1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 8 Budget Workshop (Reconvened) 9 Tuesday, August 17, 2004 10 8:30 a.m. 11 Commissioners' Courtroom 12 Kerr County Courthouse 13 Kerrville, Texas 14 15 16 17 18 Reconvened from Monday, August 16, 2004 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 1 I N D E X August 17, 2004 2 PAGE 3 Budget Workshop 4 Sheriff's Department 3 5 Road and Bridge 52 6 County Engineer 88 7 Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLA's) 114 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Tuesday, August 17, 2004, at 8:30 a.m., the Monday, 2 August 16, 2004 budget workshop of the Kerr County 3 Commissioners Court was reconvened in the Commissioners' 4 Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the 5 following proceedings were had in open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me reconvene the workshop 8 which was originally posted for Monday, the 16th of August, 9 at 8:00 a.m. We recessed that meeting a bit before 9:00 10 that same morning, to be reconvened here this morning at 11 8:30, and it's a bit after that time right now. So that the 12 Court will have some idea of where we are schedule-wise, the 13 reporter and I are due to handle mental health hearings at 14 the State Hospital at 9 o'clock, so we're going to have to 15 pick up and go in adequate time to make it out there by 16 9 o'clock. And what you choose to do during that period of 17 time, certainly, y'all can carry on, continue, whatever, or 18 we can recess until late this morning or this afternoon, 19 whichever -- whichever may be your choice. But I just 20 wanted to put you on notice about that, that the reporter 21 and I will be leaving a little bit before 9:00 in order to 22 make those mental health hearings. The -- the Auditor 23 printed out the new draft of the proposed budget with the 24 personnel items included. I know Commissioner Letz was here 25 yesterday afternoon when they finally got ahold of them, and 8-17-04 wk 4 1 he and I got ours. I think it was -- y'all probably didn't 2 get y'all's till this morning, unless you snuck in in the 3 middle of the night and got them, so I don't know what 4 degree of opportunity you've had to look over them, but 5 that's what we'll be working off of, presumably. So, that 6 being the case, we've got about 10 or 15 minutes before the 7 reporter and I leave, so what's your pleasure, gentlemen? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My feeling -- I mean, 9 I -- I don't know if anyone else went through it. I went 10 through almost all of it, but I didn't get it earlier. I 11 think the purpose of the meeting is to go through it. I saw 12 very few changes overall between what was requested by the 13 department heads and elected officials and the Judge's 14 recommendations. There's a few areas. I saw a few of them 15 I have a question on, and I was -- I'd like to have the 16 Judge present for those. But I think the majority of it -- 17 I mean, the four Commissioners probably need to go through 18 it and kind of get up to speed to where the Judge was, and 19 then Friday, you know, have an idea what we really need to 20 discuss. That would be my thoughts. And if -- you know, 21 certainly, anyone -- you know, Road and Bridge and Rusty, I 22 know they're -- they thought we'd go through theirs today. 23 We can go through theirs while they're here first thing, 24 since they're present. I saw very few questions. I think 25 they're going to have what was recommended. And then, any 8-17-04 wk 5 1 questions that the Commissioners have, we can let those 2 elected officials know, see if they can be here on Friday, 3 try to knock a large part of it out. I think there's going 4 to be several areas that are going to take a lot of 5 discussion, and I think those -- you know, we just need to 6 identify them and then think about them and figure out a 7 time that we're going to go over that and get the people 8 that we need in the room with us and discuss it. That's my 9 thought. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Seems like a good 11 plan to me. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like a good 13 plan to me. I have -- I have an issue that I want to lay on 14 the table that's going to take, I think, probably quite a 15 bit of time and some good discussion. Nothing 16 earth-shattering. It's just a little study that I have done 17 on the Sheriff's Office, and I kind of wanted to make a 18 presentation and give -- get rolling on a Q and A with the 19 Sheriff, and just have a visit. And, so, if you would allow 20 me to do that, it will -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Anybody opposed to do 23 that at this time? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's do it. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Crank it up. 8-17-04 wk 6 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Start out with the 2 Sheriff, then. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why don't we start out 4 with the Sheriff? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good idea. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thanks. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, you're first. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I guess so. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You going to let me do 10 mine? 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sure. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would appreciate 13 that. What I've done -- you know, we talk -- we talk so 14 much in here about comparing things and looking at outside 15 things and trying to -- trying to find a way to get apples 16 and apples, and as we all know, and we've learned through 17 the years that it's extremely difficult to do. But I -- 18 I've always wondered, in the back of my mind, what crime 19 costs the citizens of Kerr County and how much crime we 20 really have, et cetera, et cetera. So, I took it upon 21 myself to take a look at that, and what I did was -- and as 22 we're doing this, I'll pass these around. What I did is, I 23 contacted the Department of Public Safety and asked them for 24 the amount of crime in Kerr County for the last ten years, 25 and actually that's from 1993 to 2003, and we took -- took 8-17-04 wk 7 1 the amount of crime, and then we took the annual budget for 2 the Sheriff's Office in each of those years and divided one 3 into the other, and came up with a figure that is the 4 average cost per incident. 5 And if you -- you'd look -- go past the 6 little graph, and, like, the second page on -- the second 7 page is the report for 1993. And what they've done here is, 8 they've listed seven different types of crime. Now, this -- 9 this is the report that the State has. I have, last week, 10 sat down with Rusty and Clay in his office and presented all 11 of this to him so he would have a heads-up and wouldn't feel 12 like that he's being blindsided, and I don't have any 13 intentions of that at all. I just think this is a super 14 great tool for us to have a -- a good discussion about what 15 law enforcement is, what it does and how much it costs in 16 Kerr County. But on Page 2, if you look at the 1993 report, 17 it is really self-explanatory, and you can see the -- you 18 can see across the top the seven different types of crime; 19 burglary, larceny, auto theft, murder, rape, robbery, and 20 assault, and then it just goes down the list. The first, I 21 think, five there are the only things that we need to be 22 interested in. From there on, it gets into the city of 23 Kerrville and the city of Ingram, et cetera. 24 I'll give you an example. In 1993, it shows 25 that there were 177 burglaries, so you can take that and add 8-17-04 wk 8 1 all those numbers up as you go across, and you go back to 2 your front page, the graph, and you see that there were 495 3 incidents of crime in 1993. And the annual budget that year 4 was what? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $1.6 million. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: 1.6. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $1,600 per incident. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $1,641 per incident. 9 And as you go down through there, looking at this, looking 10 at this information that we have today that came from D.P.S. 11 and the Kerr County budget, you'll see that it appears that 12 the cost goes way up and the rate of crime goes way down. 13 And then, in 2001 and 2002, it's gone back up considerably, 14 but then again it drops back down. But -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I ask a question, 16 Commissioner? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why -- is there a reason 19 that there's a break here? It appears that the scale is 20 different on the lower graph than the upper graph. Am I -- 21 MS. MITCHELL: I can answer that, since I'm 22 the one that did the graph. It's because it's two different 23 graphs. It had to be done on two different graphs, and it 24 just measures out the -- the numbers from the top to the 25 bottom, and that's why it shows it that way. It's whatever 8-17-04 wk 9 1 numbers you plug in, is what the graph shows. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, I see. 3 MS. MITCHELL: So -- but it's two 4 different -- it had to be done as two different graphs, 5 because I couldn't fit it all on one, using one graph. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: The scale, if she continued, 7 would have come right on off over the page. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see what you're saying. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is pretty 10 helpful. The -- the number of crimes is county -- Kerr 11 County-wide? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, Kerr County 13 Sheriff's Office. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And cost of law 15 enforcement is Kerr Sheriff's Department only? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, to get -- so, it 18 cost us $5,611 for major crimes last year, but it would not 19 be unreasonable to add the cost of the two police 20 departments to this. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, and you could do 22 that. All those numbers are in here as well. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to -- 25 the Sheriff's the only thing I deal with here. 8-17-04 wk 10 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One other question. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the -- the -- I 4 think, to get a truer picture, it should be adjusted for 5 inflation. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which -- I mean, which I 8 don't -- I mean, I don't think you did. Maybe you did. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did not. Did not. 10 And you're -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would change it some, 12 but it's not going to change the trend, clearly. But it 13 would make the 1993 numbers bigger, but even if you doubled 14 them, you're still at $3,200, which is far less than we're 15 paying right now. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I did not do that, 17 and -- but this was the closest I could get to really trying 18 to get apples and apples. Now, you're fixing to hear that 19 it suddenly changes to apples and oranges, and he's got a 20 great story to tell. And at this time, Rusty, get after it. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: First off, 22 Mr. Nicholson, just to clarify one thing, the crimes that 23 are reported there, the 438 is not including the crimes 24 inside the city. It's just Kerr County Sheriff's 25 Department. 8-17-04 wk 11 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if a murder 2 occurred in Kerrville or Ingram, it's not in there? 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not in there. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, that's clear. 5 This is -- this is apples and apples. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: These are just county 7 offenses. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Should be. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The big difference is -- 10 is that, as you can tell, these are only seven crimes. 11 These are what's called our U.C.R. report, Uniform Crime 12 Report. It goes to Austin and to the federal government 13 every year. The assaults on there are a little misleading. 14 That is aggravated assaults, not -- not just your family -- 15 none of your family violence. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Felony assaults. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Felony assaults. 18 Aggravated assaults, okay? The rapes are -- under the old 19 law, the rapes are only forcible rape, male on female. They 20 are not any of your kids, sexual assaults, or any of your -- 21 your other stuff. It's male-on-female forcible rapes. So, 22 those are -- are a difference in there. But, again, it is 23 just seven crimes as reported through U.C.R. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many different 25 categories of crime are there? 8-17-04 wk 12 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thousands. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh? 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thousands. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thousands? 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. Okay? And they 6 only pick out the seven to report throughout the country. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The seven being the 8 ones that are most likely to be -- 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The more -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Show up in a 11 statistical -- 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Your more notorious-type 13 crimes, okay, is what they really pick. So that's not an 14 accurate reflection of crime, nor can it really accurately 15 be divided into what the County's budget is or the Sheriff's 16 Department budget to get an actual figure. The figures are 17 -- you have to go back to calls for service, all right? Not 18 only are none of your criminal mischiefs, none of your -- 19 your credit card abuse, any of that kind of stuff is never 20 counted in -- in any of this stuff. The other thing is, 21 neither is the -- and my philosophy is, and what we went 22 back to when I first started as Sheriff, was we put "To 23 serve and protect" back on the patrol cars. Law enforcement 24 is in the "to serve and protect" business. It's not just 25 investigating crime. 8-17-04 wk 13 1 If my guys are driving down the highway and 2 some lady has a flat tire, they're going to stop and help 3 change that tire. If horses or cattle are loose, they've 4 got to stop and deal with that. Some of those take a long 5 period of time. If you've got an estray deal where a horse 6 or cow's on someone else's property and you can't find the 7 owner, you have to go through and search the brand records, 8 everything else, have animals picked up, have them sold at 9 auction. Animal Control, thank goodness, for the last four 10 years has been great in helping us do that kind of stuff, 11 but you have all that. You may have a prowler call, which 12 is very common, over at one of your houses. An officer's 13 going to respond there; he's going to check out that whole 14 area, make sure there's not a prowler. None of those kind 15 of statistics are in any of this information. So, the 16 majority of our stuff is -- is not in these. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question, Rusty. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I understand what 20 you're saying, but, you know, percentage-wise, you're still 21 looking at apples versus apples, because they weren't 22 included in '93 and they're not included in 2003. So, 23 unless there's a major shift in the type of crime in the 24 county, this still gives a -- a snapshot of, you know, a lot 25 of what your department does. 8-17-04 wk 14 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I really -- I really 2 disagree with that, because even then, the expense of 3 investigating crimes, general -- you know, the techniques 4 and forensics of it. Nowadays, if you had a -- had a murder 5 and you didn't go out and look for hairs and fibers and DNA 6 and actually do that type of -- of investigation, you know, 7 you -- you're falling down on the job. Back in '93, there 8 was no such thing as DNA or the hairs and fibers, and you 9 just kind of flew by the seat of your pants doing an 10 investigation. So, the cost of doing a thorough 11 investigation and providing thorough law enforcement, all in 12 all -- maybe that's what you're getting to, Jonathan, but 13 that's gone up, no matter what any of us do, if you want to 14 do a thorough investigation. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In -- there was a 16 reduction -- pretty substantial reduction in the cost per 17 incident in 2003 versus 2001 and 2002. Is that because of 18 the several capital murders that were committed in 2000 -- 19 when was the Seard murder? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: No. What the -- what the 21 difference is, is in the increased number of incidents. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Went from 355 to 438, which is 24 a pretty significant increase. That brought the average 25 cost down. 8-17-04 wk 15 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And then the other thing 2 you have is -- and you hope -- I know if you look in 2000, 3 ours started changing, okay, quite a bit from all the years 4 before. That's because U.C.R. reporting has to be done 5 every month. It's about eight different forms. It all has 6 to be filled out. There is a large matter of interpretation 7 on how your people are trained to do it. A lot of agencies 8 don't report things that probably should be reported. A lot 9 of agencies do report things that shouldn't be reported, and 10 so a lot -- that takes a big effect. Now, in 2000, after I 11 took office, we intentionally sent personnel to the State's 12 U.C.R. reporting school, made sure we were doing it right, 13 and that started changing our numbers drastically on how we 14 were reporting it, because I think it needs to be done 15 correctly if you're going to report it. 16 To give you an idea, though, and I have it -- 17 in -- in '99, our calls for service -- where you're showing 18 in '99 here 300 crimes, our calls for service in 1999 was 19 8,458. This last year, where you're showing 438 crimes, in 20 2003, our calls for service in 2003 up to right about now, 21 one-year period, was just a little over 12,000. So, if you 22 take 12,000, start dividing it into the cost of the 23 Sheriff's Department, you may get a little bit more 24 apples-to-apples and what law enforcement costs for the 25 county. 8-17-04 wk 16 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me interrupt, if I might. 2 It's about 10 minutes till. The reporter and I need to 3 leave. The sense of it I have is that you folks want to 4 continue, so we'll leave you, and when we get through, we'll 5 be back and we'll pick up where we come in, I guess. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, he'll still be 7 talking when you get back, believe me. 8 (Judge Tinley and the court reporter left the budget workshop at 8:50 a.m. and returned at 9 9:40 a.m.) 10 - - - - - - - - - - - 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we come back to 12 order? We were on a short break. The reporter and myself 13 are back now after a brief intermission, so where were we? 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If I may start where I 15 left off -- 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're done with the -- 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, we're not done with 19 that. The -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nice try. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The one thing, all in 22 all, Jonathan, that this would do is put -- out of the two 23 S.R.O.'s, just one staying in the school, she's just a 24 D.A.R.E. officer, okay? One of those D.A.R.E. officers, 25 instead of just being a patrol officer during the summer 8-17-04 wk 17 1 months, would be a full-time patrolman, okay, and the other 2 one would go into an investigative position to add that -- 3 bump that investigative -- investigators up to help reduce 4 that case load they have. All right? So that's where that 5 is. We would end up with -- the way even Barbara gave y'all 6 on the -- on the employee scale, and with the way I had 7 figured it, after December -- after January 1st, we could 8 end up with one additional patrol officer. The reason for 9 that is, we've had one that's been out on worker's comp for 10 almost two years now, and that's a discussion I won't get 11 into, but he is still on the salary scale. He is still 12 figured into the salary and everything with him. After my 13 term of office expires December 31st, the County does not 14 have to keep providing that. So -- and it's figured into 15 the budget. I would like to add one more to a patrol 16 position then. That would give us a total on every patrol 17 shift, okay, of six officers. And compensating on training 18 and all -- and vacation and that, it would put five officers 19 normally working patrol for the 1,100 square miles of the 20 county. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't understand. Why 22 do we need to add a position if the one who's holding that 23 worker's comp slot's getting freed up? 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're not adding a 25 position. I will be able to add a body under the same 8-17-04 wk 18 1 budget. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't change the 3 salary. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Doesn't change any of 5 the figures that we're looking at. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: We've been paying for an 7 absent body there. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. And, in reality, 9 without adding any new manpower to the department, okay, to 10 what's budgeted, it allows me to add an investigator and to 11 add two patrolmen. All right? Without any new manpower. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just for what's it's 13 worth, Rusty, I noticed this before and never had an 14 opportunity to comment on it. Looks like you have six 15 officers off on worker's comp? 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just one? 