11 is the decaling; one is the deer guards. Definitely put 12 them on. They're 300-something dollars apiece on those. 13 And then we install fire extinguishers in every one of our 14 cars also, so those are miscellaneous expenses that aren't 15 covered in the lease, when you get all that equipment. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like that decal you 17 have on your shirt. 18 MR. GARZA: I got one too. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was talking about 20 you. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If we do -- and I had 22 offered our department to help them write a grant to get 23 their cameras, to where they could get cameras. I know we 24 assisted Ingram with it. There's also normally about a $200 25 installation fee in installing all those cameras, things 8-26-03 wk 128 1 like that. In each -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, if we've got our 3 constables in marked patrol cars, they can do patrol work 4 also? 5 MR. AYALA: Yes. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If they will. They're 7 elected officials; I'm not going to tell them what to do. 8 MR. AYALA: Yes, we will. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I assume that's one of the 10 reasons they're asking for cars, so that they can do -- 11 MR. AYALA: We are out anyway at night 12 serving papers. I do most of my paper-serving at night when 13 people are at home, so we're out anyway. It will get, you 14 know, just one more car out on the street that's marked, 15 that's a peace officer. And we -- 16 JUDGE TINLEY: That's effectively, then, a 17 patrol unit when it's out moving around. 18 MR. AYALA: Yes, sure. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Whether it be in the middle of 20 the day, middle of the night, or somewhere in between. 21 MR. PICKENS: Judge? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: That gives you -- that takes 23 some of the load off of your patrol people, would it not? 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, it does not, because 25 they don't do the reports and the investigation and have to 8-26-03 wk 129 1 make the initial call. They're always there for us as a 2 backup, okay, where a lot of times we do it now without a 3 backup. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Even on traffic? 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sir? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Even on traffic 7 matters? 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, even on traffic 9 matters. It wouldn't take any load -- with the way they've 10 been traditionally used over the years, it would not take 11 any load off the Sheriff's Department. It is an assisting 12 -- kind of like D.P.S. helps us. D.P.S. doesn't take any 13 load, except when they're just working traffic out on the 14 interstate, 'cause I don't work traffic on the interstate. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Help me understand this, 16 Sheriff. I'm not sure that I'm understanding what you're 17 trying to say. You mean to tell me if Constable Ayala is in 18 a marked patrol unit and he effects a traffic stop for any 19 ordinary-type traffic offense -- 20 MR. AYALA: I can write a citation. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: -- speeding, whatever, are you 22 telling me that you'd have to -- he'd have to secure the 23 scene till your officer came? 24 MR. AYALA: We're talking about burglary. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We're talking any 8-26-03 wk 130 1 offense reporting, anything like that. I have a minimum of 2 four people on duty at a time; one in the east, one in the 3 central, one in the west, okay? Those people, and then one 4 sergeant that roams and -- and takes care of all that. 5 Those people's job duties and job responsibilities are not 6 going to change. You know, they get dispatched to the 7 calls, they take the calls. They patrol the subdivisions as 8 they can. None of that's going to change. It can't -- 9 it's -- you know, it's impossible for me to let it change 10 unless we start trying to assign a constable to handle the 11 whole east section and him take all the offense reports and 12 all the calls on that. It's -- it just wouldn't change any, 13 Judge. It's nice to have another unit out there, because my 14 guys may make a traffic stop over here 'cause they saw this 15 violator or got this violator doing something, and you have 16 a constable over here that saw another violator, and he's 17 making his own traffic stop and handling that part of it. 18 But it's not going to change the duties or how much work my 19 guys do. It's a nice feeling to know you got somebody that 20 may roll up behind you, you know, and back you up. 21 MR. AYALA: But it will change our duties, 22 'cause it will allow us to be out more in a -- in a visible, 23 marked unit and to do traffic and to back these guys up. I 24 pulled up the other night on a P.D. drug bust in my pickup, 25 and I thought I was going to get shot just pulling up to 8-26-03 wk 131 1 help these guys. You know, they didn't know who I was until 2 they recognized me. You know, it's dangerous. I mean, 3 we're putting ourselves in harm's way pulling up. Most of 4 his deputies know -- know what I drive and who I am, and 5 when I pull up to assist one of them, you know, they 6 recognize me. But a P.D. officer, probably been here for 7 six months, he didn't know who I was. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. The thing you're 9 getting at is, like -- and Commissioner Letz would know 10 this, because we had this conversation when we had some of 11 our meetings with the Cypress Creek people. I'm putting 12 patrol people down there as much as I can. Now, it won't 13 change that; it won't make it less. They're wanting more 14 than that, okay? They want more visibility, and that's what 15 adding their cars and that would do, is give more visibility 16 on top of what we have, 'cause what we have is very 17 insufficient, you know; five -- four to five people. Now, 18 my policy is no less than four, no matter what. But four to 19 five people covering 1,100 square miles is not sufficient. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Rusty, I think you 21 and the constables have made the case. I think, if I'm 22 judging the Court right, where we're at is, we see the need. 23 Now, how can we address the need? 