1 2 3 4 5 6 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 7 Budget Workshop 8 Wednesday, June 30, 2004 9 10 a.m. 10 Commissioners' Courtroom 11 Kerr County Courthouse 12 Kerrville, Texas 13 14 15 16 17 Review and Discuss FY 2004-2005 Budget 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 On Wednesday, June 30, 2004, at 10:00 a.m., a budget 2 workshop of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in 3 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: Let me call to order the 8 workshop posted for the Commissioners Court this time and 9 date, Wednesday, June 30th, 2004, at 10 a.m. Before we get 10 started by members of the Court, I've got a public 11 participation form here from Mr. Eller, who asked to address 12 the Court briefly prior to us getting started. So, 13 Mr. Eller? 14 MR. ELLER: Thank you, Judge. Good morning. 15 I'm Charlie Eller, 108 Wild Timber. Now, there's a lot of 16 lip service paid to less government and more personal 17 responsibility and accountability. I believe it's time to 18 stop talking about it and take action to implement that 19 concept. Once again, taxes are being increased from 10 or 20 13 percent through property valuations and taxes on new 21 construction. This allows the Court to claim they didn't 22 increase taxes, while increasing spending at several times 23 the rate of inflation, and certainly more than anyone's 24 increasing income in this town. Commissioners Court, you 25 and only you increase county taxes. Nobody else. I ask you 6-30-04 wk 3 1 to limit spending to the same level as last year, but 2 decreasing the tax rate 10 to 13 percent. That still gives 3 you new taxes on new construction, of which there's an awful 4 large amount in the county. I further ask you to go through 5 the budget and reduce spending by eliminating unnecessary 6 expenses for excess motor vehicles, outdated positions, 7 social spending that serves only a small, special-interest 8 number of the people. I ask you to perform the proper role 9 of government and let the people fund other activities and 10 services through their generosity as they see fit. When you 11 take money from me and give it to charity, you're not only 12 taking my money; you're taking away my right to a tax 13 exemption. Let the people do that. And I ask you to ask 14 yourself, "If I had to pay for this myself, would I do it?" 15 Thank you. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Eller. The 17 listed item for the workshop this morning is review and 18 discuss the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 budget. And, as indicated 19 in last Commissioners Court meeting, the format that I 20 suggested that we follow and which seemed to be permissible 21 was to get some general thoughts, ideas, comments, 22 philosophies, whatever, from each of the members of the 23 Court initially, and then we can look at some of the 24 so-called big-ticket items, and I'd asked the administrative 25 assistant/court coordinator to prepare a summary of all of 6-30-04 wk 4 1 those Capital Outlay items. There may be some others that 2 are not on there, and hopefully we'll develop that as the 3 day goes by. But, in -- in line with that -- with that 4 format, Commissioner 1? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: What do you have for us this 7 morning? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have some thoughts, 9 some ideas, and just -- they're very general, and -- and 10 they're going to be very brief. The first thing I want to 11 talk about are salaries. It seems that we have been doing 12 the 2 and a half percent COLA for everyone for a number of 13 years, and about three years ago, we had -- the 14 Commissioners Court at that time had talked about trying to 15 get a little bit better, solid thinking, in that when we 16 were doing the 2 and a half percent COLA's, that is just a 17 number that we pulled out of the air. It had no basis to 18 it. It's just a nice number we pulled out of the air. So, 19 the previous Commissioners Court talked about tying the COLA 20 to some kind of index, and we had agreed -- not by court 21 order, but we found in the minutes that we had agreed that 22 we would tie it to C.P.I., or -- I can't remember exactly 23 what index it was; it was a federal index. And I still 24 think that we should do that because of the fact that the 25 C.P.I., as an example, looking at it on the computer this 6-30-04 wk 5 1 morning, in this last year, federally, it -- or nationally, 2 it rose -- things like housing rose 2.4 percent. Energy, 3 15 percent, and automobile fuel rose as much as 70 percent. 4 Of course, we all know that. But milk and bread and diapers 5 and medication and all those kinds of things have risen as 6 well. 7 So, instead of us -- when we get around to 8 talking about the COLA or a salary increase for the -- all 9 of the employees, I hope that we do not just pull a number 10 out of the air; that we base it on something that is -- that 11 truly -- really and truly affects the salaries of our 12 employees, including elected officials. You know, several 13 years ago, we had the Nash study come through, and we 14 adjusted some salaries to fit that. Some of the elected 15 officials, last -- last year, we adjusted to get to a level 16 playing field with one another. And we did that, but the 17 Commissioners Court did not -- chose not to receive that 18 salary increase. I want us to think about that, and it 19 would be only fair for it to be our time. I go to H.E.B. 20 and I buy bread too, and I buy gasoline for my cars too. 21 And I buy -- recently, I've been buying more and more 22 medication. I don't know if -- is that something to do with 23 age or not? I don't know, but it's getting a little 24 expensive. But I just want us to consider those kinds of 25 things. 6-30-04 wk 6 1 As was stated in the paper, this work truck 2 the Sheriff has that hauls around the prisoners that do work 3 not only at the courthouse, but other nonprofit 4 organizations around town, blew up, and I understand that 5 they -- they put one -- requested one in the budget. But, 6 to me, that needs to be put on the front burner, and I'm 7 sure be dealt with in a -- in a Commissioners Court agenda 8 item, and I'm sure that it will land there very, very soon, 9 but I just wanted to make you aware of that. I noticed on 10 this Capital Outlay expenditure sheet we have here -- in my 11 mind, the budget process has begun by this meeting today, 12 and I'm seeing here that there are -- here's one, an amount 13 for $45,000 for a capital expenditure with no description. 14 I would hope that we get that cleaned up. I mean, what if 15 we were going to deal with that today? We would have 16 absolutely no information to go on. So -- so, I'd hope that 17 we get that straightened out pretty quick. 18 It is my belief -- and this is going to be my 19 last point. It is my belief that our county has grown more 20 than we think it has. We all -- or at least I go around 21 talking about Kerr County having 40,000 people in it. I 22 think the 9-1-1 report we had in here recently, he used the 23 figure 43,000 or 44,000 people that he's actually contacted, 24 so I -- I would think probably that our numbers are even 25 higher than that, which is a pretty good growth in the last 6-30-04 wk 7 1 few years. Along with that growth are services, and 2 specifically I want to talk about the County Judge's issues 3 of -- of juveniles and State Hospital, probate, and those 4 things that he does outside of the Commissioners Court. I 5 don't know this; I haven't talked to him. I haven't talked 6 to you, Judge, and I haven't looked in any paperwork or 7 anything, but I'm just thinking that our County's grown, so 8 your workload has grown as well. The numbers have 9 increased. That's the way life is. When you get more 10 people, you have more people to deal with. Bottom line is, 11 I would -- I would love for us to sit down and talk about a 12 part-time person to do some of your work, a secretary-type 13 person. That's been talked about around here for a number 14 of years, but I think we have -- in my opinion, I think we 15 have reached that point to where we really need to have that 16 conversation in a serious way. That's all, folks. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 2? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Judge, I'm 19 cranking a little number here. Just -- be right with you. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're supposed to 21 have done that last night, Bill. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I -- my computer 23 broke. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Costing the taxpayers 25 money. 6-30-04 wk 8 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see this list has 2 about 390 -- $339,000 worth of proposed capital 3 expenditures. As we've done in the past, we've taken -- we 4 list these things and we look at them, and we talk to the 5 various department heads about them, knowing that they 6 believe firmly -- and I am convinced that they do not try to 7 put things in here that they absolutely don't need. But we 8 talk about new revenues coming into the county. That's all 9 well and good; we do get some new revenues, but we also get 10 new requests for additional expenditures every single year. 11 Some of those are the result of expanded services required 12 because our County's growing, as Commissioner Baldwin noted. 13 Some of them are required because the federal and the state 14 government lays things down on us that we have no control 15 over. 16 I think the Sheriff's Department this year is 17 a pretty darned good example, in which federal regulations 18 are going to require him to spend a considerable sum of 19 money on improving surveillance at the jail. Where we 20 thought we had built in pretty darned good surveillance when 21 we built the jail, we found out that somebody on some high 22 plane someplace thinks we need to do it better. So, we face 23 these things every year. Our employee base group needs its 24 health care, and it needs to be taken care of, 25 notwithstanding the fact that this is an added expense every 6-30-04 wk 9 1 single year and it grows exponentially, and there's not a 2 lot we can do to control that. I think we're going to have 3 some discussions about how, perhaps, we can curb it. I'm -- 4 I don't know whether that's going to lead us to any 5 significant conclusions or not. There are some things 6 that -- however, that I think I'd like to see us take a 7 good, long look at. In addition to the ones that my 8 colleague here mentioned, I've got about three or four 9 things that I want us to take a serious look at, and I think 10 are necessary. 11 We're going to be -- Commissioner Letz and I 12 will be presenting to the Court the documents that came from 13 our task force working on airport governance and operations 14 and maintenance. We've been working on that now for a long 15 time, and we finally have documents that are going to be 16 brought to Commissioners Court and the City Council for 17 review and hopefully action. The product of that effort on 18 our part, however, requires the County to pay its 19 significant portion of the operations. We own 50 percent of 20 the airport. It's our obligation to fund 50 percent of its 21 operation, with the goal in mind that that airport will 22 become self-sustaining. And here's one commissioner that 23 believes that it will, over time. So, we have that 24 obligation to balance -- to balance our relationship with 25 the City in terms of a -- of a major economic generator in 6-30-04 wk 10 1 Kerr County. It can be viewed no other way than a major 2 economic generator for Kerr County. So, I want us to be 3 able to look at that seriously when we get started. 4 I have some safety issues and concerns with 5 respect to our -- some of our recreational facilities. I'd 6 like for the Court -- and I don't have the numbers today, 7 but I'll get them. I'd like for the Court to take a serious 8 look at how we clean up one of our major attractions, which 9 is Flat Rock Lake, and make it a safer place for people to 10 use recreationally. By the same token, we have a need to 11 finish some of the things we did at Flat Rock Lake Park; 12 notably, our restroom facilities, and begin the planning 13 process for how that facility can be more better and 14 efficiently used by the constituents in Kerr County. The 15 third thing I want us to take a look at -- and I haven't 16 spoken with Barbara Nemec, but I know that Barbara has 17 probably received some of the same phone calls I've 18 received, and that is how we can take a serious look at a 19 cost-of-living adjustment for our retirees. I've had 20 several phone calls about that topic. I've indicated to 21 people, while I don't know what the cost is, I'm sure 22 Ms. Nemec can figure out what that is in terms of our level 23 of funding into our pension system, which would enable our 24 retirees to have some modicum of improvement from time to 25 time in terms of a flat -- of a cost-of-living adjustment. 6-30-04 wk 11 1 And, lastly, special road projects. I know 2 Leonard's going to be talking to us about that, but I have 3 some that I want to make certain get funded, if at all 4 possible. They have to do with Fall Creek Road, and also 5 not just the road itself, but the fact that when we get 6 heavy rains like we got right now, we have a lot of people 7 who get stranded out there and can't get across the Turtle 8 Creek Crossing. So, we're going to take a serious look, I 9 think, at how -- how that, perhaps, can be improved so that 10 people have the ability to come and go from their ranches 11 and their residence on that road. That's all I got for 12 openers, Judge. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner. 14 Commissioner 3? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a whole lot. 16 Mainly, I think -- well, I agree with a lot of what 17 Commissioner 1 and 2 said on the airport. I'm in agreement 18 with Commissioner Williams that, you know, it is going to be 19 an increase in our budget and what we fund out there, but I 20 think that the direction the airport is going under the 21 current Airport Manager and the way -- and, I guess, the 22 involvement -- the County's, I think that will well pay for 23 itself. That additional expenditure will come back in 24 additional revenue pretty rapidly. As an example, the -- 25 well, the new planes that are being brought in here from a 6-30-04 wk 12 1 business standpoint that are added to the tax roll right 2 away are millions of dollars already, and there's some 3 addition -- they are doing a better job of -- of realizing 4 all of those planes that are business planes, which are 5 taxable, and not just recreational-type vehicles. 