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have one officer 19 that's been off on worker's comp. I have a couple others 20 that are assigned to light duty because of shoulder injury. 21 One other during -- got a shoulder injury during an arrest; 22 he is still working. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I may be misreading 24 this. Golden, Schultz, McHorse, Wahl, and Johnson are not 25 off on worker's comp? 8-17-04 wk 19 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just got one? 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I just have one. Some 4 are on light duty. I have a patrolman that -- the shoulder 5 injury, that he is assigned to assist with investigations 6 and -- and evidence, because he cannot work full-time till 7 he gets through that injury. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a 9 question about this worker's comp thing. You said you're 10 not going to go there, but I am. I always understood the 11 worker's comp law, that a person has a period of time, like 12 a two-year period; he gets well and comes back, or he's -- 13 it's over. But you're saying that the law says that his 14 term of illness is tied with your term in office? 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. Under 16 the Texas Constitution, there's a paragraph in there that 17 states law enforcement or deputy constables do get full 18 benefits, total -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Deputy constable? 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mm-hmm. 21 AUDIENCE: Deputy Sheriff. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Deputy Sheriff, deputy 23 constables continue to get full benefits until this 24 Sheriff/elected official's term of office expires, if 25 they're unable to come back to work. 8-17-04 wk 20 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: An absolute shame. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have never heard of it 3 until I got into this. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What if that person 5 just -- I mean, what if he gets well and goes off and gets 6 another job? We still pay? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: To be perfectly honest, 8 this person isn't even an employee of mine any more, okay? 9 But he's still carried on the payroll. The County's still 10 having to pay him. He's not even a certified peace officer 11 any more. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's sad. What -- 13 what is he doing? Is he employed somewhere? 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. He sells real 15 estate. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's awful. That's 17 horrible. Are you sure that's the law? 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. I went to a 19 hearing on it last month in San Antonio. I have another one 20 next month. It's been going on for two years. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You may want to take 22 some of us with you to San Antonio next time. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They made me go back 24 out, lock my car up under escort -- or lock my gun up in the 25 car; they wouldn't let me in the building with it in San 8-17-04 wk 21 1 Antonio. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, other than the salary 3 issue and the -- you're happy with the budget as it is right 4 now? 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, the budget items. 6 The last thing that I would like to raise is salary. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're happy with 8 the budget. That includes capital? 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Includes capital. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Talking about 11 capital, and you're satisfied with it? 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I am satisfied with 13 everything that the Judge has come up with on his 14 recommendations in the budget until we get to salary. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the capital items -- 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: May I finish salaries 18 real quick? I got the one last part. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're still on Sheriff. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The one group of 21 employees that I think the County has been lax on for a long 22 time, okay -- not y'all, not just this Court; it's just that 23 way -- is our secretaries and clerks. I know I had an 24 opening for the chief -- chief secretary, administrative 25 secretary for Criminal Investigation Division, and I had 8-17-04 wk 22 1 another County employee want to go apply for it, okay, 2 that's been a County employee. And when that County 3 employee found out that that County employee was already 4 making more than my administrative secretary and would have 5 taken about a $6,000 to $8,000 cut to apply for that 6 administrative Criminal Investigation Division secretary, 7 you can imagine what happened. "No, I think I'll stay where 8 I'm at." And that was another clerk that was going to apply 9 for that position. One clerk to another clerk, and there 10 was about a $6,000 to $8,000 reduction. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Again, you and I 12 talked about this the other day, but I think the problem 13 is -- is that person is not classified properly. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Our secretaries -- well, 15 I don't know what it is. That's the way the Court set out 16 the classification throughout the year. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Classification. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay? So I don't go in 19 and try and change classifications until we get to budget 20 time and that. But even if classification wouldn't happen, 21 what I would like to see for all the secretaries and clerks 22 inside the Sheriff's Department that would put them up equal 23 with a lot of the other ones around the county, even in 24 other County departments, would be to add an 25 across-the-board raise of $3,000, plus the cost -- the COLA. 8-17-04 wk 23 1 I think that would put our secretaries up, and clerks. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we talking about your 3 two -- your 14-level positions? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, just the 12. If you 5 look at our -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The two 14's and the -- 7 three 14's and two 12's? 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. And then my 9 administrative one also. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Administrative is 11 19? 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. I'm talking 13 across-the-board to keep it equivalent between all of them, 14 just across-the-board to $3,000, and 2.5 COLA. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe, on the 12's, 16 didn't we -- I thought we tried to raise all the 12's to 17 15's last year. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We did. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But it didn't -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's a 21 classification issue. I mean, I don't know that I would 22 just throw money -- "X" amount of dollars at somebody. I 23 think we stay in that classification. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. You change the 12 25 to a -- what it needs to be. 8-17-04 wk 24 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 14 or 15 or whatever. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 14 or 15. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But then you're also -- 4 the only -- the only drawback I see in just doing it that 5 way -- and, I mean, 12's definitely need to come up; there's 6 no doubt. But there's also -- it's kind of like what 7 happens between the chief deputy and my salary every year, 8 okay? And is going to happen this year again, all right? 9 If he gets his increases like he should and does every year, 10 the chief deputy's salary will go back above the Sheriff's 11 salary. And if you're not -- if what -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And there's something 13 wrong with that? 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He doesn't want to have 15 to work that hard. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And your point is? 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Have to buy a lot of 18 lunches to make up for that, Buster. What Commissioner 19 Nicholson did last year on the $3,000 and the -- and the 20 $1,500, the way that was done, kept the -- the groups at 21 where they probably should be in trying to keep the parity 22 between the groups and that, to keep them equal without 23 putting, you know, lower classified people above other ones. 24 So, I think that was good. But that's what -- what I feel 25 needs to be done with the -- the clerks and secretaries on 8-17-04 wk 25 1 that. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that also going to 3 be included in our sheet? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. Yes, it will be 5 included in your sheet today. But that's what I'm going -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's going to get -- 7 they're going to get a sheet to Kathy on what exactly he's 8 asking for on his employees. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that's the essence 11 of what I had, Jonathan. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before you go to the 13 jail, on your capital outlay -- 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- $44,000 for vehicles 16 and work truck? 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Jail? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sheriff. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. No, that is -- 21 yes, for vehicles and work truck. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That's -- how many 23 vehicles is that? 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Four. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a total of four 8-17-04 wk 26 1 vehicles? 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Four vehicles. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three patrol? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, four patrol vehicles 5 and the work truck. The work truck's already been done on 6 the initial year, but you're still going to have a payment 7 come up on it. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And those are all -- so, 9 it's four new vehicles, and just rotate them into this 10 system? 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. That will be the 12 initial payment on four patrol cars, and would have been the 13 initial payment on the work truck. Now it'll be the second 14 payment, I guess, on the work truck. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, four new patrol cars, 16 and then you'll rotate and -- as we have been. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where are we? 18 Capital items? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And if you'd 20 have been in here, your calculator would have burned up. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What does he want 22 now? 23 AUDIENCE: Money. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Only takes money. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's all it takes. 