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think what 25 Commissioner Williams just proposed is the best thing in the 8-26-03 wk 132 1 world to help the constables. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to suggest 3 to the Court that we proceed along this line. I want to 4 clarify something that you added onto the basic cost of the 5 vehicles; some -- some dollars for badging the car or 6 marking the car. 7 MR. AYALA: Graphics. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The graphics. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The printout that you 11 gave me, though, did include all the basic equipment that 12 you need? 13 MR. AYALA: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Including light bars, 15 so forth, so on? 16 MR. AYALA: Well, they're -- what do they 17 call them? -- slick tops. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They don't have a light 19 bar. 20 MR. AYALA: Grill lights in the grill, 21 they're going to have. Lights in the rear, but they will 22 not have a light bar. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What I'm getting 24 to -- 25 MR. AYALA: But they're very expensive. 8-26-03 wk 133 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't care. Light 2 bar or antenna, I don't care. What I want to know is how 3 much additional cost is there? Is it $500 additional cost 4 per vehicle, roughly? 5 MR. AYALA: Depends on how graphic you want 6 to get with the graphics. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't want any more 8 graphics than the Sheriff's cars. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My cars? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What you've got on 11 your side there looks good to me. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My cars cost a little 13 bit -- I mean, I think you can look in your book; $309 per 14 car to put markings on it. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to add 16 $500. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's just the 18 markings. Deer guards are another $350 for the deer guard. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, now we're 20 up to $650. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: When you say what's a 22 good fire extinguisher, a commercial-type fire extinguisher 23 we put in all of them. Just -- you just never know. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Roughly about $750 25 total? 8-26-03 wk 134 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'd say at least that, 2 add to them, so they -- they can get that. Once you get a 3 camera, if they get the grant this year -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Stop. Once they get 5 the grant. We'll stop right there. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. Come back after 7 they get the grant for the installation. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. So, we're 9 looking at the 19,317 plus the dollars that the Sheriff gave 10 us; we're looking at $21,567 to equip the three cars, 11 divided by three. I'm going to suggest that we put $7,200 12 in each constable's budget and let it go at that, capital. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, we've 14 got to think about one other thing. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's that? 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The fact that we're 17 doing something different for three constables than we are 18 the other one. And I don't have a proposal here, but I 19 heard Don come in here and say, "I don't need a car. I'm 20 okay; go ahead." But are we -- are we starting down a path 21 here that -- Don may not be the constable next year. Are we 22 starting down a path here that we're going to have to deal 23 with Precinct 4 in a different way? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When that time comes, 25 I'm right with you. Same thing should apply. 8-26-03 wk 135 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't want to make 2 this any more complex or expensive than it has to be. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm right with you. 4 I would also -- 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Only thing I can see 6 is Don might come in here and say, "Well, I told you I 7 didn't need a car, but I do need a grill guard and decals 8 and a few other things." 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a possibility. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only other 11 suggestion I would have, Commissioner, that may save the 12 County some money on gas -- on fuel, okay, we have, of 13 course, a -- where we went out for RFP's a while back; we 14 got a good gas price. We get it the same place the City 15 does over here off Maxey -- from Maxey. It saves us all the 16 tax and that. I don't know how they're going to do that, 17 but I don't know what they have budgeted for fuel. But we 18 have cards -- you know, pin cards to where each unit is 19 assigned one of these cards and officers go over there 24 20 hours a day and fill up that car. You know, if y'all want 21 to swap some of that fuel money and put it into the 22 Sheriff's Office budget, we can add them on that account to 23 give them cards so that they can get fuel for those cars at 24 a cheaper rate than they're going to get them at Exxon or 25 anywhere else they go. 8-26-03 wk 136 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That sounds like a 2 reasonable suggestion to me, if the Court goes along with 3 it. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's just a suggestion. 5 JUDGE WRIGHT: Commissioner? A side note. 6 Joel brought in $8,400 just in warrant fees, that stayed 7 here this past year without having a car, sitting at his 8 desk and making phone calls. That more than pays for this 9 car and he'll bring a whole lot more than that when he's 10 able to go out on patrol. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand, Judge. 12 That's so, and I believe if he'd park that car -- that new 13 car on 480 in the middle of Center Point, he'd pay for it 14 also. 15 (Discussion off the record.) 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One more discussion 17 about the differences in the four -- four constables. 18 Buying a car is one issue, and the constable in Precinct 4's 19 already disposed of that, as far as I'm concerned. But 20 we're going to be doing some other things besides the decals 21 and that stuff. Do I understand we're going to be 22 reimbursing for fuel, or buying fuel and insurance and 23 repairs? Should -- in the interest of fairness, 24 even-handedness, should we be doing some of those things 25 for -- for Mr. Terrill? 