6 The -- I guess one of the new things that I 7 really want to look at is the administration side of Road 8 and Bridge. I've talked about it before. I think we're 9 really waiting on the County Attorney's office to give us a 10 little bit of guidance on how that can be organized. With 11 the addition of Floodplain back in that department, where I 12 believe that department should be, if you add Floodplain 13 administration into the County Engineer's salary, you're 14 talking about basically a full-time engineer's salary and 15 pretty close to a -- a full-time position. And I think 16 that, if we're paying that amount, I would like to see 17 some -- possibly some -- we're going to look at changing 18 that organization out there a little bit and trying to, you 19 know, get a little bit more bang for our buck. It may not 20 be possible. It may be a two-year project to get that done, 21 but I really want to start to look at that now. 22 There's some road issues. I'd like to look 23 at some improvements, you know, in my precinct that we've 24 talked about for a number of years that have been pushed off 25 and -- you know, that I'm aware of in the Stoneleigh area 6-30-04 wk 13 1 and Lazy Valley, to get that back into the schedule. It 2 makes -- I think that it's been put off long enough. Those 3 are the main things. I really think that -- well, I do have 4 one other thing I wanted to mention, and it goes back to 5 something -- a combination of what Mr. Eller said and what 6 Commissioner Baldwin said. When it comes to goods and 7 services, one of the problems we have in this county is 8 that -- I think Commissioner Baldwin said that he thinks our 9 county's growing faster than we see -- than we kind of tend 10 to think it is, at the -- 40,000 people is the number we 11 tend to use right now, or 45,000. I think he's very -- 12 that's a very important point. 13 We have a huge number of recreational people 14 that live in -- that use Kerr County, that don't live here, 15 during the summer months and during the winter -- actually, 16 probably year-round at this point. You know, it -- I would 17 say we probably have a -- a population increase of 18 25 percent higher at times than our actual population due to 19 people coming in and using it on weekends. They may not be 20 residents. They are taxpayers; they pay tax in sales tax, 21 and also in property tax, many of them do, or through hotels 22 or other means. But the -- and this is something that the 23 whole -- that I'm really aware of because of my work with 24 Region J, that every county -- we have a big water problem 25 with the water -- you know, trying to balance everything, 6-30-04 wk 14 1 because those people -- or that usage isn't really recorded 2 and counted when we do our balancing act on water. And I 3 think the same thing holds true when we're doing roads and 4 all the other infrastructure, 9-1-1, everything else. While 5 we may have a population of 45,000, we have a population 6 that's using the county of probably approaching 60,000, and 7 I -- and we have to have an infrastructure that meets those 8 needs. I don't really know how you tackle that, but I think 9 that's something that we need to be aware of, that we -- you 10 know, our usage in the county is a lot higher than our 11 actual population. 12 And I think the final thing I have to say is 13 that I think that the -- you know, because of what this 14 Court has done in recent years on some major capital 15 improvements, like this building, the annex and other 16 things, I don't see a whole lot of big-ticket items -- and 17 I'm talking about million-dollar-ticket items -- on the 18 horizon, and I think that we have a real possibility of 19 looking at our tax rate and possibly reducing it. I think 20 that, if not this year, I think next year, we do have a -- 21 the communications system, in the next -- in three years, I 22 think, will be paid off -- two years. The courthouse annex 23 will be paid off next year. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think this year, 25 Jon. 6-30-04 wk 15 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This year? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think this year. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, either way, we have 4 some things that we basically financed with tax anticipation 5 notes over a short term that we're about to pay off. And I 6 think that's -- we need to be aware of that, and I think, if 7 at all possible, we need to refund that portion of the tax 8 rate back to the taxpayers. I think that it's a -- you 9 know, we're about at a kind of unique time with the growth 10 we've had and what we've been able to do in this county to 11 really seriously look at lowering our tax rate, and I hope 12 we can do that. That's it. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner 4? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to talk 15 mostly about people costs, but before I get into that, I -- 16 I'd like to tell you that I looked at my tax bill last 17 night. And I had a pretty good idea where my tax dollars 18 were going, but -- and like a lot of other people, I think I 19 pay too much in taxes, but I pay about almost five times as 20 much to my Independent School District than I do to Kerr 21 County. I don't live in Kerrville, and I'm not going to 22 because it costs too much to live in Kerrville. I see 23 that -- but I do represent some residents of the county who 24 live in Kerrville, and some of you represent a whole lot 25 more of them than I do. And I see that, not only from the 6-30-04 wk 16 1 cost of local government; they pay county taxes, but they 2 pay city taxes, so the person that lives across the border 3 in Kerrville pays about two and a half times more for local 4 government than I do, and that concerns me. And it concerns 5 me that perhaps I don't give enough thought to those 6 constituents of mine who live in Kerrville. 7 I want to talk about people costs, and I had 8 mentioned that I had worked -- done some work on a -- a 9 survey that Judge Tinley did a year ago, to -- to further 10 refine those numbers. And I want to acknowledge first that 11 it is -- it is year-old data. It's data that, one year ago, 12 compared Kerr County to four other counties, four peer 13 counties, counties that are similarly situated, that are 14 about our size in terms of population and other relevant 15 data. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this right 16 now, because I think you probably want some time to digest 17 it and study it, but if you will turn to Exhibit C, it's the 18 one that's got some color on it. Once again, taking 19 year-old data that compares Kerr County to four other peer 20 counties -- Cherokee, Hood, Lamar, and Rusk -- I can see 21 that -- that there is reason to further study whether or not 22 Kerr County operates as efficiently as it could. And, 23 particularly, I think the issue is -- is staffing levels. 24 Look in -- all the way over to the right-hand 25 column, which is budget dollars divided by population. You 6-30-04 wk 17 1 can see that -- that Kerr County spent $426 per Kerr County 2 resident, and that is significantly higher than the average. 3 It's the highest amount in that peer group, and it's 4 72 percent more per-citizen than Hood County. I've looked 5 at the data for several departments, and go back over to the 6 left side now and look at the Sheriff's Department and Jail, 7 and here we're dividing head count -- number of employees 8 into the population. And you can see there that we have -- 9 we staff heavier in terms of total population than any of 10 the other counties staff; heavier in terms of rural 11 population than any other counties. We're about average in 12 terms of jail employees per jail bed. 13 Looking at the Tax Collector/Assessor's 14 office, you can see that, again, dividing employees into -- 15 to relevant statistics, that we're the highest staffed in 16 terms of total population. In terms of registered voters, 17 we're the highest staffed. In terms of registered vehicles, 18 we're the highest staffed, and we're significantly higher 19 than -- than the other peer counties. Looking at the 20 District Clerk's Office, I see that dividing employees into 21 the number of cases, Kerr County is about average. As is 22 the case with any of this data, we'd have to look at what 23 kind of courts they have and the ratio of criminal cases to 24 civil and things like that, but it looks like we're not in 25 too bad of shape on that metric. 6-30-04 wk 18 1 Road and Bridge, I see that dividing 2 employees into the area in square miles, that we -- we are 3 more productive than any of the other four peer counties. I 4 don't have road mileage data, but that would be very 5 interesting, a statistic that we need. In the County 6 Clerk's office, again, dividing employees into total 7 population, I see that we're staffed the heaviest, and more 8 than twice as heavy as, for example, Cherokee County, which 9 is the best practice. I only use -- was able to use one 10 metric on our maintenance staffing, and that's the number of 11 employees per building. We do have some data on the size of 12 the buildings, so it's probably -- it probably provides some 13 guidance on that, and there we come out looking very good. 14 We -- we have more employees than the other counties, but 15 I'm presuming that they don't have a Youth Exhibition 16 Center. Maybe they do; maybe they don't. I don't know. 17 One of the things I'd like to see us focus on 18 this year is how we can become more productive in all of our 19 departments, and how we can get more done with fewer people. 20 You heard me say before that I prefer to pay more dollars to 21 fewer people, and while cutting payroll costs and insurance 22 costs by doing that. That's the real way to save -- to be 23 productive and efficient on manpower count. There's not -- 24 just make sure you don't have too many people, and make sure 25 you pay them well. I think there's opportunities in this in 6-30-04 wk 19 1 a number of areas, and one of them would include working 2 with the City of Kerrville or the City of Ingram to find 3 ways that we can better serve, more efficiently serve the 4 populations that we serve by combining operations, or other 5 ideas about how to get work done better. And the one that 6 costs us and Kerrville the most, the one that's most 7 pregnant for savings is law enforcement. 8 And I'm going to suggest that we -- that we 9 give serious consideration to merging the Kerrville Police 10 Department and the Kerr County Sheriff's Office. I can 11 think of no down side to it. We'll get better law 12 enforcement, because law enforcement will be seamless. We 13 won't have to worry about artificial boundaries. We'll get 14 better law enforcement because it will be more productive, 15 more efficient; we won't have two of everything, and it 16 would be win-win for the people who live in the county and 17 the people who live in the city, both. It's not something 18 that's going to be easy to do, and can't be done overnight. 19 I do believe it could be done by October 1, 2005, if both 20 governments were serious about it and willing to work at it. 21 Other than that, I agree with everything else the three of 22 you said. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner. With 24 respect to Commissioner Baldwin's' inquiry about my judicial 25 workload, I think it has increased. I was running some 6-30-04 wk 20 1 numbers from last year, 2003, and on the three dockets that 2 I have, the hearings alone that I conducted in 2003 were 3 over 1,225 hearings. Now, that, of course, does not include 4 a lot of the routine housekeeping things that are done in 5 primarily the probate area, reviewing inventories and 6 routine applications and so forth, for which there are no 7 hearings held. But -- and there are a few other things with 8 regard to the other two dockets, but that's just the number 9 of hearings that were held. So, I appreciate that 10 consideration, Commissioner Baldwin. 11 I, too, would like to be able to achieve some 12 increased efficiency and productivity through the budget 13 process, and I think there are a number of ways that can be 14 accomplished. If we can find equipment or machines to 15 perform tasks that people are doing, certainly, that's one 16 area that can be utilized. I know there are some 17 departments that have been right at the head of the column 18 doing that, use of new technology. There's technology 19 coming down the pike all the time in computer programming 20 and -- and other areas that can be utilized for that, 21 additional training and cross-training that allows people to 22 better cross over and perform their duties in a more 23 efficient manner, and to be able to do more than what they 24 had previously been doing, and restructuring of department 25 staffing and job descriptions, and all of these things get 6-30-04 wk 21 1 to the end result of increasing the productivity and 2 efficiency. 3 The key to personnel management, in my 4 opinion, is to be able to accomplish the mission with the 5 absolute fewest number of people. More people is not 6 necessarily better. In fact, oftentimes it can be worse. 7 The key is finding that minimum number of people and 8 utilizing that. But, by the same token, as Commissioner 9 Nicholson has said, those fewer persons accomplishing larger 10 results need to be rewarded for doing that. That's the 11 American way, and that's the way it ought to be in 12 government as well as on the outside. And -- and I was 13 pleased last year, during the budget process, with the 14 cooperation that I got with a number of elected officials 15 and department heads on trying to restructure and -- and 16 reposition their staffing levels, and we worked with those, 17 and those elected officials and department heads managed to 18 find a way to better compensate the people that they had 19 remaining to do the same job, but at a net cost to Kerr 20 County. So, it was really a win-win situation. I hope we 21 can have a similar or even better experience this year, and 22 that's what I'll be looking to. 23 As the budget process continues to develop, I 24 will again this year be talking one-on-one with each of the 25 elected officials and the department heads to try and go 6-30-04 wk 22 1 over each of your respective budgets so that your requests 2 -- so that I can understand what your needs are, so that you 3 can have what you must have in order to accomplish your 4 mission. And it's only after we have those discussions, I 5 believe, can we present a meaningful and effective budget. 6 But this is the start of the process, and we need to know 7 what you need. 8 I have one pet project that I'm -- I've got 9 in the formative stages, that I think will increase 10 efficiency and productivity, and it involves the judicial 11 area, primarily with our district courts. As most of you 12 know, our district courts are multi-county, and as a result, 13 our judges spend a lot of time on the road traveling to and 14 from these other counties in the district. I am working now 15 initially through the A & M Extension Service and with the 16 Office of Court Administration to possibly put together a 17 plan to use video conferencing. Now, the larger benefit 18 will probably be to the other rural counties in the district 19 initially, but the efficiency that we get by having our 20 judges available more, I think, will move the caseloads at a 21 better pace, and that will include Kerr County. 