8-17-04 wk 27 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where's jail? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Forward a couple pages. 4 It's Page 42. Again, as I see it, the only questions I 5 really had on it were what you want to do -- your request is 6 on the jail side, salaries, and capital outlay. Everything 7 else was pretty much what the Judge recommended -- what you 8 recommended or requested. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Salaries, we just went 10 through what my request is on those. That includes the 11 jail, the $2,000 and the cost-of-living across-the-board. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: For all of them, and 14 then part of that, the secretaries would also fall in there, 15 'cause there are two in the jail. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Okay. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Capital outlay, what 18 that is, it's time to replace the camera system inside the 19 jail. We had talked about that; one of the vendors came up 20 and gave y'all the demonstration here. We went through some 21 serious problems. They gave me that one vendor; we got bids 22 from three different vendors. One of them was 200-something 23 thousand. One was 300-something thousand. And then the 24 vendor y'all met, I got it from him broke down in three 25 different stages. To replace just the recording equipment, 8-17-04 wk 28 1 try and use our own cameras and not add any additional 2 cameras that are going to end up having to be added 3 eventually, was $39,000. And why I'm saying they're going 4 to have to be added, this is the 2003 law on Prison Rape 5 Prevention Act passed by the -- by the federal government to 6 where you're going to have to monitor prisoners in every 7 area of the jail that they could possibly be at at any time 8 to prevent sexual assaults on inmates or hangings or 9 anything else. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, lots of that's going 12 to change. The State of Texas last year took the opinion 13 they required all the jails to send in how many cameras and 14 what it would take to comply with this new federal act. And 15 in that federal act it says there's a lot of money 16 available, okay? In checking into that money that's 17 available to see if we could possibly cover any of these 18 expenditures that are going to come down the line through 19 federal grants or anything else, I was informed by the 20 governor's office that, no, all that money available is only 21 to upgrade the federal prison system and the state 22 penitentiaries. It will not be available to counties, okay? 23 So, that's -- that's where we stood. So, the very basic -- 24 just to replace equipment, not really expand our ability to 25 monitor better, is $39,000. Replace all that equipment. 8-17-04 wk 29 1 The second bid was to replace some of the 2 cameras that would have to be replaced, and to try and use 3 some of our old cameras that are not digital cameras, but 4 they're VHS, as he was showing y'all out here in the parking 5 lot that day, but does not add all the new cameras that have 6 to be added. That cost was $85,000. The third bid from 7 this same vendor to replace everything, do the whole match, 8 everything that was needed, and bring it totally up to 9 standards where we can actually monitor people in every area 10 of the jail and get it where it should be is $141,000. The 11 Judge and I, in talking about it, felt that if we're going 12 to have to do it, you might as well get it done, okay? So 13 there's $141,000 in the jail's capital outlay that is for 14 that expenditure. That's what's figured in. The other -- 15 about $6,000 in there is miscellaneous, such as a food cart 16 that might have to be replaced or a violent chair that may 17 have to be replaced that we have those capital outlay 18 expenditures, or computer. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, this requirement 20 that's been laid on us by the feds to have all this in 21 place, that's required to be in place, is it not, January 1, 22 '06? 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm not positive of the 24 date. The State of Texas still hasn't -- they're going to 25 meet in the next Legislature, and I guess they've been 8-17-04 wk 30 1 compiling all the figures, okay? The -- the date I've heard 2 is January 1, '06, all right? But I don't know right now; 3 it's all in the federal part of it, that they're having to 4 get it all done in the state penitentiaries and the federal 5 deals, and they say the jails will have to, but I haven't 6 heard a finalized date. And this jail that we're in now 7 wasn't like our jail that we had over here. When this jail 8 was built, there was not cameras put into the cell -- living 9 areas, okay? Of course, there was a privacy issue back 10 then. There's certain areas that you have to have that a 11 camera wouldn't cover in a cellblock, but -- other than 12 areas where it will be like it used to be in this old jail. 13 But the new -- newer jail that we have out there, the only 14 cameras are down the hallways and inside, like, the kitchen 15 or the multi-function room. There are no cameras anywhere 16 near inside any of the cell blocks, and this will require 17 that they be done. 18 And there's also an area where all the 19 incoming inmates are searched and things taken away from 20 them, what we call a little safety vestibule. When officers 21 arrest them, bring them in jail, the jailer meets them there 22 and they search them, and that's normally where all the 23 fights take place, because when you go to try and empty this 24 guy's pocket and he's got a pocketful of dope, he don't want 25 to give it up. You're there in a fight. That needs to be 8-17-04 wk 31 1 on camera and reported, as far as a liability issue and 2 everything else on that situation. But that's the cost to 3 redo it. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, if it was '06, 5 possibly we could do half now and half next budget? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I was thinking 8 somewhat along the same lines. If it's not until '06, we 9 don't have to fund it this year. At least not totally this 10 year. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We do not need to. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My second question 13 would be -- or comment would be, are you talking about in 14 terms of new equipment, or -- I hope you're talking about 15 digital cameras, and not the older models. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, it would be 17 digital, just as the -- as y'all were shown in the 18 demonstration out here. We do need to do something -- one 19 of those options this year. The reason I say that is, 20 number one, if I were to bring in a tape of the cameras 21 inside the jail and you try and view what went on in a 22 hallway where we had a fight, you could not make out even 23 the people involved. Our system is very inadequate in that. 24 As y'all know, last January we had a -- a serious incident 25 where, right outside the jail, in the perimeter where our 8-17-04 wk 32 1 patrol cars were parked and some of our investigators were 2 parked, New Year's Eve night, we had seven cars damaged. 3 And a lot of that, the actor was 30 feet from a camera. 4 It's lit up at night. You still could not even make out 5 what kind of car the actor pulled up underneath in. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you talking about 7 hard-wired cameras in the jail, or are you talking about 8 portable cameras? 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In the jail, they have 10 to be hard-wired cameras. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you going to have 12 to rewire what you've got? Or -- 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, but all that's in 14 these prices. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: All that's in these 17 prices. But, yes, you do have to rewire everything in that 18 jail. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does -- does the $85,000 20 figure get everything digital that you currently have? 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Except for -- it's still 22 going to be using a number of the old cameras that are not 23 digital cameras. We're going to have to use a lot of the 24 old ones we have, and it will not put new cameras in all the 25 places that need to be put. 8-17-04 wk 33 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's kind of like -- 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's a halfway project. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Halfway? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. And, of course 5 prices on all that stuff are going to keep going up every 6 year, so it's just how much do you want to swallow now or 7 later? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But other than that, the 10 jail budget, between salaries and -- and letting y'all 11 decide where we go on the camera system, I have no -- no 12 problems at all. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No problems at all. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have a 16 question. It's kind of a sideline to -- but it deals with 17 jail. When we did the bonds years ago and built the jail, 18 five million-something-dollar jail, the bonds were sold to 19 the public that we wanted to build a jail large enough, 192 20 beds, to out -- to house outside prisoners; therefore, that 21 income would be earmarked to pay down the debt, and I'm 22 wondering if that's being done. And, as an example, Rusty, 23 do you have a number about how much -- 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, I do. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that brings in 8-17-04 wk 34 1 annually from -- from outside prisoners? 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir, I do. And 3 going back just a step -- thank you, Buster, for bringing 4 that up, because I will -- will mention that. In revenues 5 that -- whether they be through grants, donations, or 6 anything else that the Sheriff's Office has done in the last 7 four years, 'cause we do try and do as much as we can 8 progressively. Now, this does not count citations, tickets, 9 anything like that. The -- in reimbursement programs and 10 grants that will cover car videos and all that kind of 11 stuff, and -- and even -- we get -- we even apply for Social 12 Security Incentive Program. Any time a person's put in 13 jail, we notify Social Security; their Social Security 14 benefits are cut off until they get back out of jail. The 15 Parole Violator Program, if we arrest a parole violator 16 that's in a certain category of offense that he was on, we 17 get reimbursed for that. The profits we get out of that 18 commissary program, what they are. Now, they have to be 19 spent back on inmates, but all that revenue from civil 20 papers, what we charge attorneys and law firms to serve all 21 their civil papers, that comes back in. 22 Inmate telephone system revenue. And that 23 was really a lot lower than what I thought, but I think it 24 will go up now that the new system is in. And our LAOC 25 account, which is the Attorney General giving us some funds 8-17-04 wk 35 1 for training of officers, depending on how many officers you 2 have in a department. Donations include things such as the 3 -- this year -- and one of the reasons I didn't question how 4 the Judge cut the first part of the investigative expense, 5 we added the new interview room, but the $10,000 I've been 6 running for investigative, we cut that down, because last 7 year all that -- all our photographs were 35-millimeter 8 photographs. You'll go through 100 rolls of 35-millimeter 9 film a week, okay, in taking photographs of -- of crime 10 scenes, of family violence stuff. All that has been changed 11 through a donation from the District Attorney's' office, the 12 198th D.A. His investigator does have an office out at our 13 Sheriff's Department with some of our people, so in return, 14 he assisted us. He bought us 13 digital cameras this year 15 and helped us get the -- as y'all know, the software program 16 to put them into Ableterm, so now we're all on digital 17 cameras. We still have some 35's for major crime scene, but 18 99 percent of our photographs are done digitally now at 19 crime scenes. 