8-26-03 wk 137 1 MR. GARZA: Could I ask a question? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which I would 3 think -- let me answer the Commissioner's question, please. 4 I would think that, yeah, if he wishes to avail himself of 5 it, whatever we're doing to accommodate 1, 2, and 3 should 6 be extended to him as well. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, is the answer. 8 MR. GARZA: Question. If I can ask 9 Commissioner Nicholson, Constable Terrill will be having a 10 paid deputy. He will not be paying out of his own salary, 11 so he's already going to have a -- 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, we dealt with 13 that. 14 MR. GARZA: That's what I'm saying. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We talked about 16 adding 7,200 to the Capital line item of each constable, 17 which would take care of the three. We're at less money 18 this year than we would be -- this next year that we're 19 expending this year for Sheriff, keeping the Sheriff's in 20 place. 21 MR. GARZA: 7,200 even? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that will do 23 it. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And salaries? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? And what? 8-26-03 wk 138 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And salaries? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll deal with that. 3 Waiting on you to get back. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Before we leave the 5 cars, y'all are not going to paint them goofy, like Rusty's 6 cars? 7 MR. PICKENS: No. We all decided we would 8 leave our cars the same color, all white. Just go with the 9 design that we did on our shirts. Make it -- 10 MR. AYALA: Real simple. 11 MR. PICKENS: -- real simple, and then we 12 would put one little number for our own identification 13 purposes, for we all having to be here. That way we'll just 14 say Precinct 1, 2, or 3 on it, like the Sheriff has on his 15 cars. He's got them -- you got, like, 003, Sheriff? 16 Something like that. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Precinct 1, Precinct 18 2, and Precinct 3 do the job? 19 MR. AYALA: Yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably be a good way to 21 mark it. That way, when you're -- 22 MR. PICKENS: It's all going to be the same 23 color. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That way, when you're 25 driving on patrol in your precinct, your constituents will 8-26-03 wk 139 1 know that it's you patrolling. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm ready to move on, 3 Judge. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Salaries? I just think 5 you need to reduce the salaries by at least the travel 6 allowance that we put back in. I think -- I'm not, you 7 know, trying to hammer on constables, but when we increased 8 the salaries and put that back in, that was part of the 9 deal, was that we didn't provide vehicles. And I think that 10 should be backed out. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I have a 12 problem reducing anybody's salary. I really do. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not. We're giving 14 them alternative compensation. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm -- I think 16 we should do the fuel/oil and the equipment repair and the 17 insurance; take those out. I have a hard time reducing 18 anybody's salary. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree; I don't know 21 that we can, anyway. But I don't think that's exactly what 22 he's saying, is lower their salary, but move what we moved 23 in there -- move that back out. And maybe disburse it 24 somewhere else in the budget, or -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Their compensation is 8-26-03 wk 140 1 going up right now by a bunch, 'cause we're giving them 2 vehicles they didn't have before. I think that's part of a 3 package. 4 MR. AYALA: So is the service we're going to 5 be providing Kerr County. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: By that logic, we ought 7 to increase everyone's salary because they'll have even 8 better -- 9 MS. NEMEC: You're increasing the deputies' 10 salaries already. They're going to be making more than the 11 constables. 12 MR. GARZA: Providing the constables with a 13 new vehicle. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have Road -- we 15 have Road and Bridge people that make more than the 16 Commissioners, and I'm going to start raising hell about 17 that. I think I ought to. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have chief 19 deputies that make more than the District Clerk. 20 (Court reporter interrupted - several people speaking at the same time.) 21 22 JUDGE TINLEY: This is the gal that's in 23 control. She needs to be able to take down these 24 proceedings in an orderly manner. Please cooperate. Thank 25 you. Do you got more on the salary issue there? 8-26-03 wk 141 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we should take 2 their travel allowance out of the salary, and it's going to 3 be replaced by a vehicle we're providing. It's not a 4 reduction in salary. It's just changing compensation, the 5 way I look at it. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will say -- and if the 8 County gives me a vehicle, I'll be glad to take it out of my 9 salary, the $1,200 I got, and I'm sure so would Jannett be 10 glad to do it; so would Linda be glad to do it. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think if you use 12 that rationale, Commissioner, then you've got to add $1,700 13 to every deputy's salary for the perk that's not shown in 14 budget, for taking the car. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We do. And I think 16 Commissioner Nicholson put it in there. He's trying to 17 do -- his allotment he was giving took into account $1,700 18 that's, you know, for having a vehicle. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm in agreement with 20 Commissioner Letz that the -- that the travel needs to come 21 out of the salary, and then where it goes -- I don't know 22 that we're staying together. But, looking at Page 45, we're 23 paying travel money on three different lines. To me, that's 24 the goofiest thing that we do. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where? Which lines, 8-26-03 wk 142 1 Commissioner? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Official's Salary, 331 3 and 454. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Those need to be 5 changed, 331 and 454. And if there's insurance, as there is 6 in -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Three. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- Number 2 and 3, 9 that needs to be adjusted too. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're picking up 11 insurance on all these cars now? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's right. 14 Well, insurance is zeroed out here, Number 2. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But if you -- if you 16 pull that travel out and then consolidate some of these 17 lines and make -- make one line for the travel/fuel/repairs 18 and all that stuff, make one line for that, and then make 19 that a real number over there, I mean, that's what we need 20 to do. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would agree with that. 22 How much -- 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are we pulling 24 out? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much do you estimate 8-26-03 wk 143 1 y'all will drive per year? 2 MR. AYALA: I think we talked about 20,000. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 20,000? What's -- can 4 you do a quick calculation of 20,000, 20 miles to the 5 gallon -- 15 miles to the gallon? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why don't you -- why 7 don't you do this? Just -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1,333. At least -- I'd 9 say we probably have to put close to, with oil and that 10 stuff, $2,000 for each one. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, what -- what -- 12 why not pay them, like, the State fee per mile? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be $6,900. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, because that's -- 15 that's -- that State fee is usually for using your own 16 vehicle, not if you're using a county vehicle. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just using that as 18 something to start with. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'm -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Operational Expense? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, based on 23 the calculations he had, you're talking about -- about 1,600 24 to 1,800 gas; driving 20,000 miles, probably. You know, it 25 isn't just for the gas. 8-26-03 wk 144 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is the Sheriff's 2 Department's fleet policies applicable here? I presume they 3 go by somewhere, gas up, provide insurance, provide -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They do. They 5 have -- 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- a water pump when 7 they breakdown. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One -- and that's what I 9 was going to -- this is a maintenance record for one of our 10 2,001's for one full year. It was $421, and that covered 11 things such as oil changes, okay, 'cause we do get those. 12 Windshield wipers, brake pads that had to be replaced during 13 a year. And, of course, these are patrol vehicles that 14 we're using constantly. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But it was about $421. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much for fuel? 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Fuel, I've got a budget 19 for the entire department of, what, $60,000? I think we cut 20 to it 55 this year. And I can't tell you what year-to-date 21 was on it. It hasn't been -- been terrible. We've been 22 able to turn back some. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much did you say 24 was on that maintenance? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $421.69 was what we had 8-26-03 wk 145 1 on just an example car for one year. Oil changes -- no -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many miles? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: 20,000. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 20,000? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 20,000 miles. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: You take his 42, and the 7 current budget of -- going in of 55. That's an average of 8 1,309 per unit for fuel. Vehicle gas and oil. Then he's 9 got the -- the 400-plus coming out of there, so you're 10 looking at about 1,800. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: The insurance is about 650. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: County will be paying the 13 insurance. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: I know, but that's -- but you 15 got to -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Got to add this in for 17 each constable. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it's going to be -- 20 insurance is going to be 650. Fuel -- do we put fuel and 21 repair together or in two line items for fuel and repair? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Whatever suits the Court 23 suits me. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fuel and repair, one 25 item, $1,800. 8-26-03 wk 146 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It should be one line. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. One line, 1,800. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is the line and 4 what -- what line are we talking about? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can pick -- I mean, 6 there are different in each one. How about 454, Vehicle 7 Repair and Maintenance? That's where the gas and fuel -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: 331. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 331. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 331, Fuel and Oil. 11 MR. AYALA: I had 550-some dollars in this 12 year's budget for fuel and oil. You going to take that away 13 too? Or put that back in my salary or what? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fuel and oil, $1,800 -- I 15 mean, I would -- I think you need to split them, really. I 16 think fuel and repairs are different. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They are. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think fuel, $1,300; use 19 what the Sheriff's using. And vehicle repairs, 500 for each 20 one. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In ours, it's split. 22 Ours has gas and oil, and then repairs are separate. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fuel and oil and repairs, 24 two items. If constables don't like the option, they're 25 welcome to say they don't want it; we'll leave it the way it 8-26-03 wk 147 1 is. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You got fuel and oil 3 how much, Commissioner? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1,300. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I got repair -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 500. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much was auto 8 insurance? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 650. 10 MR. AYALA: Per vehicle. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: 650? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what the Auditor 13 said. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: 650. So, you're talking about 15 a $2,450 deduct. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say that again? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: You're talking about a $2,450 18 deduct. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: From salary? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. No, that goes into 22 their -- that's those new line items. Those line items, 23 whatever was in there, they're replaced with those amounts. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what it's going to 8-26-03 wk 148 1 cost for them to operate county vehicles. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Four precincts. 3 MR. AYALA: Three. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Four. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Then you're not -- you're not 6 talking about a deduct any more. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, you need to take 8 1,800 travel allowance out of the salary. I think I agree 9 with Commissioner Nicholson; if you're going to give -- that 10 2,450 needs to go -- whether Constable 4 wants a county 11 vehicle or not, we ought to at least provide the same, you 12 know, reimbursement. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I certainly see the equity in 14 that argument. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I'm -- so, 16 fuel, 1,300. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And maintenance and 19 repair would be 500. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That totals 1,800. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you're backing the 24 1,800 -- the old travel money that we put into salary, 25 you're backing that out and putting it up -- down here where 8-26-03 wk 149 1 -- where it's truly supposed to be? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, not really. I 3 mean, it's working out that way, but I would have put 4 whatever numbers need to be here, and then take out the 5 1,800. I mean -- 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Coincidence. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Coincidence. They 8 happened to be the same. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then you have to add 650 11 for insurance. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Insurance. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. So, on -- on 14 Constable Number 1, his vehicle repair and maintenance 15 doubled, and fuel more than doubled. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that -- and an 18 insurance line. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And getting a new car. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And they don't 22 seem happy. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, no. 24 MR. AYALA: Just seems like we're taking a 25 step backwards. We want the cars to do more, and you're 8-26-03 wk 150 1 taking money away from us. It just doesn't seem fair. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if you want to 3 leave it the way it is, we can leave it the way it is. Like 4 I said, your choice. I mean -- 5 MR. AYALA: Do you not want to utilize us to 6 the best of our abilities? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Joel, we gave y'all a 8 $9,000 increase two years ago because y'all didn't have 9 cars. All I want to do is get the travel allowance back out 10 of it. You're paid more than any constable around here 11 right now. 12 MR. AYALA: No, we're not. Look at Kendall 13 County's budget. Their budget last year was over $50,000, 14 and they get a new car every four years. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So are you right now. 16 You just got them. 17 MR. AYALA: We haven't got it yet. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, that's true. That 19 is true. 20 MR. GARZA: They got 49,000 salary right now. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't care what 22 Kimble County does or Kendall County, anybody else. I'm 23 tired of y'all comparing those kind of things. But I'm not 24 following where we're cutting anything. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not. We're 8-26-03 wk 151 1 increasing a lot, in my mind. I mean -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me -- tell me -- 3 I mean, I'm serious. I'm not trying to be mean. 4 MR. AYALA: That $1,800 was put into our 5 salary two and a half years ago for salary. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From travel into 7 salary, just like it did us. 8 MR. AYALA: It's salary, and you're taking 9 that back to pay for gas and oil on a county-owned vehicle. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what it was. 11 I'm sorry, I just can't follow. I'll think about it 12 overnight, try to figure it out. Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You guys have to let 14 us know before we wrap up. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I don't 16 want -- well, we sort of -- leave me out of this. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Till tomorrow. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Until we come back 19 tomorrow. I would like to make one point, though, 20 Commissioner. If we had reimbursed them the going rate for 21 travel based on $20,000 -- right? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Like, 26 cents a mile. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 20,000 miles. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At 26 cents a mile, is 25 that what you're saying? 