22 Also, I think it'll have an impact on what 23 the County pays in -- in indigent defense funds to lawyers 24 who represent those charged with criminal offenses who are 25 unable to hire their own lawyers. If we can cut down the 6-30-04 wk 23 1 amount of time those lawyers are spending, we're going to 2 cut down the amount of money we're paying, and it's -- it's 3 a bottom-line item. But that's in the formative stages; may 4 not get it rolling this year. We may have some legal 5 obstacles. We're looking into that now. But I've also got 6 some ideas of how to fund it without using taxpayer -- Kerr 7 County taxpayer money. If I can get there by being out in 8 front of this issue, hopefully we can -- we can have another 9 win-win situation. But I appreciate the comments of all of 10 the Commissioners, and it looks like we've got some -- some 11 pretty good conceptual thinking that's gone into the process 12 that's going to start developing, and I -- I look forward to 13 getting us a budget which is, number one, accurate, and 14 number two, workable, and number three, will get the mission 15 accomplished. And that's what we're here for, to help you 16 get your mission accomplished. Okay. I guess -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You said one thing that I 18 -- and I meant to bring it up. You mentioned the word 19 "accurate." And I think that's it's one of the problems we 20 have that I hope the public -- I just want to make sure the 21 public is aware of it, and the best example are capital 22 murder trials. You know, we have to budget for things that 23 we think are likely going to happen. We put in this year's 24 budget, I think, $150,000 for two capital murder trials. 25 They didn't happen this year, so we're going to have budget 6-30-04 wk 24 1 for them again next year, because we think they're going -- 2 probably going to happen next year, best guess. So, even 3 though we've kind of -- we budgeted for it once, our budget 4 was bigger this year, you know, we're going to have to 5 budget for it again next year, and when, in reality, we're 6 just -- because the money goes back into the reserves; we're 7 really not spending the money. So, you have to look at a 8 lot of expenditures. I mean, you have to look at the -- the 9 end budget is really a lot more reflective of what we're 10 doing than our proposed budget, and I think that's something 11 we always need to be mindful of, because at times we do have 12 to budget for things that end up -- because of the way the 13 budget process works, I think we always need to be mindful 14 of that one point. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Accuracy brings to 16 mind one other little topic, Commissioner, simplistic though 17 it may be. I think we failed to list July 4th, Independence 18 Day, as a holiday for the County. And in this current 19 budget, you know, how do we do that? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I already found the 21 answer out. I visited with our County Clerk. We gave an 22 extra holiday at Christmas. It was a conscious decision 23 that we made on the Court, whether good or bad. 24 MS. UECKER: I think I was even the one that 25 said, you know, I'd rather give up that 4th of July and have 6-30-04 wk 25 1 an extra day. Yeah, it's my fault. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Good point, Ms. Uecker. We 3 will now place all the blame squarely on your shoulders. 4 Thank you for volunteering for that. 5 MS. UECKER: But the extra day at Christmas 6 sure was nice. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's talk, if we might, about 8 the capital expenditure items. The first one on the list, 9 I'll raise my hand, is the possibility of getting a computer 10 system for my office this year. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: If there are higher priorities 13 than that, certainly, we'll forego that, but -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can have the one in 15 my office. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't want it. I 18 said you could have the one in my office, but I don't think 19 you want it. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm -- you should have made 21 that offer earlier. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll give you mine 23 and I'll get a laptop. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is an 25 amendment. 6-30-04 wk 26 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Records management. 2 Ms. Pieper had requested a plat cabinet, and that's out of a 3 dedicated fund that we really don't have much control over. 4 Those funds are utilized for those purposes, and those 5 purposes only. And I would note with some -- with some 6 interest that it appears that her expenditure is directly 7 related to records management, and not something like the 8 City of San Antonio attempted to do -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: -- here a few weeks ago that 11 suddenly caught a lot of media attention, and I certainly 12 don't think we want any of that. But it looks like hers is 13 directly related to her maintaining her records. Justice of 14 the Peace, Precinct 3. Judge O'Dell? 15 AUDIENCE: She just left. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: She was here a few moments 17 ago. We'll come back to her. Justice of the Peace, 18 Precinct 4, an item of $2,603, and the summary I have 19 indicates no description. Is there something we missed 20 there, Judge Wright? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's not 4. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Stop trying to steal 24 my -- 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I've got her confused now, 6-30-04 wk 27 1 don't I? I thought she was doing an impersonation of 2 Richard Nixon back there. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The two that are on 4 here are not in here. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, we had -- we had 6 three here moments ago. Nondepartmental, we've got $5,000 7 in there. Mr. Auditor, I assume that was more of a 8 contingency-type item, is it not? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Not a specific known need? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Not a specific one. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Computer contingency? 13 MR. TOMLINSON: To replace things on an 14 emergency basis that -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: -- that fail. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Ms. Nemec has a 18 computer scanner and printer that she's requested this year. 19 Gentlemen, as I hit these items, if you got any question, 20 well, jump in here. Ms. Rector, a computer also for her 21 office. Now, to the Sheriff. $44,000. Anybody here from 22 the Sheriff's Office? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes -- no? No, sorry. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: That's Justice of the Peace, 25 Precinct 2 there. That's not -- 6-30-04 wk 28 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: That's not from the Sheriff's 3 Office. They're in the same building. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that the security? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The jail one may be 6 security. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 44 -- would that be 10 this truck that I referred to earlier? 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think that's only 12 about $20,000, would be my guess. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we're going to have to 14 be -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. That 16 was my earlier point. We're in this process now, and we 17 don't know what the hell we're doing. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's early. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I knew the Sheriff wasn't 21 going to be here today, but he certainly could have sent 22 somebody. 23 (Low-voice discussion off the record.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: See if we can get an answer to 25 these items. I know at least part of it has to do with -- 6-30-04 wk 29 1 with the surveillance system at the jail that's going to be 2 required as of either '06 or '07 under the federal law. 3 And, based upon some earlier discussions I had with him, 4 where he's losing some, he's, in essence, filling it with 5 these needs. So, I assume we can get an answer to that. 6 Constable, Precinct 1's, is the annual lease payment on the 7 vehicle, so that -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't belong in 9 here. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: So it's really not a new 11 capital outlay item. Constables 2 and 3, a portion of those 12 are the vehicle lease payments of $7,200. The balance is 13 for the video cameras that they have been requesting. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That's around 15 $5,000, isn't it, Judge? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $4,300 would be the 17 difference. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 43? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, 115 was now to 20 $4,300? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I'm assuming that 22 the $7,200, the lease payment, should be the same for all 23 three. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is. That is 25 correct. 6-30-04 wk 30 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm showing 60 -- one of them 2 shows 65 lease payment; the other, $5,000 video. But I 3 think those lease payments are fixed at $7,200, if I'm not 4 mistaken. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think they are, 6 too. Aren't they, Tommy? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't recall. I think 8 they're close to 65, 66. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The others are 10 insurance and related costs that are rolled in, possibly? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: I think we budgeted too much 12 for one -- one of the J.P.'s. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: But I'm -- I'm trying to 15 recall what the actual payment is, and I think it's around 16 $6,600. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think the important 18 point for discussion purposes is that the major portion of 19 that is already committed on an ongoing basis. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, $5,000 for video 21 camera. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: On the video 23 cameras, I'm going to take a lot more convincing that that's 24 needed, rather than something that's just nice to have. The 25 example we heard that was cited as a reason for having it 6-30-04 wk 31 1 didn't seem very compelling to me. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The two that are -- I'm 3 not trying to defend that they need it, but I'm saying the 4 two that are requesting it are very much involved with 5 traffic stops, and primarily on the interstate. And I think 6 that it's -- it's their -- you know, that's the reason they 7 want it, is because of that safety factor. And I think our 8 Sheriff's vehicles -- do they have them? They do, don't 9 they? So I think it's there -- I mean, to me, the way they 10 are operating as constables, they're acting much as deputies 11 do, and I think it's a safety issue. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is a safety issue. 13 It's a law requirement. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But we also want to go 15 back and remember the conversation that we had when we 16 bought the cars, and that was to work the school zones and 17 do neighborhoods, not Interstate 10 traffic and drug 18 interdiction. That wasn't part of the conversation at all. 19 It was -- and your neighborhood down there in Comfort was 20 the big one, right after the double murder, to make people 21 feel safer and -- and know that they had law enforcement 22 right there in their neighborhood. And the school zones, 23 that these guys can work the school zones so that deputies 24 that are out there doing police work could be cut loose and 25 go do police work. Well, we've -- within a few months, 6-30-04 wk 32 1 we've gotten completely away from it. Completely away from 2 that, in my opinion. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Almost seems like 4 there's three different job descriptions for constables. 5 They've -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What they want to do. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- defined it 8 different ways. And that doesn't suggest to me what's right 9 or wrong, but it -- I wonder why it's not more uniform. 10 There's an awful lot of Interstate 10 in Precinct 4, and I 11 don't think our constable's out there on Interstate 10. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yours is not. Mine 13 is, and 3 is. And my -- and my constable's -- he shows the 14 continuing car lease at $6,500, which is about what Tommy 15 noted, and $5,000 for the camera. So, the cameras are 16 somewhere between $4,500 and $5,000. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- one more point 19 on that. I think it -- you know, the -- Commissioner 20 Baldwin's correct in his statement about the school zones 21 and neighborhoods. I think Commissioner -- Constable 3 is 22 in the neighborhoods, out in the rural neighborhoods. I'm 23 not sure if he patrols city of Kerrville neighborhoods very 24 much, but the rural neighborhoods, he's out there a fair 25 amount. And I think that part of the nature is -- I mean, 6-30-04 wk 33 1 they -- while working the interstate, whether we wanted them 2 to do it or not, or thought about it, they're bringing in a 3 fair amount of revenue to the County. On their monthly 4 reports from those two, they bring in a lot. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They do, and they do 6 a lot of work on Highway 27. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So -- 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just something we 10 need to discuss. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: May be the right 12 thing to do. I just do notice that they go about the jobs 13 in different ways. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, they do. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They do. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And we have a lot -- 18 count them all up. There's a lot of different law 19 enforcement agencies in Kerr County, maybe 10 or 11 of them. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: More than you think. 21 Judge, let's go back to this -- this -- the number here on 22 Constable 2 and 3. If you take out the lease payment, you 23 have $4,300 left? Is that the number, Jon? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought it was, but I 25 think it's closer to $5,000. They said it should be $6,500 6-30-04 wk 34 1 for the lease payment. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's going to be in 4 the range of $4,500 to $5,000. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, there is enough 6 there to buy a camera? That's my question. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, with $5,000 or 9 $4,500. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll recall, there was 11 also some outstanding questions about those particular 12 camera items, video cameras being pooled into some sort of a 13 grant request that may be in the works somewhere. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We got -- they got 15 started too late. The funds, I think, had been depleted 16 before they got there. That's how the Sheriff got his. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is through grants. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. With -- going back to 20 the Sheriff, the -- the $44,000 is -- includes that new 21 inmate work vehicle and the -- the up-front cost for the new 22 vehicles on the vehicle program that was put in place, what, 23 three years ago now? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or four. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Three or four, something like 6-30-04 wk 35 1 that. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How many vehicles is 3 that? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have that. I suspect 5 it's probably going to be -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three or four. That's 7 what it's been. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Seems like in the 9 study, it recommended four, I think. I don't -- maybe that 10 was altered after the study. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Road and Bridge, Floodplain, 12 there's a request for computer hardware, $3,000. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is that exactly? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: That would be a computer. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know what a computer 16 is, Franklin. I mean -- 17 MR. JOHNSTON: I plan on -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it some kind of 19 engineering program that you can put -- put, like we 20 recently received from Bumblebee Creek, that kind of 21 information on there? Or what's -- what kind of program 22 does it do? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, you could put that on 24 there, yes. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you want it 6-30-04 wk 36 1 for? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, the computer I have now, 3 it's about six or seven years old, and it doesn't handle 4 graphics software real well. And I'm looking for a laptop 5 that would be more suitable and more portable, that you can 6 take out to sites and have all that mapping information 7 available. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just look up above 9 here, and the Tax Assessor, $1,600 for a computer, and the 10 Treasurer wants a computer for $1,600. Getting a scanner 11 and a printer as well, same figure. And we jump to $3,000. 12 I just have that question, of what -- what's the difference? 13 But I guess laptop would -- would be the one of the key 14 words. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, maybe, too, the 16 software load, right? Does the kind of software you load on 17 it require a little larger capacity? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: It does, yes. Higher memory 19 than the normal computer would have. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions on that 21 item? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Road and Bridge 24 Administration, $2,500. What is -- what is that item? I 25 don't have -- 6-30-04 wk 37 1 MR. ODOM: That is also for a computer for 2 Barbara. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 4 MR. ODOM: And probably a printer. That was 5 in there last year; we had to take that out. And, so, 6 that's the oldest one we've got, to upgrade her in some 7 software. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Computer, printer, and 9 software? 10 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 12 MR. ODOM: We'll be more than happy to give 13 the old one to Frank. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're all heart. 15 MR. ODOM: He can build it into his truck. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: The next item, Road and 17 Bridge, is a pretty high-ticket item. And, Mr. Odom, if my 18 understanding of what you indicated to me is correct, that 19 figure, $190,600, represents existing obligations that you 20 have underway because of equipment that you've acquired over 21 the past -- 22 MR. ODOM: Over -- well, it is replacement of 23 some of this equipment, is what I've -- to be more explicit. 24 In the 611, what I'm trying to propose is our hand-held 25 equipment; that is, chainsaws, power -- the pole saws, 6-30-04 wk 38 1 weedeaters, that was 1,192. 8-yard dump truck, which is a 2 replacement to keep the trucks going. I still have trucks 3 from 1984 out there that were still running, and so we're 4 trying to upgrade that. I think that was $52,500. I have 5 distributor and chip spreader, which I'll note when I get 6 through with the other listed items. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 MR. ODOM: There's a broom -- a new broom. 9 The old one is -- stays down. They're wearing out. I think 10 the newest one I have is about seven years old, and the 11 other one I think is from the '80's. So, we want to get a 12 new broom, be able to maintain pulling edges, the roads, and 13 the sealcoat program, to keep it going. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: What's the number on that one? 15 MR. ODOM: $27,000. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 17 MR. ODOM: Then we have a trailer for a skid 18 loader. I got a trailer last year, and I was told that my 19 gross vehicle weight was under 7,000 pounds. Well, that's 20 not true. That -- the skid loader's over 7,000 pounds, and 21 if you put the implements on there and then you put the 22 weight of the trailer on there, I need something like 23 10,000. So, what we've been doing is taking -- we've had to 24 use the bigger truck to haul the skid -- skid steer around, 25 and we put the broom on that little trailer that we can put 6-30-04 wk 39 1 behind a three-quarter ton or one-ton truck, and move the 2 broom around without having to use the big truck. So, 3 I'm -- I believe that's around $4,500 for that -- for that 4 10,000 g.v. trailer. 5 The tree chipper, which is a chip -- chipping 6 machine, we've had -- I have two. One's from the late 7 '80's. That was the old red one that we had. We still have 8 that one as backup, and I bought a Vermeer probably eight 9 years ago, and it's worn out; I mean, just totally fatigued 10 out. And we want to upgrade that to continue with our brush 11 chipping. That is around $48,000. And, believe me, I -- I 12 thought about keeping that, and the men say, as backup, they 13 want the old red one. They said that the Vermeer is just 14 totally worn out, just totally. And there's some new 15 technology and a new way to do it. We've already 16 demonstrated -- had that up here to demonstrate. It's a 17 drum-type; it just eats its lunch. I mean, it's productive, 18 really turns out the wood better than the old one that we 19 have. A tree shearer and forks. We found, with our skid 20 loader last year that we got with the grappler and all, that 21 we have the use of having an attachment to that that'll come 22 up to some trees and just whack them off. That goes in 23 tandem with what we're doing with that grappler, and some 24 forks. We have been borrowing the forks from the Ag Barn, 25 but there's times that we just can't -- we can't get it. So 6-30-04 wk 40 1 we decided that we would ask the Court to let us get the 2 attachment for the forks to add to that, 'cause we can use 3 it in the shop there when we load and unload stuff. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get a set of forks and a 5 tree shearer? 6 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. And that was 7 approximately $6,000. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Most of that being the 9 tree shearer. 10 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, around $4,500 to $5,000, 11 I believe. And, of course, you know, the -- you know, this 12 -- I've got a little bit in here, but with steel going up 13 like it is, what's been going on, there's no -- you know, 14 all these figures are trying to calculate what steel's going 15 for. I think roll steel is almost $600 a ton right now, 16 just roll. The products are just going up with costs -- 17 with steel and aluminum, stuff like that. I see a figure, 18 but I'm just saying they're -- they're passing the cost on. 19 Things are not where they used to be. As a water truck, we 20 have gotten -- we have two tankers, those old yellow ones. 21 We cannot keep water in them; they leak out. Those are the 22 things that we use to back up the fire departments when they 23 ask us. It leaks out so bad that we have to fill it up with 24 the water hose, and that takes forever, even if the guys 25 call in at night. So, we're at the point that San Antonio 6-30-04 wk 41 1 is trading in some water trucks that are -- have very few 2 hours on them, and -- and they turn it over every seven 3 years. When I was in San Antonio, we set up that program, 4 every seven years or dollar cost. And they have some almost 5 brand-new trucks that they're trading in and we've looked 6 at, and that'd cost us around $27,500. They're 2,000-gallon 7 tankers. We would like to get that into the system, at 8 least have one that we know it's there if we're called out 9 at night or called out to help someone. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's one truck for 11 $27,000? 12 MR. ODOM: One truck right now. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 14 MR. ODOM: Now, the total that I've mentioned 15 is $190,600. The distributor and chip spreader is something 16 that I've looked at -- you're sitting down. That's probably 17 running 231,000 to a quarter of a million dollars. But this 18 is also a distributor that was used by San Antonio; they had 19 about three or four of them they were trading in. This one 20 here has very few miles on it, I think 10,000 miles, almost 21 brand-new. That is going in. We want to try to pick that 22 up. That has the -- the ability to shoot out 20 feet. I've 23 checked around. I went over to Gillespie County. We've 24 called some other people, but I went to see theirs. They 25 love it. At first, they were hesitant, but they can take a 6-30-04 wk 42 1 shot whether the road's 14 foot or whether it's 16, 18, or 2 20 foot. They can go and shoot one pass. They got a chip 3 spreader, and which will go out 20 feet. They had to add an 4 extension that they said one -- they suggested that I go to 5 something like out to 24. In other words, you can shoot one 6 pass. If you've seen us shoot in the past, we have to shoot 7 a 20-foot road -- even an 18-foot road, we have to shoot 8 9's. We have to go up and back; everything up and come 9 back. This way, you can shoot everything at one shot. You 10 make one pass with that chip spreader. 11 I was talking to the operators over there, 12 and they have one particularly, and I asked him, I said, 13 "What do you think about it? Forget the salesmen. Tell me 14 the truth." He said, "Mr. Odom," he said, "for two days," 15 he said, "when they told me this," he said, "I was adamantly 16 opposed to changing the old way, because it worked." He 17 said, "After two days of doing this, I would not go back to 18 anything else." I said, "What's your productivity?" He 19 said -- he said, "If we tried to shoot two loads with this 20 bar out, shooting 20 foot, and this chip spreader covering 21 what we shoot," he said, "well, we used to shoot two 22 tankers. If we try to shoot two tankers, we could do four 23 tanker loads a day." He said, "Your productivity is 24 unbelievable." So, that means less time. I can hit these 25 jobs a whole lot better. 6-30-04 wk 43 1 We've got this laid out over the years of 2 trying to stay in an area. When we go through your 3 precincts, we try to put it all together. It makes 4 productivity, as far as maintenance, doing the work, getting 5 it ready, and stockpiling the rock instead of running all 6 over, spotting. So, that means our productivity would be 7 fabulous. I'd need less people. It makes us hold what -- 8 the numbers I've got. It makes it very -- very productive. 9 I have -- Tommy's here, so I won't put him in a bind, but I 10 did ask him -- we had a program several years ago that we 11 bought a trailer. I believe -- Commissioner Baldwin and 12 Commissioner Letz, I think y'all were here, or coming in 13 about that time, where we amortized that over a period of 14 years, and I paid for it. It paid for itself. It certainly 15 has paid for itself. I don't have that end dump where I'm 16 worried about it turning over. We can go in and place it 17 where we want. 18 So, it -- what I'm saying is that, 19 financially, I think we could amortize this, whether the 20 Court would want to do this over a three- or four- or 21 five-year period. And my thought was -- is that it wouldn't 22 cost us anything now. Of course, next -- my thought was to 23 have the payment due 1 October, '05. I could still pick it 24 up in October '04, have it in operation and phased in over 25 that period. The first payment would be 1st of October each 6-30-04 wk 44 1 year. That way, whatever I spend in that it means is going 2 to be less for me. What is important -- very important is 3 to be able to -- I'm losing my train of thought -- is 4 rolling stock, my trucks. I have to keep those trucks in 5 there for less downtime. And so I can still have capital 6 outlays over a three-, four- or five-year period. I just 7 have to do less, and I've done that before. But each year 8 that I make a payment, I have a little bit more ability to 9 pick up another piece of equipment. To me, it's -- it is an 10 option. I know Tommy -- we've talked about it when he was 11 over at my office. It's something that's there; it can be 12 done. It's legal. I just budget -- budget for it each year 13 that it comes about for that payment. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Basically, designate a 15 portion of the taxes -- 16 MR. ODOM: That's right. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- each year, or tax 18 anticipation. Okay. Leonard, what will this -- that new 19 chip spreader, what will that do to your sealcoat and 20 overall road maintenance program? 21 MR. ODOM: It -- go ahead. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, I guess, you know, 23 include -- yes, it's going to improve it, but can we look at 24 a comparison as to the 7- to 10-year schedule that we're on 25 now, as to what it would be under this -- if we bought that? 6-30-04 wk 45 1 MR. ODOM: Under that? The prior -- when we 2 were doing the 10-year -- 7-year program, it was probably 3 taking us -- I calculated, I think, around two, two and a 4 half months to shoot all that. That's the reason we would 5 start in May, hoping that we didn't get anything to disrupt 6 anything. When I got it down this year, when we went to the 7 10-year program, it looks like, just doing it the way we've 8 been doing, look at what it took us to do comparable square 9 yardage. It was going to run us about a month and a half. 10 You logically put a 30 to 40 percent time factor in there of 11 shooting these things and rolling, so that's going to put me 12 around 30 working days, which will probably be logically 22 13 working days in a month; actual calendar time would be a 14 little bit over a month. That gives us more time to do 15 maintenance, spend a little bit more time after we're 16 through. That's the key to the 10-year program, is being 17 able to -- knowing that the roads are going to hold together 18 and that we can spend more time doing some of the other 19 things that we never had the time to do. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you -- and you may not 21 know the answer. Does City of Kerrville use chip seal on 22 their roads, or asphalt on all of them? 23 MR. ODOM: Well, the new -- I believe, under 24 theirs, the new roads have to have hot mix. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hot mix? 6-30-04 wk 46 1 MR. ODOM: But the preventive maintenance is 2 the same as ours; it's a sealcoat on top of that hot mix 3 whenever they come up. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- using the 5 Kerrville -- what I'm saying is that, if we get that 6 machine, could we not have basically an interlocal agreement 7 to do some of the City's work too? 8 MR. ODOM: That is -- that is -- if you're 9 asking me to volunteer for that, I step aside on that one. 10 But are you asking me, in a logical way, is that probable? 11 Then that might be probable. We have looked at that in the 12 past, but that's when we were on a 7-year program, and there 13 was absolutely no way to do that. And then, at that time, 14 they had 80,000 square yards, and so when that was 15 volunteered, sir, they doubled their -- they doubled what 16 they had been doing, and they -- they said if you're going 17 to do it, we're going to do 160,000. I said there is 18 absolutely no way to do that. They had 80; they wanted to 19 double or triple that. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's actually -- that's 21 more a question that the Court needs to ask the City, as 22 opposed to you, but it seems like it would free up -- 23 MR. ODOM: Looking at it logically, it's a 30 24 to 40 percent savings in time. However, sir, I just had 25 three rises on your bridge down there in two weeks, and, you 6-30-04 wk 47 1 know, I'd hate to -- I had 11 and a half inches of water in 2 45 minutes out in the Commissioner's area. It all came down 3 to your bridge down there two weeks ago. So, I mean, I'm -- 4 budget-wise, I'm hurting. But you never know. As long as 5 things are laid out and as long as they have things prepared 6 and they have stockpiles that are feasible, and maybe 7 helping with trucking or something, then that might be 8 something feasible. If they're willing to work with us. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's another 10 element, Commissioner, as you and I know about. We haven't 11 explained it too broadly, and that is in the -- in the new 12 scenario for airport ownership management and so forth, 13 there are -- I think we've identified, there is probably 14 $70,000 to $75,000 worth of work that we could bid on. 15 MR. ODOM: I don't know what that work would 16 be. If it's hot mix, we don't -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. No, it would 18 have to do with road maintenance, airport -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Runways to roads out 20 there, runway maintenance. It's things that would basically 21 fit right into what you do. It's whether or not -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can identify those 23 for you, but -- 24 MR. ODOM: Well, I think if you -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- that's a 6-30-04 wk 48 1 possibility. 2 MR. ODOM: It is a possibility. I -- you 3 know, we need to see how large it gets and where that fits 4 in the scheme of things, but anything's logical as long as 5 it's -- we keep in mind that Priority 1 by this Court is for 6 us to maintain our sealcoat roads. Priority 2 is -- you 7 know, there's three priorities. And if you direct us to do 8 it that way, sir, we'll march ahead and we'll do that. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One more question, 10 Leonard, that I have. It's just -- back to Hermann Sons, 11 that you brought up how many times the water's been over 12 that again. It appears that that -- I guess next budget 13 year, God willing, the new bridge will be completed, which 14 will free up two and a half railroad cars. Are you aware, 15 in the -- the bid amount from TexDOT, is there anything in 16 there to get rid of those, or to do something with those 17 cars? I mean, I've been pretty adamant; I think we need to 18 take them out. I don't want them washing into the new 19 bridge, washing out the new bridge. So -- and so, anyway, I 20 think somewhere in your budget, we need to figure out what 21 we're -- how to move those things, certainly out of where 22 they are, and getting them out of the river. Hopefully it's 23 there in TexDOT's numbers. And I think there's a -- a 24 possibility at Flat Rock to use them. I mean, there's a 25 need for a bridge up there that you and I have talked about 6-30-04 wk 49 1 before. But I think -- make sure this in your budget; 2 either in TexDOT's number or your number, that there is 3 enough to move those or to get the old temporary bridge out 4 of the river and those railroad cars out of that area. 5 MR. ODOM: I have -- my last discussion with 6 Mike Coward was in relation to that. We had been discussing 7 prior to that to make sure that at least two of those cars 8 were in there, and his last comment was that he put two cars 9 in there. But his question was, he did not know how 10 District 15 would go, but the way he has presented that to 11 Austin is that for them to move all three cars back to Spur 12 100. And I told him that whether -- that would be a 13 decision on y'all's part; that I discussed that with you and 14 Commissioner Williams, and in relation to that -- and which 15 one or where is irrelevant to me -- that we might drop two 16 of them down there. I have not put anything in the budget, 17 but I -- Commissioners brought this up. As far as special 18 projects, it's something we could talk about at another 19 time. But -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you answered the 21 question. So, demolition of the temporary bridge is in 22 TexDOT's -- 23 MR. ODOM: In their projection for the high 24 water bridge. It's supposed to be in there for the contract 25 to remove three of them. 6-30-04 wk 50 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which would include 2 moving them out of that area. 3 MR. ODOM: That's right, sir. And we would 4 be prepared to drop one or two, depending on our discussion, 5 at the park, and the other one -- one or two in our yard, 6 whichever way y'all decide to go. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 8 MR. ODOM: They're in agreement with us; they 9 don't want anything upstream from that structure, and we 10 don't either. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hope not. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I was 13 thinking about your comments about using technology to be 14 more productive, to get more work out of fewer people. I've 15 looked at Road and Bridge's use of machinery to displace 16 people. Just -- and I can see that they're productive. 17 They utilize machinery. I just looked at the data on 18 comparing Road and Bridge to Cherokee and Hood County, and 19 overall, they're more efficient than Kerr County, looking at 20 the overall cost of government, but we staff Road and Bridge 21 about 35 percent less than they staff it. And I'm just 22 pretty sure that part of that is investing in machinery and 23 technology. That -- so one person can do what two might 24 have to do. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's been Mr. Odom's 6-30-04 wk 51 1 philosophy now for many, many years, as he's conveyed it to 2 me. How many -- how many -- what was the personnel count at 3 Road and Bridge when you came on board, and when was that? 4 MR. ODOM: I came aboard in April of '91, and 5 I believe that we were around 35 to -- I think around 35, 36 6 people. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And what is your 8 staffing level today? 9 MR. ODOM: Today, it is slotted for 27, and 10 in the new budget I'm giving up one position. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 12 MR. ODOM: So, that's 26 of us. That 13 includes all the office staff, Frank, me, Truby, and 14 Barbara. And if you look at that also for a minute -- I'll 15 brag on not me, but my -- my department and the supervisors. 16 97 percent of our roads are sealcoated. That's higher than 17 anybody else that we took the survey with, and they had a 18 whole lot more money than what we had. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's close to 20 500 miles of road. 21 MR. ODOM: That's right, sir. Over 22 1,100 square miles. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When you have 12, 15 24 fewer employees than the peer county does doing this kind of 25 work, not only do you avoid those costs of those salaries 6-30-04 wk 52 1 and insurance and benefits and taxes, but machinery doesn't 2 -- doesn't call in sick, doesn't use worker's comp, doesn't 3 get hurt on the job. So, it's -- there's a lot of good 4 reasons to get machinery to do people's work. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Machinery doesn't sit 6 idle, either. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 8 MR. ODOM: I say here -- I'm sorry, I depend 9 on Truby to -- to put this down. I think that I have 10 something in here also that's not shown, but it's part of 11 this 190,600. I think if we add this up, you'll see it 12 doesn't come out, but I had a roller to be added to this. 13 We had it last year. We added a roller, and the men 14 convinced me to go to a pneumatic roller. And I had a 15 pneumatic roller this year because of the sealcoat program. 16 Then the brakes went out on our roller and I lost it up in 17 the hills there in Upper Turtle Creek. And so, this year, 18 I'm trying to re -- you know, I made the decision; it's my 19 responsibility. I did what I probably should haven't done, 20 but I would have already had it, but I still would have 21 needed a pneumatic this year anyway. So, we -- that is 22 something I see that's not on here, and I believe that 23 doesn't change that number at all right there, 190,600. 24 When I was reading this -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: With the roller on it. 6-30-04 wk 53 1 MR. ODOM: I think it runs around $45,000, 2 $48,000. Now, some of this will be with trades. And she 3 did put -- well, I see some of this with trades and all, so 4 I have some of this old equipment sitting against the back 5 fence up there, and I'm trying to ascertain what that value 6 would be and put these in, into this. Sometimes it's 7 difficult with some of this, because I'd buy it at municipal 8 cost versus at -- but we're going to try to get some trades, 9 if we get those trades in there. Then I had a wish list of 10 some bat wings, but if I don't get that, it'll be next 11 budget year, and I'll come back with that for shredding and 12 more. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you found -- do you 14 come out better off trying to trade this old equipment, or 15 declaring it surplus and auctioning? 16 MR. ODOM: I've found that it's better -- we 17 get more money if I get the trade. That's not always true, 18 but it has been in my experience so far. They can go out 19 and find something. Where I may get a couple hundred 20 dollars or $600, I may get $1,000, or I may get $10,000, 21 $12,000 for something. But, then again, you know, you're 22 limited. When I -- when I go out to a big entity like Cat 23 or John Deere, they have a larger constituency than what we 24 have right here. Doesn't bother me one way or another, but 25 the bottom line is, can we offset our cost? And I think 6-30-04 wk 54 1 that might be something like $20,000, $21,000 offset the 2 cost on some of these trades. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: You mentioned on the -- this 5 distributor and chip spreader, that would not be a new unit, 6 but rather one that's been in service on a limited basis. 7 MR. ODOM: One would be a used one. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 MR. ODOM: One would be new. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 MR. ODOM: Be four-wheel drive. That was the 12 other thing that Gillespie County suggested that I get. 13 They said they got misled a little bit, misrepresented what 14 the abilities were with two-wheel drive, so we want to go 15 with four-wheel drive with the hills that we have around 16 here, take care of that to make -- pull everything. So, one 17 is new, and the other one's a used one that we know that 18 it's been certified that it is going for a trade-in with the 19 dealer. And I'll have to go out to bid for that one -- with 20 that one, but that's the distributor, but we have the data 21 on that one. The vendor will have data on that, and we 22 would go that way. But one's used and one's brand-new. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have all these 24 itemized? If you don't, can you get a list, whatever you're 25 reading? Can you list each of the items? 6-30-04 wk 55 1 MR. ODOM: You mean like this? Okay. I 2 believe that she's -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's in here. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in here? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I finally found it. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 7 MR. ODOM: 'Cause I remember last time -- and 8 even in the back is also contract fees, what we sent you, so 9 it tells you basically where we were trying to go with that 10 money. And then there's one thing that we did not do, and I 11 know it's beyond this, but just to say that -- also put road 12 district funds in here. That is something that we looked 13 at. We have $116,000. We haven't used that in some time. 14 Ball Drive is one of them to use the funds, and the other 15 one's Ingram Hills. So, it's something to consider. This 16 is outside what I presented in the budget, but something I 17 thought I would put to you, because you can see it was 18 pretty tight on special projects. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard, I saw that 20 Ingram Hills. It looked like just -- I just got this last 21 night. 22 MR. ODOM: I'm sorry. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I haven't been able 24 to study the thing, but I glanced at it and I saw -- looks 25 like there's some excess money laying there from Ingram 6-30-04 wk 56 1 Hills, over and above -- is that not what I -- that's what I 2 saw, wasn't it? 3 MR. ODOM: I believe so. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How do you -- what is 5 -- how do you -- what do you do with that? I mean, isn't -- 6 isn't that bonded money, comes from bonds that was 7 specifically for that road district? 8 MR. ODOM: Well, legally, I don't know what 9 the word would be, but there -- remember, I think you were 10 on the Court then, or coming into the Court when that was 11 set up, but that was -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We were here. 13 MR. ODOM: -- one of those that they borrowed 14 the money from Road and Bridge. That was actual money that 15 came out of Road and Bridge, and it wasn't enough money, and 16 not all the roads were rebuilt. We have rebuilt everything 17 since we've been here, but we took those funds that were 18 earmarked for road districts, and that's what we used over 19 the years. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ingram Hills? Are we 21 talking Ingram Hills? 22 MR. ODOM: Ingram Hills. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I apologize to you. 24 I'm talking Ingram Lake Estates. 25 MR. ODOM: Ingram Lake Estates was the -- a 6-30-04 wk 57 1 bond issue. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. 3 MR. ODOM: And those revenues go to pay that 4 bond. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 6 MR. ODOM: We have never -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can't use that in any 8 way? 9 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Ingram Hills is 10 something -- that's back up on top. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I understand. I 12 remember. 13 MR. ODOM: I'm sorry to get out of line and 14 take over people's -- I thought I'd throw that at you. It's 15 something to think about that's outside the -- the box. But 16 have I answered your questions on -- or confused you on -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 18 MR. ODOM: -- capital outlays? I don't mean 19 to. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have -- not on capital 21 outlays, but I have a question on contract fees. 22 MR. ODOM: All right, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe we can clear it up 24 here. Okay. You have Fall Creek, 1.1 mile realignment, in 25 place. 6-30-04 wk 58 1 MR. ODOM: Right. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the project you 3 were talking about earlier? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, two things I 5 was talking about. He's got this 1.1 miles, which takes us 6 from the almost to the end -- the end all the way down to 7 the bottom of the last big hill, and that's kind of a 8 rework -- 9 MR. ODOM: That's reworking. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Requires some -- 11 perhaps some additional right-of-way and so forth, and 12 that's what I was talking about. But there's another thing 13 that needs to be considered, and I'm not sure it can be 14 considered this year, but I just wanted to get it out there 15 for whatever it's worth, and that is that this crossing, the 16 low-water crossing at Turtle Creek onto Fall Creek Road, the 17 Turtle Creek Crossing gets inundated pretty bad, and that 18 probably needs to be looked at at this juncture. Probably 19 the engineering, as to what it would take to rework that 20 low-water crossing with box culverts so we could move the 21 water out of there and improve that low water crossing. I 22 don't think that's going to be in my budget for this year. 23 I've only spoken to Leonard briefly about it, but I just 24 wanted to reference it. But the 1.1 mile is in his budget, 25 and that's the tail end of the road, goes all the way up to 6-30-04 wk 59 1 the top. 2 MR. ODOM: Yeah. There's a section that 3 we've done it in -- in phases. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 5 MR. ODOM: And so this is the last phase in 6 there. It's real narrow and all. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Last phase. 8 MR. ODOM: Yeah. I don't think we're going 9 to reinvent the wheel there, but that's -- some things got 10 torn up pretty bad in the -- in this flood, or the last 11 couple of months. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it's -- the most 13 narrow part needs to be reworked. 14 MR. ODOM: And -- but that's something we can 15 certainly look at. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We will -- we'll talk 17 more about that. 18 MR. ODOM: I'm just reminding the -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not trying to 20 work that into this year's consideration. 21 MR. ODOM: Because I still have an agreement 22 with the Highway Department in reference to Hermann Sons. 23 And I think that you will see in the special projects, Town 24 Creek in Commissioner Baldwin's' area, to look at some 25 engineering and all, and this is over a three-year period, 6-30-04 wk 60 1 and that three years starts from the time that they let that 2 contract. So, I'm looking at some engineering that I've 3 done several years ago. But this is the -- formalized what 4 I need, and if I need to get any land, and to look at that; 5 then the next two budget years after that, to take care of 6 that, to fulfil a $110,000 obligation amount. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what -- for those 8 that don't recall, or those in the audience, the County's 9 obligated to pay 10 percent of the cost of Hermann Sons 10 bridge. But we can, instead of spending -- giving TexDOT 11 cash for it, we can do services that they approve. That 12 would come under, you know, kind of a State/County project, 13 and that's the option we choose to do. 14 MR. ODOM: And we can do that over a 15 three-year -- we don't have to do it any one year, but we 16 can take a look at maybe doing the engineering, knowing what 17 it's going to cost us. Maybe the next year, buying 18 material, and then the next year, fulfill -- take any land 19 that we need to do next year. We can probably get that 20 taken care of in there. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, do we 22 anticipate Hermann Sons will be let this fall? Is that what 23 we're talking about? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The last I heard, the 25 contract will be -- the bids are due back October 1, and it 6-30-04 wk 61 1 will be let within 60 days of that date. And, for 2 construction, you know, likely early next year. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before they would 4 begin? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's about a six- to 6 nine-month construction window. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, this would take 8 us probably -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: About a year from now -- 10 about a year from now, we should have a bridge. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: On the in-kind contribution, 13 haven't we already designated that for the Town Creek road? 14 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, we have. There was a 15 court order on that, up to $110,000 or whatever our 16 10 percent of that -- that bridge would be. But I -- 17 they -- I think we're no more than 110; I think that was the 18 obligation that we went to. And we think that's a 900 to a 19 million dollar project right there, the bridge. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: More like $1.3 million. 21 MR. ODOM: It could be now. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last number I saw. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else for Mr. Odom? 24 MR. ODOM: Thank you, Judge. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you for being here 6-30-04 wk 62 1 today. We appreciate this information. The next item on 2 the capital outlay summary is Environmental Health. We've 3 got $1,500, and there was no designation. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anybody else see it? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Arreola, what was the 7 capital outlay item for $1,500? What -- 8 MR. ARREOLA: It's probably not specified on 9 that. It's for a computer for the Solid Waste Department. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Computer, Solid Waste. Okay, 11 thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like your price best on 13 a computer, Miguel. It's cheaper than all the rest of them. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Animal Control's 15 cheaper yet. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. The best is yet to 17 come. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Then the other item is Animal 20 Control, for a computer for $1,200. I would point out also 21 that there's one item that's not on the summary list, but -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's two. I got 23 one to put on. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It was kind of hidden 25 amongst the Extension -- 6-30-04 wk 63 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Three. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: -- items. The list is 3 growing. The Extension Service was wanting a total of 4 $31,000, $1,000 for computer hardware and $30,000 for a 5 vehicle and things that relate to that -- fuel, insurance, 6 and maintenance for that budget year -- which aggregate a 7 total of $30,000. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They do not have a 9 vehicle currently, correct? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: None that I'm aware of. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's currently -- 13 we're paying mileage, which is the same thing, just about. 14 Other ones? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to add one 16 to the list, Judge, if you're finished. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Get back to the Flat 19 Rock Lake and the park. I think -- I think what we need to 20 do there probably falls into three categories or three 21 elements. One would be a capital expenditure for a restroom 22 facility. I think -- Tommy, did you tell me we still have 23 about $15,000 of L.C.R.A. money, something like that? Or 24 15,000 -- 25 MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. 6-30-04 wk 64 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have some FEMA 2 money that came to us as a result of the bridge between -- 3 over Third Creek being washed away. I don't know. Can we 4 use those -- those FEMA dollars? Can we incorporate those 5 into the L.C.R.A. dollars and use them for a restroom 6 facility, or do you think they have to be separated? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- I don't -- I don't 8 recall any stipulation in the FEMA funds. It's just -- as 9 far as the insurance goes, I mean, the insurance would not 10 replace the bridge. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it will not. And 12 they -- so they gave us what they thought the value was. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because we suffered a 15 loss in the flood. Okay. So, bottom line is, I think a 16 restroom facility -- and I don't have the numbers yet, but 17 I'll have them as we work a little more into this process. 18 Probably that restroom facility, to do it right, is going to 19 be somewhere in the vicinity around $50,000 to do it 20 correctly. Maybe we can do it for less than that, but we 21 cannot do it for the amount that we currently have, the 22 combination of the two, the 15 and the 7. It's going to be 23 greater than that, so somewhere between what we have and 50 24 is going to be a -- a suitable, decent restroom facility 25 conjunctive to that park. Secondly, the safety and -- items 6-30-04 wk 65 1 on the lake itself would be not capital, but they would be 2 under the Parks Maintenance budget, and I have people coming 3 up here after the holiday to take a look at the lake in 4 person, to tell us what the -- what the estimate of costs 5 would be to clean -- clear out the debris and the stumps 6 that pose a safety issue to the lake. So, I'll have a 7 better understanding later. Thirdly would be the 8 footbridge -- or a bridge, not necessarily a footbridge. A 9 bridge that would take both vehicular and pedestrian traffic 10 from one section of the park to the second section. And I 11 think we can develop costs, but that won't be in this budget 12 year. But once we get those flat cars, I think we can 13 develop some costs in terms of how we put those two together 14 to cross Town Creek, but that will probably be in next 15 year's budget. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: You had an additional item, 17 Commissioner Nicholson? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think that during 19 the budget process, KARFA will come to us and ask us to 20 support their application for a grant for additional 21 repeaters to cure some radio problems where there are dead 22 spots, primarily in the far western part of the county, but 23 also some in the eastern part of the county. I think that 24 repeaters will probably cost on the order of $100,000 to 25 $110,000, and they would ask us to underwrite the required 6-30-04 wk 66 1 10 percent local government participation. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would be about $10,000? 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 10, 11, maybe 12. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that is -- that's 5 county-wide. That's not any one volunteer fire department 6 or anything. That'd be county-wide. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: KARFA would, yeah. 8 Of the several departments, only two or three of them are 9 affected by it. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The dead spots. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that mean that 13 we still haven't cured all -- we haven't cured all the dead 14 spots with the new communications system we put in from the 15 Sheriff's Department? Aren't they -- do they not use that, 16 too, those same wavelengths? 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I'm 18 going to let the Sheriff speak to that. I hear anecdotal 19 examples of the Sheriff's deputies not being able to -- to 20 communicate back there. I don't know if that's true or not. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But, certainly, in 23 EMS it's true, and it can be a dangerous situation where 24 they're out there and can't raise anybody on the radio. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Are there any other capital 6-30-04 wk 67 1 outlay items that any member of the Court is aware of that 2 we haven't covered? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, the one that I 4 haven't heard today, but I've heard about it anyway, is 5 voting machines. I thought that that was going to be an 6 item that we were going to have to deal with this year. Is 7 that not true? 8 MS. ALFORD: They have to be in place by 9 2006, so we have to get some kind of -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: January 1, 2006? 11 MS. ALFORD: Yes, sir. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I'd say that's this year, 13 wouldn't you? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, and I don't 15 recall -- I mean, memory tells me something like $50,000 or 16 something like that? 17 MS. ALFORD: I believe something like that. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Isn't there a large 19 part of that obligation covered by federal dollars? 20 MS. ALFORD: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so, but I think 22 we still need to budget the expenditure side of it. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. And the early 24 obligation is that you have to have at least one voting 25 apparatus for handicapped or disadvantaged or challenged 6-30-04 wk 68 1 people; is that correct? 2 MS. ALFORD: Yes, in each precinct. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In each voting box -- 4 MS. ALFORD: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- or precinct. If 6 you have a large piece of that -- 7 MS. ALFORD: It has to be a D.R.E., a direct 8 recording -- 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: On this -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: At each -- 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- budget item, 12 there's a -- a thought here, 20 machines at $5,400 each, 13 $108,000. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's got to be it. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's under County 16 Clerk's, right. Election Expense or whatever. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: That's each. The federal law 18 requires there to be one in each polling place. 19 MS. ALFORD: Yes. We have 20 polling places, 20 so we have to have 20; 21 including, you know, early voting. 21 But we have to have 20 for each on election day. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Can that be done by 23 designating one polling place in each precinct as the voting 24 place for all persons who suffer from that type of 25 disability? 6-30-04 wk 69 1 MS. ALFORD: That I do not know. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Be interesting to -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Surely. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: -- to get -- get an answer to 5 that question. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a great 7 question. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, because that's -- 9 I mean -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: From 4 to 20. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Or 20 to 4. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 20 to 4. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because that would 15 certainly -- it's hard to justify for some of our smaller 16 voting precincts, to -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- spend $10,000 for 19 machines that's never going to be used. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Fifteen votes cast, for 21 example. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we're asking 23 people -- blind people to drive further? (Laughter.) 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You said it. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just wondering. 6-30-04 wk 70 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hello. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you think they got it down 3 when they recited when they were going to their polling 4 place, as long as that hasn't changed? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Tommy, you had an item to 7 comment on that, maybe? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: I invited a company -- 9 software company called Indigent Health Care Solutions to 10 come do an installation here in the courthouse on July 16th. 11 It's a Friday. And they -- they have a software program 12 that handles Indigent Health Care payments, as well as 13 payments for health care for inmates. That can include jail 14 and all the detention facility. But, from preliminary 15 numbers I've seen in Texas counties, there's -- they -- 16 there's been as high as 70 percent savings in health care 17 dollars spent on -- on jail inmates. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: What about Indigent Health 19 Care? Same factor? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: We're already using that -- a 21 similar -- similar subcontractor for that right now, so I 22 don't see any significant savings there. But I do for jail 23 inmate costs, and costs out at the juvenile facility. So, 24 there could -- there potentially could -- I mean, if we see 25 that this -- this benefit to us, that then it will be some 6-30-04 wk 71 1 cost to purchasing that software. At this point, I don't 2 have any idea what it is, but it is something that -- that 3 we're going to look at in the next three weeks. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else that needs to be 5 on the capital outlay that -- 6 MS. UECKER: Judge Tinley? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, ma'am? 8 MS. UECKER: I just wanted to mention that it 9 looks like there's a possibility of -- not a likelihood, but 10 a possibility of two capital murders, and then the Rufus 11 Smith case, it's been -- the V.A. shooting from years ago, 12 has now been declared competent, and that looks like that 13 trial may be coming up this year. I don't think that 14 that'll be a lengthy one. I'm kind of even expecting maybe 15 a plea out of that one. But the other one is -- Feaselman 16 is the shaken baby case that is set for August, so -- of 17 next year, I think. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I think we had -- I 19 think we actually had two special trials -- 20 MS. UECKER: Seard, we don't know, yeah. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: One was -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seard. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: -- the Seard case, and that 24 was 150. And then the other one is in the 198th, and I 25 think we actually had 75 for that one, I believe. 6-30-04 wk 72 1 MS. UECKER: That's Feaselman. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: That would be the other 3 capital, and it was in the 198th. 4 MS. UECKER: 198th, yeah. Smith, I don't 5 anticipate a real big expense on that one. He's the one 6 that's been -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He served 17, 20 years 8 or something. 9 MS. UECKER: Like, 17 or 20 years, and now 10 he's been declared competent. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: He's been declared competent 12 by some medical authority, but not by the courts. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But he's in his '80's, 14 I think, or something like that. That's -- 15 MS. UECKER: No, I think they did -- the 16 Court did find him -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh. 18 MS. UECKER: -- competent based on that 19 medical testimony in the last competency hearing, 'cause we 20 have to have one every year. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I knew that. Anything else to 22 go on the capital outlay items, gentlemen? Well, we've -- I 23 think we know what we're looking at on a broad -- broad 24 brush stroke here. It's going to be a challenge, to say the 25 least, but we'll get there. I look forward to talking with 6-30-04 wk 73 1 each of the elected officials and department heads 2 one-on-one about your regular budget items, and maybe giving 3 a little bit more information about your Capital Outlay 4 items as we develop this. We'll get there. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, have you 6 aggregated this capital outlay request versus what the total 7 aggregated capital outlay was this year? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: No. Have not. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, do you have any 10 idea? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't recall. I think -- 12 excuse me -- I think the total was about $270,000 last year. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: About 270? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is considerably 15 up. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. 17 MS. NEMEC: Judge? Judge, may I share those 18 numbers with you on the retirement cost-of-living increases 19 that Commissioner Bill Williams was talking to y'all about, 20 so that y'all may have it for your consideration? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. 22 MS. NEMEC: I know there is a retiree present 23 today that might also have some information that she may 24 want to share with you. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6-30-04 wk 74 1 MS. NEMEC: But if I may just pass these out. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. Sure, we appreciate 3 having the benefit of that information. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you give one to 5 my friend from the Kerrville Daily Times? 6 MS. NEMEC: I have not, but I will. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you? Yeah. I 8 take care of you. 9 MS. NEMEC: I was going to take care of her 10 later. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I knew you would, but 12 I get the credit for it now. 13 MS. NEMEC: If I could just kind of explain, 14 at the present time, our contribution rate is 7.97, plus -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which sheet are we 16 on? 17 MS. NEMEC: Actually, it's not there. I'm 18 letting you know what we're contributing to the retirement 19 system at the present time. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 7.97? 21 MS. NEMEC: It's 7.97, with an additional 22 .26 percent on the supplemental death benefit that the Court 23 approved last year. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: .26? 25 MS. NEMEC: .26, which the total would come 6-30-04 wk 75 1 out to 8.23 that we are contributing at the present time. 2 The plan looks really good for this next year, which would 3 be a great time to include some cost-of-living increase for 4 the retirees, because they're lowering our -- our total rate 5 to 7.61, versus the 7.97. And then the supplemental death 6 benefit is .28, versus the .26 that it is for this year, so 7 that gives us an additional .34 percent to -- that we're 8 going to be under budget, as compared to this budget. And 9 if you'll look under -- down in this column right here, this 10 is the percentages that it tells you that we'll need to 11 adopt if we wish to give those type of cost-of-living 12 increases for the retirees. And, of course, this is just 13 for one year, starting January 2005 through December 2005, 14 and then each year, if you want to continue to give them 15 another cost-of-living, then that would have to be taken up 16 at that time. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: So, this is -- this additional 18 cost is determined on an annual basis, and in order to 19 actively keep up with C.P.I. increases, it would be 20 necessary that that be adopted essentially every year? 21 MS. NEMEC: Right, if you want to increase it 22 every year. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If I understand what 24 you're saying correctly, based on the current rates -- 25 combination rate of the basic rate plus the death benefit of 6-30-04 wk 76 1 8.23, that's going to go down next year to 7.89. That would 2 leave available, under current funding levels, .34? 3 MS. NEMEC: Correct. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if I'm looking at 5 your document here, that would buy 60 percent of a C.P.I. 6 without an increase in funding for the next budget year. Am 7 I understanding that correctly? 8 MS. NEMEC: That is correct. If you want to 9 go with the C.P.I. percentage rate that it's showing you, 10 unless you want to go to the flat rate benefit increase on 11 the next column. Then you could do a 4 percent -- for 12 instance, a 4 percent increase, which we would have to fund 13 an additional 14 percent. It's right -- right across that 14 one column. So, it just depends which benefit you want to 15 go with, the C.P.I. base benefit or the flat rate. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 17 MS. NEMEC: And then, also, I handed to you 18 something that lists the -- I prepared for your 19 consideration to look at also. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I knew you had a 21 list. Just a matter of asking. Thank you. 22 MS. NEMEC: You're welcome. Also, Judge, 23 Commissioners, last year the employees had asked that we 24 look into direct deposit -- payroll direct deposit, and I 25 believe I looked into it and it was going to cost around 6-30-04 wk 77 1 $2,500 last year. And I think that those figures are 2 probably still about the same, maybe a few hundred higher. 3 I have been getting a lot of calls, and I have told the 4 employees that I would present it again. However, if -- if 5 you're not sold on it by me presenting it, they would like 6 an opportunity to be here to speak to y'all. So, if y'all 7 would just let me know what your thinking is on that, if we 8 need to hear from other employees what the benefits are from 9 it or whatever. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the reason for the 11 cost? 12 MS. NEMEC: Our bank and the -- our bank is 13 going to charge "X" amount of dollars, and then the computer 14 software group will also charge, I think, $1,200 to give us 15 that package to work with. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When do we bid banks 17 again? We haven't done it in a couple years. That doesn't 18 seem -- 19 MR. TOMLINSON: We're on a four-year 20 contract. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four-year contract? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't recall exactly when 23 it is. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who's our bank? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Security State. 6-30-04 wk 78 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Security. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're about halfway 3 through. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we have -- this 5 could be the last year of that. Maybe one or -- 6 MR. TOMLINSON: This could be the last year. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. It's 8 something that -- I have a hard time understanding why the 9 bank's charging us money for something that saves them 10 money, but banks like to do that. So -- 11 JUDGE TINLEY: If I recall, Ms. Nemec, when 12 we talked about the direct deposit program, there was, like, 13 a $1,000 or a little bit higher one-time cost, and then the 14 $2,500 for the annual cost or something on the direct 15 deposit program. You have some numbers, I think? Or can 16 put together some numbers of some reasonable cost estimates 17 as to what that would save in terms of staffing time, 18 supplies, all of that, that comes out of your office on a 19 nondirect-deposit basis? 20 MS. NEMEC: I can only tell you how many 21 checks we print, what the cost of those checks is, what the 22 cost of the envelopes are. The thing is, that I don't know 23 what the cost saving is really going to be on that part of 24 it, because you still have to print a check set backup; you 25 still have to put it in an envelope, and you still have to 6-30-04 wk 79 1 give it to the employee. So, I know when we go to seminars, 2 they don't -- one of their selling points on direct deposit 3 is -- is not really the cost savings. It's more having to 4 do with fraud; you know, people losing their checks and 5 doing stop-payments or -- or other people getting access to 6 someone else's checks. Of course, we really don't have that 7 problem. It's not to say that we never will, but that -- 8 that is a selling point that the bank -- the banks are 9 giving, that there's less fraud to be able to be used in 10 that situation. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Barbara, going back 12 to this -- to the retiree cost of living, two questions. 