20 We had a donation from State Farm of 20 21 laptop computers. They were about $10,000. Now, we do not 22 have the wireless connection to be able to do like the City 23 does, where you can use TLETS or -- or local computer system 24 in the car, but it does give the officers, you know, 25 Microsoft Word, and they try and transfer those reports over 8-17-04 wk 36 1 to the Ableterm/Software Group system. Donations to our 2 D.A.R.E. program. That D.A.R.E. program, except for her 3 salary on the officer that teaches D.A.R.E., none of these 4 supplies, nothing connected with D.A.R.E. is paid for by the 5 County. All the workbooks for 900 students, everything 6 else, is all done through donations. That line item doesn't 7 cost the County taxpayers anything. And donations through 8 our equipment fund, our total grants this year -- or in the 9 four years I've been there, is $909,514.96 that the County 10 has applied for and gotten grants for. Our miscellaneous 11 revenue, which a big part of this is exactly what Buster was 12 mentioning on our housing of inmates, our out-of-county 13 housing. Our out-of-county housing for the four years that 14 I have been -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Buster, what was your 16 question? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Inmate housing, how much 19 that was. Total of that for four years has been right at 20 $1,632,718. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's for how many 22 years? 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Four years, since April 24 of 2000. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's external 8-17-04 wk 37 1 revenue? 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's external revenue 3 coming in. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: However, that 5 external revenue is on a per diem basis. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which you have told 8 this Court repeatedly is set so as to cover your costs of 9 operation. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The net of that means 12 that there's not very much left over that could be dedicated 13 to debt service. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I don't 15 necessarily totally agree with that. There is a large -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tell me where I'm 17 wrong. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There is a large amount 19 of that inmate housing -- like, this is not counting medical 20 reimbursement. If we're housing an inmate for another 21 county and he gets sick and goes to the hospital, true, we 22 pay that up front. That county reimburses Kerr County for 23 the costs of all that medical expense. If that inmate takes 24 an aspirin inside our jail, that other county gets charged 25 for that aspirin, okay? 8-17-04 wk 38 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That -- those 2 are incidental. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's not in here. 4 Now, the other part of that is, we have cut as much as we 5 can and still stay within legal guidelines of the 6 dietitian-approved meal, okay? We had cut meal costs last 7 year; it was 89 cents. This year it's gone up because of 8 milk prices and bread prices, but at 89 cents a meal, okay, 9 and then you divide in the number of employees you have. 10 Now, the State Jail Commission requires one floor officer 11 per 48 inmates, so once we get to the average we have, all 12 right, even with the out-of-county inmates, we're still 13 going to have the same number of personnel, 'cause of those 14 increments -- those 48-inmate increments. We normally house 15 about 25 to 30 out-of-county inmates, so we're still past 16 that increment, so you're not saving on personnel costs. 17 What you would be saving on is three meals a day at 85 to 90 18 cents a meal. That's your cost of actually housing that 19 inmate. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay? So, three meals a 22 day; say, a dollar. That's $3 a day. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Means you're netting 24 $3 a day? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mm-hmm. 8-17-04 wk 39 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's true unless -- 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Per inmate. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As long as your Kerr 4 County population -- you know, you go in those 48-people -- 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- increments. As long 7 as you're not a full -- long as we don't have more than 48 8 out-of-county. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only thing I do 10 then -- do when we get to that point is we cut off the other 11 counties bringing in more than we could have. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. What is our, I 13 guess -- let me rephrase the question. What is the average 14 number of out-of-county prisoners we have? 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 25 to 30. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 25 or 30, okay. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is about average. And 18 we have contracts with four counties -- five counties. 19 But -- so you're not saving on personnel costs. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're only saving on 22 meals. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I was getting at, if 24 your average was 50, well, then, do you have to include that 25 incremental -- 8-17-04 wk 40 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You pay salaries, but you 3 don't if you're less than 50 -- less than 48. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's costing us actually 5 $3, 'cause we're going to pay the same utilities, the same 6 water bill, pretty well the same salaries, okay? All that's 7 not going to change. It's costing us an additional $3 a day 8 to house an out-of-county inmate. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the question is, 10 there's a million-plus in the last four years that could 11 have gone to pay down the -- which would have paid off the 12 debt. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many years have we 14 had the jail? 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It opened in '95 -- '96. 16 '96, it actually opened. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Six years? 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Eight years. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Eight years. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But it didn't -- it 21 wasn't dedicated. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, in response to -- to 24 Commissioner Baldwin, there may have been some expectation 25 that there would be some additional revenue generated by 8-17-04 wk 41 1 out-of-county prisoners. The bonds that financed the 2 construction of that jail are, far as I know, general 3 obligation bonds; they're not revenue bonds. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Which would require the 6 dedication of any revenue to be applied directly towards 7 that. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I don't think 9 there was any dedication. It was just the simple fact that 10 the public was told that. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: There was some anticipation 12 that additional revenues would be generated by incarcerating 13 out-of-county prisoners, sure. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The public was told that 15 back during all that, as Buster said, that we would build it 16 with 192 beds so that we could house out-of-county inmates 17 for a while to pay off the debt. When I took office, that's 18 exactly what we tried to do, was expand on our contracts and 19 put out-of-county inmates in that jail. Now, I drew the 20 line when it came to federal inmates. We could have made 21 more off federal inmates, but I will not house federal 22 inmates in this jail just for purposes of -- you saw, like, 23 Frio County. I won't do it. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I wouldn't -- my 25 reason to not house them would be that they won't give us 8-17-04 wk 42 1 some of our money back. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wouldn't deal with 4 them. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. Well, they would 6 pay a lot better daily rate to house an inmate, but the 7 other thing they wanted us to do was to do all their court 8 transports back and forth from here to San Antonio with 9 those federal inmates, and I'm not -- we don't have the 10 manpower. We don't -- our jail staff does not have that 11 kind of training to deal with those, so I would not house 12 them. Now, we do house the illegal aliens or the INS-type 13 holds and that for a very short period of time, normally 14 less than 24 hours. The other thing that -- on housing, is 15 the City of Kerrville does pay a per diem for any of their 16 arrests. The problem with that -- and the City of Kerrville 17 does not pay much at all in their per diem -- is they only 18 have to pay the County, by law, a per diem on city ordinance 19 violation inmates. If it's a city ordinance, then they have 20 to pay us to house that person for however long. If it is a 21 state statute violation, like a public intoxication, traffic 22 offense, whatever, that's a state statute violation. They 23 only have to pay until that person sees the judge. And a 24 magistrate is on duty every morning, so the very most the 25 City ever pays is one day per inmate. 8-17-04 wk 43 1 Now, the other thing that they could do, if 2 they have an inmate -- an arrestee that gets injured while 3 they're making an arrest, or is involved in a wreck or is 4 hurt or whatever, you know, and they arrest this person, and 5 they have to take him to the hospital first, if they get a 6 magistrate over to that hospital and magistrate him, after 7 that magistrate's magistrated that person, the City officer 8 can leave and we have the responsibility to take care of 9 that inmate at the hospital. I don't know -- you know, and 10 that -- you never know how to draw your manpower. And my 11 jail staff is four on duty at a time, so anybody that goes 12 to the hospital and stays there, we have to call in extra 13 people to handle that. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My point is that 15 you said that we couldn't get any federal money for our 16 cameras -- 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- because it's not a 19 federal facility. And that money that they won't send us is 20 our money that we have sent -- that the citizens of this 21 county have sent to Washington, and now they don't want to 22 give us our money back. I don't -- I'm not in favor of 23 housing their prisoners. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I agree with you. 25 And we do try and get as much of our money back as we can, 8-17-04 wk 44 1 such as the $909,000 in the four years we've gotten in 2 grants, okay? We do try and do that. But, grand total of 3 everything, revenues, not counting citations, that our 4 department has brought in in four years -- and I know our 5 budget's gone up, but I'd like this considered in it. Just 6 our fees -- and this isn't warrant fees that go directly to 7 the courts or any of that kind of stuff, or -- or citations 8 or anything -- is a total of $2,598,130.96 in extra things 9 we do out there to bring in the revenues and offset our 10 budget. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, you've come 12 before the Court on numerous occasions to tell us about the 13 increasing costs of -- to provide health care for inmates -- 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- on various and 16 sundry occasions when you have to take them to the hospital 17 and so forth, and I think we all recognize that as the case. 18 My question to you is, are there instances where you could 19 qualify those inmates for indigent care? And if so, do you 20 try to do that? 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is Tommy in here? I 22 wish the Auditor was in here. Tommy and I had a meeting 23 that he set up with a company that, what they have done and 24 what they do -- and they are doing it for a large -- about 25 -- probably about close to half the counties in the state. 8-17-04 wk 45 1 You know, it costs the County about a thousand -- let me get 2 that information out. I have it here somewhere. What it 3 does is it classifies any person that is incarcerated, okay, 4 and does not have access to their funds -- which they don't; 5 we take everything away from them when they come into 6 jail -- as indigent inmates, and it only pays the Medicare 7 rate and the indigent rate of their hospital bill, okay? 8 Which would drastically cut down the cost for us on house -- 9 on medical costs. 10 It's something that we have looked at. We 11 met with -- the Judge walked in during our meeting; we had 12 it here in this courtroom. And Tommy and I have talked 13 about it, and it will be on the agenda at some point for the 14 County and the Commissioners to look at to get a 15 demonstration of it and see how it works, and see if y'all 16 are willing to do that, because when you get into surgeries 17 and intensive care rooms and anesthesiologists, it is a 18 drastic cut. Tommy was going to send them one month of our 19 bills, whether they be prescription or -- or whatever. 20 We're spending now anywhere from $4,000 to $6,000 a month on 21 prescriptions. He was going to send them one month of our 22 bills and have them figure that into that system, and see 23 what that month's bills would actually cost under the 24 indigent care part of it, which is what it should be. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reason I asked 8-17-04 wk 46 1 was because I know other counties are doing it. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, obviously, 4 they're doing it because they -- they see some opportunity 5 for savings. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Large opportunity, and 7 it is coming before y'all. It is something that we need to 8 go to and we need to start doing. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Now, there are some -- there 11 are some software costs, and there are some -- what's going 12 on right now is we're having the -- the outfit's name is 13 Indigent Health Care Solutions. They are analyzing what we 14 do in our Indigent Health Care program, and the preliminary 15 indication is, where we stand to save the most money is in 16 the jail context, not necessarily just with our Indigent 17 Health Care program. But what we're trying to do is look at 18 those savings based on a -- on a sample, and then, secondly, 19 take a look at the cost factors of what it's actually 20 costing us to administer our Indigent Health Care program, 21 'cause we got some fixed costs that go into that, too. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: They're working those numbers 24 now. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. Thank you. 8-17-04 wk 47 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And just -- I've pretty 2 well presented everything that I would like to present. I 3 would like to remind the Commissioners of the -- 'cause I 4 feel I would be amiss if I did not, because that group did a 5 very detailed yearlong study, the position and long-range 6 planning committee study that was done in 2004. And where 7 we are at this time, personnel-wise and salary-wise, 8 compared to that study -- which each of the Commissioners at 9 that time, except for Commissioner Nicholson wasn't on the 10 court then, and Judge Tinley, appointed their own 11 representative through their precinct to actually do this -- 12 this study and this committee meeting. And we tried to do a 13 long-range plan so that the Court could see where the 14 Sheriff's Department needed to go. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it on-target or -- 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, way behind. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're way behind, 18 aren't we? 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We accepted it and 20 forgot it. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're behind on the 22 personnel numbers, but we're following it on getting 23 salaries increased, as I recall. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The biggest part of the 25 study was on -- on personnel numbers and addition of 8-17-04 wk 48 1 physical facility and things like that. Now, the things we 2 did accomplish, okay, number one, there was -- there was 3 five goals of the committee. One was communications. 4 Personnel, records management, physical facilities addition, 5 and optimize the use of available funds. Okay. We've tried 6 to optimize the use of available funds by definitely getting 7 grants, housing out-of-county inmates, all that kind of 8 stuff, bringing back into it everything we could. 9 Communications, this Court took care of by replacing the 10 Sheriff's Office radio system. That was done. Physical 11 facilities, we're still at that point. I hope that my 12 retirement is well into effect before I ever have to come to 13 this Court and say, "We need to add onto that jail or build 14 a new jail." I want to be well retired by that time. 15 But records management, the jail doesn't -- 16 still does not have scanners for scanning all our records. 17 We still have over 160 file cabinets out there with records. 18 We have the ability to, along those lines, with the inmate 19 tracking system, the digital camera system, the expanded 20 stuff we're using with Software Group, put more current 21 information directly into the computer system so that we 22 don't continue to build up a very large -- larger than what 23 we already have of -- of file cabinets and things. So, 24 we're getting more records into the system right away, so 25 we're getting there, but we have not addressed those old 8-17-04 wk 49 1 records. And I didn't address it in this budget request, 2 other than just trying to remind you about what this 3 entails. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Reality is, we've -- 5 excuse me -- accomplished a lot of what that committee 6 recommended, though we have long ways to go. So, what 7 we've -- I mean, it's not like we didn't follow it. We did. 8 We have used it. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We started real well 10 with the jail, okay? Even on personnel, 'cause they -- they 11 recommended a large addition to employees in the jail. And 12 then, last year, through the salary compromise, and then, of 13 course, we gave up four positions, but we hadn't been able 14 to fill those because turnover was too low. So, I think, 15 all in all, even though we cut that salary -- that personnel 16 numbers down, we did ourselves a great benefit by improving 17 the salaries at that time, and kept more people. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: What's your turnover rate been 19 this past -- current -- actually, current budget year -- 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sheriff's Department? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: -- relative to earlier budget 22 years in the jail? 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. In the jail, 24 half. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What about in the S.O.? 8-17-04 wk 50 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, a lot less. I 2 probably lost three or four officers this year for other 3 reasons, but not -- not anything compared to what we had. 4 Maybe a tenth. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, we had this 6 conversation -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: So, it's down by about 8 90 percent? 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In the Sheriff's Office. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We had that 11 conversation while you were gone, and probably put some 12 numbers together that show that the net effect of those 13 catch-up increases we gave doesn't cost the County any money 14 because of turnover savings. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, and training and 16 uniforms and all the -- all the start-up costs that we get 17 for new officers. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You will see where both 19 my uniform budgets have decreased, and that is partly to do 20 with the lower turnover rate. Because officers, each 21 year -- even though we buy them new uniforms, they build up 22 uniforms if they haven't torn them up, and without new 23 personnel coming in, you're not buying as many every year, 24 and that has helped us drastically. The last thing I was 25 going to say -- and, like some of y'all saw yesterday, and 8-17-04 wk 51 1 some of y'all I met with, you know, when you look at 2 officers and investigators, patrol, whatever it is, in the 3 jobs they do -- and we talked about the crime rates and 4 crime statistics. Now, we have some major investigations 5 going that some of y'all know about; two very, very large 6 federal investigations that are going on. One of them -- 7 this is just some players in it, okay? This is -- is done 8 out of the task force deal out of San Antonio. Some of 9 y'all saw part of it on the news the other night, that San 10 Antonio made the arrest of -- ended up being six; four 11 initially and two later, $90,000 in a mechanic shop where 12 they took all the tools, welders, everything else, including 13 their trucks. That group consists of about 20 different 14 actors. Part of it is Mexican Mafia involved. 