8-26-03 wk 152 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, 34 and a half 2 cents a mile. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 34 and a half cents a 4 mile, okay. The State rate. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We would have been 8 paying, I think, $6,900 for travel. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if you go back to 10 2000-2001, we gave them over a $9,000 increase in salary. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2000-2001, $9,512 13 increase for the constables. And I'm saying a large reason 14 we gave that large increase was because we didn't provide 15 vehicles. And everyone's forgetting and not looking at that 16 now, and that's the reason they got that increase. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Constable -- 18 Commissioner, I don't see that on this printout here. I see 19 that the salary for the constables in '01 -- '00-'01 was 20 25,132, and it's 28,7 now. 21 MR. AYALA: 29 -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whatever, 29,4. 23 Yeah, 29,492. I don't see that $9,000. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Year before, maybe. I 25 can't remember. 8-26-03 wk 153 1 MR. AYALA: Before I took office. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's true. 3 That's -- I understand. 4 MR. AYALA: When I took office, the salary 5 was 25-something. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: '01-'02 was 21,580. '02-'03 7 went to 29. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $8,000 increase, or 9 $9,000 increase. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: No, eight. Excuse me. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $8,000. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That doesn't compute 13 with this. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does seem to me like 15 we're trying to have our cake and eat it too. I appreciate 16 the argument that Commissioners rolled $1,200, I think it 17 was, into their salary from travel. And if you give me a -- 18 a county pickup truck to drive today, I shouldn't mind 19 giving you your $1,200 back. But if you want to make that 20 deal with me, I'll take it. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, me too. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Quick. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the way I see 24 it. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we -- we through 8-26-03 wk 154 1 beating that horse awhile? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have anything 3 else, Judge. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, that's wonderful. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For now. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a friend that's 8 a constable down in Harris County. His budget is larger 9 than the entire Kerr County budget. 10 MR. MOTLEY: Is that Bill Bailey? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 12 MR. MOTLEY: 300-something cars. 13 300-something cars. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz, you got any 15 more items that you want to bring to the table? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just trying to figure 17 out how we're going to pay for all this stuff. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good question. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have anything further? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have nothing else. 21 Only thing I see left unresolved are a lot of the issues 22 that Commissioner of Precinct 4 brought related to 23 adjustments. I've offered my opinion on some of those. 24 They have not been put to rest, in my mind. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And elected officials. 8-26-03 wk 155 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Want to sleep on it 2 overnight? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not a bad idea. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that your pleasure also? 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would be amenable 6 to that. If you want to continue on, I'll do that too. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, there seems to 8 be some argument over these actual numbers, and they're 9 between you two guys. Is there some way we can come up with 10 real numbers for tomorrow? 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sure Commissioner 13 Nicholson can rework those numbers, and maybe he needs to 14 get with the Auditor, if he's the one that came up with the 15 base number. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Would that -- that be your 18 pleasure at this point? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Before moving forward on those 21 items? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What about you, 24 Commissioner Williams? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. 8-26-03 wk 156 1 JUDGE TINLEY: That being the case, we'll 2 stand in -- 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Judge? There -- if you're 4 going to sleep on something, there's one -- one thing I'd 5 like for -- another item. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: You got a nightmare to throw 7 into the mix? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: No, it's kind of a philosophy 9 thing. We -- with the problem we have where -- with budget 10 amendments throughout the year, coupled with the -- you 11 know, our conversation just now about consolidating 12 accounts, there -- you know, I'm open to -- to trying to 13 simplify reporting. And if there's -- from a philosophy 14 standpoint, if -- if the Court so desires, I would like to 15 see us consolidate -- continue to consolidate line items 16 within specific budgets. And, I mean, there -- there are 17 different viewpoints about how you -- how you look at this. 18 You know, some people like to see a lot of detail, and then 19 others like to -- that doesn't matter so much as -- as the 20 -- as to how much it is. So, I would like -- you know, I 21 would like to see some -- some consolidation. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, like, as an 23 example, vehicle fuel and vehicle maintenance? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. I would like -- you 25 know, I mean, again, this is -- this is this Court's -- how 8-26-03 wk 157 1 you view looking at departmental expenditures. And if -- 2 like, for instance, this vehicle thing. I mean, I wouldn't 3 mind seeing anything that's related to -- to travel of any 4 kind being lumped into one -- one budget -- I mean, one 5 item. I mean, you know, the Court -- I mean -- I mean, the 6 way I see -- the way the Local Government Code explains 7 expenditures is that the Court, you know, sets those 8 amounts, and then it's up to the, you know, elected official 9 to expend those funds within that -- those parameters. So, 10 I think that -- that by allowing the elected officials some 11 more latitude, then we -- we can eliminate some of the -- 12 some of the budget amendment process, and by -- by 13 consolidating some expenditures into one item. And that's 14 a -- as I have prefaced this with, this is a philosophy 15 thing. And I just kind of -- you know, that's my idea, and 16 I would like to just get some feedback from the Court. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I'm just 18 looking at this as an example on -- to pick one, J.P. 4. To 19 me, office supplies, photocopying supplies, and dockets and 20 forms are all the same thing, and it's all paper goods used 21 in an office. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or basically -- or paper, 24 pens, pencils, all that type. To me, that is a logical 25 thing to, you know, put together. We have lots of them. We 8-26-03 wk 158 1 have maintenance contracts, lease copier, you know, stuff 2 like that. Those -- that, to me -- if it's any kind of 3 equipment maintenance -- 4 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, now, you got to 5 understand that this chart of accounts has evolved -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I understand. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: -- over a number of years. 8 And -- and what we see is the result of -- of direction from 9 -- you know, from the Court through -- you know, over a 10 period of time. And so maybe it's time to take a fresh look 11 at -- at, you know, how we want to do this. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- how about if 13 you -- I mean, each of the numbers -- I mean, that's 14 consistent throughout the whole budget? Like, 309 is always 15 going to be postage, correct? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: It can be. I mean, I would 17 object to seeing it put into -- to one -- one account for 18 office operations or -- or something to that effect. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about if you take a 20 stab at these -- you know, after you print all the different 21 categories you have now, then print a new -- a new, you 22 know, consolidated one. Maybe two options. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: I think it would have to be 24 on an office by -- by department situation. I mean, I -- I 25 don't think you can just arbitrarily -- 8-26-03 wk 159 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: -- I mean, apply the same 3 rule to every department, because they're so different. But 4 I just -- you know, I just want to get your feeling as to -- 5 as to -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But such as, like, 309 7 appears to be postage, and if they have a postage line item, 8 it's 309 is the account number. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. That's right. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think if you can 11 come up with all the different options that you have just on 12 one printout, then you can start figuring out which ones to 13 consolidate. And, you know, some people may not have a 14 postage line item, but, you know, at least we'd be more 15 consistent by picking certain headings and get rid of all 16 the rest of them. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: I'd like to -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it your view, 19 Tommy, that this would reduce these budget amendments we go 20 through? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: Significantly. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which would -- I hope 23 we can figure out a way to do that. Does it have any GASB 24 implications? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: No, none at all. The only -- 8-26-03 wk 160 1 the big difference in GASB-34 and reporting is that our -- 2 our statement of operations -- rather than our statement of 3 operations being by department or fund, it will be by what's 4 called an activity report. And all the judicial activities, 5 law enforcement activities will be consolidated into -- into 6 one number. That's why my suggestion a while ago about -- 7 about the Judge's salary that's in County Court remain 8 separate, because that part of his salary relates to the 9 judicial process and not to the administrative process. So, 10 to -- to be accurate, you know, at some point, you know, I 11 would have to, you know, determine -- or we would have to 12 determine what part of his salary goes -- goes to what 13 activity. And -- and that's the reason that -- you know, 14 that I suggested that that stay the same. But that's the 15 major change in GASB-34. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody got any other 17 questions or comments for the Auditor? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not for the Auditor, 19 but I do for you, maybe. We meet again tomorrow? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: We begin at 9 a.m. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Great. And at what 22 point are we going to actually sit down and, I guess, have a 23 document to vote on? That we can see how much money we have 24 and how much we're going to spend, and -- or how much taxes 25 we're going to raise the taxes to spend? At what point will 8-26-03 wk 161 1 we arrive at that? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not certain I can give you 3 an answer, Commissioner. You're asking me to look in the 4 future and predict -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: -- what this Court's going to 7 do. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm assuming when we 9 get through tomorrow, we should -- in my mind, we would 10 have, I mean, somewhat of clarity of what direction we're 11 going to go. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: That being the case, I would 13 think probably by Friday, we might be able to have us a new 14 print, Mr. Auditor? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: I have a commitment Thursday. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about -- I mean -- 17 MR. TOMLINSON: I have to listen to a budget 18 meeting in Bandera. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can I go with you? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with Commissioner 21 Baldwin. I think by tomorrow, I think we will put to -- at 22 least what we hope to have in the budget there. Then we can 23 ask the Auditor to -- and Treasurer to redo schedules and 24 numbers and all that, and then maybe by Monday, have a 25 workshop where we can look at -- or at least have a printout 8-26-03 wk 162 1 by Monday. And then, I guess, Tuesday or Wednesday next 2 week, then hopefully have a final workshop, or actually may 3 even be meeting where we start voting. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, my response to that is 5 I'm not the guy that -- that makes the machinery operate, 6 that spits out this -- this new multi-page budget here. 7 So -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you suggest, 9 Tommy? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, if -- if there's not 11 a lot of payroll changes, then it's really simple. I mean, 12 I could -- I could be here my usual time in the morning and 13 have it ready by 9:00, probably. But I just -- I just 14 need -- I need something concrete that -- you know, one, 15 two, three, four that I need to change. And that's -- 16 that's all -- that's what I need. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And hopefully we're 18 going to give that to you tomorrow. Hopefully. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there will be salary 20 -- probably will be some salary adjustments. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, it's not -- 23 MR. TOMLINSON: The Treasurer will have to 24 redo the -- you know, those schedules. I mean, Monday is 25 Labor Day. 8-26-03 wk 163 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a true 2 statement. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That is a county holiday. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Friday is the 5 first football game. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that like a holiday? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're not working at 8 night. 9 MS. NEMEC: Commissioner, Thursday is 10 freshmen. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, that's right, 12 yeah. That's this Thursday, though. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, I -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Next Wednesday, Thursday, and 15 Friday, I am committed to be out of the office. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's good. We can't 17 meet those days; then I can make plans. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: How about -- how about 19 Tuesday? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tuesday's good. You 21 know, I just want to make sure that we have plenty of time 22 to -- when we see this huge, huge tax increase -- and I'm 23 not joking one bit -- that we have plenty of time to come 24 back and -- and take out some of these wonderful things that 25 we've done, to have time to do that. 8-26-03 wk 164 1 MR. TOMLINSON: You have time to do that up 2 until the day that you -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. 4 MR. TOMLINSON: -- the day that you actually 5 adopt the budget. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We kind of like to take 7 the approach like O.S.S.F. We'll put out a budget that will 8 get the most public input. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. So, did you say 10 Tuesday? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: We should plan on Tuesday, 12 probably at about the same time. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10:30 or 11:00? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Well -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about 9:00? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He has hearings. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Hearings away from the 19 courthouse. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10:30? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 10:30. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10:30 Tuesday. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't go yet. I have 24 one other thing I'd like to bring up, Judge. It's a short 25 one, but I need the Auditor's opinion on something, too. If 8-26-03 wk 165 1 you'll refer to Page 8, Information Specialist technology 2 information -- Information Technology. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I haven't asked the 5 question yet. I just want some input from the Auditor here. 6 We dealt with whether to outsource or to keep it. We 7 decided to keep it. My question is, based on your original 8 request of $54,000, I assume you were talking about another 9 person to help do -- take care of 180 computers; is that 10 correct? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. It was for a part-time 12 person. That was -- that number was for discussion 13 purposes, and I didn't -- I really had no feel for what -- 14 what direction we were going to go. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we've decided 16 we're going to go ahead and keep it, so do you still need a 17 part-time person? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm okay with where it is. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're okay with 20 where it is? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm okay with where it is. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the end of 23 that. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Have we beat this horse 25 about as much as we can do so today? We will stand 8-26-03 wk 166 1 adjourned, gentlemen. 2 (Budget workshop adjourned at 4:10 p.m.) 3 - - - - - - - - - - 4 5 6 STATE OF TEXAS | 7 COUNTY OF KERR | 8 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 9 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 10 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 11 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 12 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 8th day of April, 2004. 13 14 15 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 16 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 17 Certified Shorthand Reporter 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8-26-03 wk