13 First of all, how many retirees do we currently have on 14 T.C.D.R.S. system now? 15 MS. NEMEC: I don't know that answer, 16 Commissioner. I'd have to -- I'd have to look. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can research that 18 for me? 19 MS. NEMEC: Yeah, I can call you back within 20 just -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, secondly, this 22 paper, was that something that you prepared or something 23 someone else prepared? 24 MS. NEMEC: This paper here? This is what 25 Ms. Jane Buck prepared. 6-30-04 wk 80 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 2 MS. BUCK: Commissioner, you should be able 3 to tell that's not professional. That -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought it was very 5 well done. 6 MS. BUCK: Thank you. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Gave us the benefit of a good 8 deal of information. I appreciate that. Just as an 9 observation, I don't know how they compute C.P.I., but 10 6 percent increase for .21 percent, I can't imagine that 11 that equates to only 40 percent of C.P.I. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I saw that, 13 and I don't understand those. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I don't 15 understand that either, because the -- Barbara pointed out 16 4 percent, and it gives you a point -- .14 additional. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And 60 percent comes 19 at .35, so I don't know. Maybe -- maybe you could -- maybe 20 you could get a little additional information on how they 21 compute this. 22 MS. NEMEC: I will. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because, obviously, 24 what they're saying is we could -- we could go to a 25 6 percent flat rate increase, and still be well within the 6-30-04 wk 81 1 current funding level. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 3 MS. NEMEC: Right. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: For this -- this coming year. 5 MS. NEMEC: We're in -- I think we're in a 6 position this year to where we could do that, and not 7 really -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you could shed a 9 little more light on that, that would be interesting. 10 MS. NEMEC: Okay, I will get more information 11 together on that, and as well as the direct deposit. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Appreciate it. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Nemec. We 14 appreciate it. Anything else, gentlemen? I don't hear any 15 grumbling tummies, except maybe Commissioner Baldwin. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My tummy is grumbling 17 -- growling, but I have a question first. When shall we 18 meet again? That's Old Testament talk. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the schedule? 20 We got a schedule? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we have a schedule? 22 You're going to -- you're going to meet with the -- all the 23 indians one-on-one, and then we'll come back again, will we 24 not, with you? And you can -- then you can tell us what you 25 did and what you didn't do. That's exciting. When would 6-30-04 wk 82 1 that be? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably sometime after the 3 end of July, because we'll have the other -- the numbers 4 from the other side of the equation coming in. Hopefully 5 end of July. I mean, that's my thinking on it. We won't 6 have revenue -- any decent revenue estimates until the very 7 tail end of July, will we? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should be like -- 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we have -- I don't know 10 how -- I don't know how good the numbers are we got from the 11 Appraisal District. They're kind of preliminary, so -- what 12 we got from them said we got an 8 percent. That was -- that 13 equated on a -- you know, the new properties. So, I don't 14 know; probably needs to be refined. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Needs to be refined down 16 based on protests, probably. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's going to be a 19 maximum of 8 percent. Likely, probably not. I don't know 20 what the historical -- 21 MR. TOMLINSON: I think that includes new 22 property, too. 23 MS. RECTOR: The preliminary figures are 24 pretty close. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It won't vary a whole 6-30-04 wk 83 1 lot. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: But it's going to be right at 3 the tail end of July before we get sure enough -- 4 MS. RECTOR: Well, the target date is the 5 25th, is what -- how the law is written, but that's just a 6 date. There's nothing set in concrete about that. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I guess -- I guess, in 8 answer to your question, Commissioner, sometime shortly 9 after a month from now will -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's 11 wonderful. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: -- will be the date that we 13 need to start taking a closer look. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When is the last day 15 we can approve the final budget? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: September 30. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: September 30th. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, I -- after this 19 round of refining the requests with you, there's going to be 20 an opportunity in August for the department heads and 21 elected officials to explain their needs to the entire 22 Court? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. Yeah, to come back -- to 24 come back, much like we did last year. Sure. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, actually, we have 6-30-04 wk 84 1 a little more time this year, 'cause we started earlier, and 2 we have time to do that. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We didn't have 4 enough time last year. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you never have enough 7 time, but we have more than we did last year. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we also -- I mean, I 9 would strongly hope, at least on the Road and Bridge 10 administration -- I mean, that's one that's of interest to 11 me -- we plan to have some sort of workshop between -- 12 during July to see if there's some reorganization at that 13 level of that department that we can look at. And I think 14 if -- if you -- you mentioned, you know, the police 15 department and the Sheriff's Department, which I don't think 16 that's realistic to look at that this year, but certainly, I 17 think it is realistic to put -- if you so choose, or one of 18 us choose to put that on the agenda as a formal request to 19 the City, to name people to start looking at that for the 20 following year's budget. And, I mean, 'cause these 21 things -- you know, the airport's taken a full year to come 22 to any kind of an agreement. So, I think we're going to 23 look, and that would, I think, be a great thing to look at. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're looking at 25 years with that issue, 'cause you're looking at a 6-30-04 wk 85 1 constitutional issue, and all kinds of -- all kinds of 2 stuff. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I think that, 4 you know, anything that -- I mean, what I'm saying is that 5 just because we're not going to have a budget from the Judge 6 until early August, I think that we still should look at 7 some of these projects and try to refine some things that we 8 have a particular interest in and get them into workshop or 9 agenda mode so that we don't hit the Judge after he does a 10 budget and say, "Here, we want to make these changes." Why 11 not get those things to him before he comes up with the 12 final budget? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: That's a good point. If 14 you've got some specific areas, Road and Bridge 15 administrative reworking, or -- or law enforcement, or 16 County-sponsored activities or things like that, if -- if 17 you want to put several of those items on a separate 18 workshop agenda between now and then, sure, that -- that's 19 just going to be that much more information that I'll have 20 to pour into the mix. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to tag onto 22 what Commissioner Letz is talking about in terms of Road and 23 Bridge and organization, structure, people, manpower and so 24 forth, and -- and capabilities to do things, and crank into 25 that workshop process or thinking process whether we're 6-30-04 wk 86 1 capable of and wish to pursue bidding for other work; 2 i.e. -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Airport. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hate to get ourselves 5 in that box, that "Oh, yeah, we'd love to do this," and find 6 out either we can't or we don't want to. I don't think 7 that's the case, but I think it's something we can examine. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have -- and just for 9 the rest of the Court's benefit, Commissioner Williams and I 10 negotiated pretty hard to separate the -- the operations of 11 the airport into categories that could be bid by us or third 12 parties, so it's not locked into whoever -- you know, 13 whoever your City Manager -- or I mean Airport Manager is. 14 All the work comes into that entity; it can be divided, 15 separated out on a subcontracted basis. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that will be -- 17 that will be a decision that will fall to the new board to 18 help in the development of their budget, as to examining the 19 costs one way to examine or reduce costs for them. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, while we're on the 21 airport, I think everyone received copies of the agreements, 22 et cetera, from the City as a result of the airport 23 committee. That will be on our next agenda to look at and 24 -- and address. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, y'all start making your 6-30-04 wk 87 1 lists on what needs to be on an interim workshop, and I'll 2 start with my one-on-ones, and we'll roll this thing 3 forward. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my -- a final 5 comment that I'd have is that anything that we can do to 6 improve productivity, basically reducing staff, increasing 7 salaries, I'm in favor of trying that. I mean, I think 8 that's the approach -- I'm not in favor of going into any 9 department and saying, "We're laying off three people in 10 your department." I think it needs to be a collaborative 11 effort. But I think that if a -- the carrot that we have 12 that works is that, if you can reduce staff, we can -- we 13 can reorganize workload, we can increase the salary level of 14 the remaining employees and let attrition take -- do that 15 reduction. I think that's a win-win situation for the 16 taxpayers and for the employees. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly how I was able 18 to accomplish it last year, by -- by dealing with them 19 one-on-one, and they sought the ability to do it, and the 20 ability to compensate the remaining people better. And I 21 think, for the most part, it's been pretty -- pretty 22 effective. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if we -- and, in 24 that connection, if it requires tools, then we're willing to 25 make the capital investment to give them tools to help them 6-30-04 wk 88 1 do that. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Holekamp, you -- 3 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah, I just have a -- it's 4 probably a question. And when we're talking about -- or 5 when y'all are talking about efficiencies in personnel, is 6 the Court -- would they be willing to look at contractual -- 7 like, in our department, a lot of our work could be done 8 contractually. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Outsourcing. 10 MR. HOLEKAMP: You don't -- well, of course, 11 you don't have the hospital -- you don't have the insurance. 12 Probably don't have even Social Security. We'd issue a 1099 13 at the end of the year or whatever, no retirement. And is 14 that something that departments like mine should be looking 15 at? Or are we still pretty much an employee-based type 16 governmental entity? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My -- if we can contract 18 it out more efficiently, contract it out. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with you. If 20 you can outsource it, go for it. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In that regard, one 22 thing that would be -- probably produce very good benefits 23 would be for department heads and elected officials to check 24 with their counterparts in these other counties who appear 25 to have a higher rate of productivity, and find out how they 6-30-04 wk 89 1 do that. We might not learn anything, but we might learn 2 that, by use of technology or contracting out or any more of 3 a dozen other ways, they've -- they've done something right. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And outsourcing is 5 exactly how Road and Bridge has become more efficient. They 6 contract projects out, as opposed to keeping, you know, 7 personnel on-hand all the time. 8 MR. HOLEKAMP: Right, okay. I just wanted to 9 -- a general idea from the Court. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you talking about 11 cleaning -- maybe a cleaning company take over the cleaning 12 -- evening cleaning? And -- 13 MR. HOLEKAMP: Or portions of it. Portions 14 of it. I -- you really can't -- you can't do everything, 15 because you still have to have the 8-to-5 type people. You 16 can't do it all with -- because you've got to have staff. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think there's 18 maybe -- maybe some security issues as well. 19 MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, there -- those -- 20 they're pretty much bonded individuals. I mean, I'm talking 21 about individuals; I'm not talking about companies. I'm 22 not -- 23 MS. UECKER: Companies are bonded, but 24 individuals aren't for those contracts. 25 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah, they are. Yeah, they 6-30-04 wk 90 1 are. On these cleaning -- these reputable companies, yes, 2 they are. 3 (Discussion off the record.) 4 (Commissioner Baldwin left the courtroom.) 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As soon as he 6 leaves, I want to talk about the Ag Barn. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That made him go 8 faster. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I think you've got the -- the 10 guidance that you need. 11 MR. HOLEKAMP: I think so. Thank you. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further? If 13 not, we'll stand adjourned. 14 (Budget workshop adjourned at 12:05 p.m.) 15 - - - - - - - - - - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6-30-04 wk 91 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity 5 as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 5th day of July, 2004. 8 9 10 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk BY: _________________________________ 11 Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6-30-04 wk