15 This county has been hit by them. We've been 16 working it hard. Kendall County's been hit, Atascosa 17 County, Bexar County, Comal County. And their task force -- 18 I had an officer down in San Antonio all day yesterday 19 trying to go through that stolen stuff that was recovered. 20 Unfortunately, because -- one thing I wouldn't mind the 21 press harping on is, there was a whole lot of stuff there 22 that looked a lot like our victims', but there's no 23 identifying features on it. When you're talking tools and 24 that, if they don't have something that we can positively 25 say it's theirs, we can't take it. We can't recover it. 8-17-04 wk 52 1 And that's a problem this county has. But there's a lot of 2 stuff that goes on that isn't pretty, and I appreciate any 3 consideration y'all can give us. Thank you. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we take about a 5 10-minute break and come back and start on the next phase? 6 Didn't seem to meet with any disapproval from you, did it? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, I'm ready. 8 (Recess taken from 10:31 a.m. to 10:43 a.m.) 9 - - - - - - - - - - 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to order, 11 reconvene. We were in recess for 10 minutes or so. I guess 12 we'll get a couple other participants here in a minute. I 13 think the next item is the Road and Bridge that we had 14 indicated a desire to take a look at. Is that not correct, 15 gentlemen? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe so. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What do you have for us 18 this morning, Mr. Odom? 19 MR. ODOM: Well, sir, I have a sheet that 20 Tommy gave me, which I appreciate. I notice some errors on 21 it, but -- and I'm sure you wish to discuss some of it, but 22 some of it has to do with salaries. And talking -- and some 23 of these numbers come from Barbara, which I gave her a sheet 24 of the position schedules, and I see what she gave me this 25 morning before y'all started meeting with Rusty, that it 8-17-04 wk 53 1 didn't correlate with what I had -- what I presented. And 2 what I had done in the budget was to give up a position, and 3 to eliminate 12 positions to create 14's -- 14's to 17's. 4 And I gave that sheet to her, and that number doesn't jibe 5 in the 611 at all, so I want to bring that up. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I want to apologize to 7 you, Mr. Odom. You and I had talked about some things, and 8 the personnel numbers that got plugged in here got plugged 9 in yesterday. As I indicated to you, we're going to work 10 initially from the position schedule from the Treasurer's 11 office. 12 MR. ODOM: Right. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: And that's what got plugged 14 in, not what you and I had talked about, or what you had 15 turned in. 16 MR. ODOM: Right. And I don't blame Barbara 17 on that. It seems like that what she had been given, she 18 had down, but it wasn't what I gave her yesterday on the 19 schedule, and she plugged in what she actually had. So, 20 basically, that's it. And I had seen a few items there. I 21 see one on 600; 600-105 was for secretaries salary. That 22 number is higher than what I was proposing. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait. Help me get on 24 the same page here. 25 MR. ODOM: I'm sorry. 8-17-04 wk 54 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That 105, the 2 secretaries salary? 3 MR. ODOM: Right. That's a combination of 4 both of them. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You requested $52,991? 6 MR. ODOM: Yes. And I had made an error on 7 that, and I'm actually requesting $50,774. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $50,774? 9 MR. ODOM: Right. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the Judge is 11 giving you $51,509? 12 MR. ODOM: Yes. And I -- yes. I mean, I'll 13 take it. I mean, that's fine. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't have a 15 problem? 16 MR. ODOM: I don't have a problem. I'm just 17 bringing that up. I'm just -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 50 thousand what? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 774. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but overall, 21 you're -- what you were saying just a minute ago is you're 22 adjusting -- there's some adjustments in your salaries, and 23 you want -- the adjustments you want are not reflected in 24 the numbers here. 25 MR. ODOM: Let's see if I -- I'm quite -- I'm 8-17-04 wk 55 1 lost. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You were adjusting some 3 classifications. 4 MR. ODOM: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And those classifications 6 are not reflected? 7 MR. ODOM: They're not reflected in the 611, 8 that's correct. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I think this kind 10 of goes back to, like -- what was the -- we need to get 11 those rerun with what you want, or what you're -- 12 MR. ODOM: Proposing. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What you're proposing, so 14 that we -- like, same as we with did with Rusty, with this 15 shuffling things around. We need to get those, you know, 16 summarized. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Could you just 18 describe real briefly what you're changing, in general? 19 MR. ODOM: In general? 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not 21 employee-by-employee. 22 MR. ODOM: Not employees; we'd have to go in 23 executive session to start doing that, start naming names. 24 What I'm trying to do is, I'm giving up one 12 position, 12 25 -- 12 position. What I'm trying -- what I've done is be 8-17-04 wk 56 1 able to change -- eliminate 12's and move them to 14's, and 2 to take 14's and move them to 17 positions. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 4 MR. ODOM: I was trying to upgrade, like, one 5 to a 17, 'cause that's basically what I've done. And I did 6 that with less money than what I had last year. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, when we run -- 8 rerun it, we'll see that? 9 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, you will see that. And 10 that number should be -- I had 572. I need to check it to 11 be sure, versus this 564. But what the Treasurer did 12 doesn't reflect -- what she's put in doesn't reflect that, 13 and that's all it is. I wanted to bring that up. That will 14 change the numbers a little bit, certainly in your FICA and 15 your retirement. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 17 MR. ODOM: And it'll do the same thing on 18 that other one that I proposed on the 600 budget. It will 19 come down a little bit. And then I have a few questions 20 here on what the Judge has, but I certainly will answer 21 y'all's, and then I have questions that I -- I see what 22 Tommy printed up is a difference from when I talked to the 23 Judge. I didn't know exactly what was proposed, other than 24 what we discussed, and now I see it, so I have a few 25 questions -- or explanations of why I was asking what I did. 8-17-04 wk 57 1 But, basically, it's there. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 3 MR. ODOM: We did -- he did leave out a few 4 items, and I have questions for the Court on that. That 5 would be basically in Special Projects. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What number -- item 7 number is that? 8 MR. ODOM: Well, one is Employee Medicals on 9 611-220. He has me down for $1,500, and which we've been 10 running maybe in the neighborhood of $3,000, $2,500. That 11 $1,500 is essentially what I'm going to have to pay in 12 September just to renew the contract. Then I have -- you 13 can see around $900 a year as far as random selections of 14 tests and all, and then any new hires that I have. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard? 16 MR. ODOM: Physicals on them, and we take it 17 out of there. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is the requested 19 number correct? 20 MR. ODOM: The requested number is correct. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, on Employee Medicals, 23 you think you need that $3,200? 24 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, I do. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 76, Judge, 220. 8-17-04 wk 58 1 MR. ODOM: 220. 611-220. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Judge was probably 3 thinking -- he sees that you had spent $1,000. 4 MR. ODOM: And he did that percentage of 5 that; that's what he did. But, in actuality, I mean, it's 6 going to cost me $1,500 to renew it, somewhere in that 7 neighborhood, and then you've -- you put on top of that new 8 hires and physicals, and the random selections for that, and 9 we run around $3,000, $3,200. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 11 MR. ODOM: And see that nine -- that $1,000 12 doesn't reflect September, when it comes up for renewal. 13 They just -- they used to hit us in October, and they 14 changed it, and they come back. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is it 16 specifically that we're talking about? 17 MR. ODOM: We're talking about the contract 18 -- the overall contract to do the D.O.T. medicals. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it a specific 20 doctor? Sid Peterson? Who is it with? 21 MR. ODOM: Well, there's a certain provider 22 that we had been using since we went to -- federal law 23 required that our people have D.O.T.'s, and that they do a 24 background check. Any new hires we have, we have to do 25 testing on them, and then they do the random testing. I 8-17-04 wk 59 1 mean, there's a contract in there that's charged every year. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "Random test" meaning 3 drug? 4 MR. ODOM: Drug and alcohol. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Drug and alcohol test. 6 And you do that? 7 MR. ODOM: Well, we -- we send it out to do. 8 They -- they come there and take these tests, and they do 9 the random selection, so tort liability and everything is 10 taken off the County. We put it on this -- this entity to 11 do that. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So that's $3,200? 13 MR. ODOM: Right. Now, the other one -- 14 other question I have is 454, Tires and Tire Repair. The 15 Judge has me down at $15,000, and if I was at $15,000 as of 16 June, I would have been out of money in tires. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was that? I'm 18 sorry, Leonard. Say again? 19 MR. ODOM: I said if this was June and I had 20 -- if I had this budget here, I'd be out of money. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Tires. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What line? Tires? 23 MR. ODOM: I'm sorry, yes, 454. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, then again, it 25 shows that you spent 62. 8-17-04 wk 60 1 MR. ODOM: 62. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As of -- 3 MR. ODOM: That was -- I don't think this is 4 -- well that's July's, what he's showing here. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I annualized it a couple -- at 6 a couple of points, and I came up with 8,800 to 12,800, that 7 range. Now, if you had -- if you had some late costs come 8 in and they all rolled up onto you -- 9 MR. ODOM: Truby told me -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: -- in the last couple of 11 months, that's probably what's happened. 12 MR. ODOM: And we've had -- what we have in 13 that is not only the tires. Sometimes it goes up; sometimes 14 it comes down, and one year I may be all right. But, you 15 know, this is tire repair, where we have to call out where 16 we have a flat or where the tractor's went over something, 17 messed up a tire. We're talking about $400 or $500 a tire. 18 And then the trucks, themselves. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then, because of 20 this time of the year, you're probably having more of them? 21 MR. ODOM: I'm having more of them. What 22 we've had in the past is not that much use. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you've spent more 24 on that since you and the Judge have sat down? 25 MR. ODOM: Right. 8-17-04 wk 61 1 JUDGE TINLEY: It's loaded towards the latter 2 part of the budget year? 3 MR. ODOM: Loaded toward -- that's right. 4 And this is when my work is, and I have to have the money to 5 keep going on the thing. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you need $20,000? 7 $22,000? 8 MR. ODOM: Well, I'll take $20,000. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: What have you got to this 11 point? Do you know? 12 MR. ODOM: I'm sorry. Offhand, I -- Truby's 13 gone today, and -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is 20 going to be 15 enough? 16 MR. ODOM: We have had 22 for the last 17 umpteen years, and it's worked for us. We haven't had to 18 change the item, so, you know, I feel comfortable with that. 19 But I need more money in that line item. Jonathan is -- 20 he's hard on this Aggie. I feel, you know, that Austin 21 sentiment right there is squeezing -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 22? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Look up and you see orange, 24 huh? 25 MR. ODOM: He's making me see orange. 8-17-04 wk 62 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which line is that? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Better than red. 3 MR. ODOM: I agree. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Odom, Line 331, 5 Fuel -- 6 MR. ODOM: 331, sir? 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. You're not -- 8 MR. ODOM: Fuel Oils? 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're not asking 10 for a whole lot more than last year's budget, but gasoline's 11 gone up a lot. Is that 70 going to be enough? 12 MR. ODOM: To answer your question, I don't 13 think it is. I told the Judge that, but it is one of those 14 things that -- that's a call. I don't -- I don't know where 15 it's going to go. What I'm reading right now says that 16 they're going to stay in the $40 range right now, and the -- 17 what I read this morning on the report I get says that 18 supplies are going to be tight, so it's going to be high, 19 and I just don't know. We've done real well at $66,000 for 20 years, and we've made it through the ups and downs, but this 21 squeeze is pretty tough. I don't know. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: This one really didn't start 23 coming on until on into this budget year. 24 MR. ODOM: On into this budget year. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Little tough to predict off of 8-17-04 wk 63 1 an annualized use, 'cause the early part of the year, the 2 cost wasn't as much. 3 MR. ODOM: It wasn't too bad. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: About January/February 5 when it started. 6 MR. ODOM: And they've got us -- they've got 7 us -- and probably diesel will come down in the winter some, 8 but I don't know what's going to happen. They always hit 9 you when the -- when you're traveling, and you start out 10 toward the spring sometime. But I -- I sort of feel like 11 they're going to produce more heating oil and try to get it 12 that way, and I think diesel will come down. That's the way 13 we've gone for the last couple years, is go toward diesel 14 and get out of the gasoline and try to make it, and it's 15 worked. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we probably need 17 to go up to either 75 or 80, one or the other. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: 75? 19 MR. ODOM: Well, I hate -- let's go to 75. I 20 hate to put too much in there and not use it, and where it 21 could be used in other places. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did we end up 23 with on 454? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: 22. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I wrote 8-17-04 wk 64 1 down. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 450 is going to 75? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, 331. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, 331. Okay. 5 MR. ODOM: On 557, the Judge has got me down 6 at $3,000, and that probably might work, but you can see 7 there's not a lot of money to do a whole lot with in that 8 right-of-way and engineering for surveying and all. So -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In that right-of-way 10 number, I think that either we need to increase it here, or 11 I think, really, a better place to increase it is under 12 Commissioners Court Contingency, because I think it 13 probably -- at least 50 percent of the years since I've been 14 a Commissioner, something has come up during the year in my 15 precinct when I need the County Surveyor to go sort 16 something out. And we've tried to take it out of this line 17 item, but this line item really is -- is meant for something 18 that Leonard already has planned. And I think that it 19 should either go -- we should either add a County Surveyor 20 line item under Commissioners Court, or just add it into 21 Contingency and know that it's there, and take it out of 22 there a little bit. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd rather do it as a 24 -- under Commissioners Court, because there are 25 circumstances, and we've talked about this, where we have a 8-17-04 wk 65 1 need to have the County Surveyor do something that's 2 beneficial. It may not necessarily be related to something 3 Leonard has -- 4 MR. ODOM: Right. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- on the drawing 6 board, and I'd just rather see it under Commissioners Court. 7 MR. ODOM: I think that makes it cleaner for 8 the Court, too. You don't run over it into general revenue 9 and to the other one if that's not related to Road and 10 Bridge, and it just makes it cleaner. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- and have a 12 right-of-way line, though. I wouldn't put it in 13 Contingency. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, for the County to 15 do right-of-ways or -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'd end up buying 17 computers and -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I agree. County 19 Surveyor or something like that. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: County Surveyor or 21 Survey. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Survey and Related, 23 or something like that. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Survey's good. And I 25 don't think it takes a lot of money, but I think it's 8-17-04 wk 66 1 just -- a little bit comes up a lot of years. We need 2 something. 3 MR. ODOM: Yeah, it just pops up every now 4 and then. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You know, you could 6 use it for -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Already got next year's 8 spent, Bill. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, no. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: You spent last year's, too. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Len, I'm looking at 12 Items 585 through 598. 13 MR. ODOM: All right, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And this procedure, 15 I just don't understand. Why -- why are these projects 16 separated? What makes them distinctive from other work 17 you're going to do throughout the year? 18 MR. ODOM: Normally, those are things that 19 the Court would have -- in the past, special projects have 20 been outside the normal routine maintenance, and that's 21 where some of these fall into. Well, they all fall into it, 22 but when I look at -- when you look at some of this, 27,5 23 shows Upper Turtle Creek. That's not Upper Turtle Creek; 24 it's Fall -- Fall Creek. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to ask 8-17-04 wk 67 1 you about that. That's Fall Creek Road? 2 MR. ODOM: That's Fall Creek Road. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Instead of Upper 4 Turtle Creek? 5 MR. ODOM: Well, we used the line item, and I 6 marked through it, but the Auditor doesn't always see the -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You preempted my 8 question. 9 MR. ODOM: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 11 MR. ODOM: And that is for material, because 12 basically what I'm down to now is looking at the different 13 items that we need to do. And it may be outside; i.e., 14 could be road districts, but that is something else up above 15 in 580 right there. There's no money put into that for road 16 districts, and I wanted to put $41,500 in there. I think, 17 in my attachments that I sent the Court, that on the last 18 page, there was road districts there. And I brought that 19 up, I believe, once before, that that is something I'd like 20 for the Court to look at. I had Ball Drive in Ingram, and 21 that was -- those funds themselves were earmarked directly 22 out of road district funds. And I believe the last I 23 checked with the Auditor was $117,000 in that fund where 24 these road districts from the past have been paying in, and 25 I wanted to use those funds, which we have done in the past. 8-17-04 wk 68 1 Our precedence has been to use those specific funds for road 2 districts, so if there were improvements or things we needed 3 to do within those road districts, we spent it instead of 4 outside that. We let the road districts pay for themselves. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: That has no general budgetary 6 impact? 7 MR. ODOM: No, sir. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 597, Beach Road. 10 That's not Byas Road, is it? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. 12 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, that's the old name that 13 the Auditor has. The computer just reads exactly what's out 14 beside 597, which is Beach, but its Byas Springs. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I was wondering if 16 we were going to spend all the money in Precincts 1 and 3, 17 and none of it in 4. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three? I don't get 19 anything. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the status of 21 Town Creek? 22 MR. ODOM: Town Creek is -- if you see Line 23 Item 598, I believe that that $15,000 is to go down to Town 24 Creek. There was a line -- there was a Line Item 600, but 25 the Auditor -- the computer did not have it on there, and 8-17-04 wk 69 1 that's what I submitted before, was Town Creek at $15,000, 2 to do that. And I think what it's showing as Pike's Peak up 3 here at $15,000 should be back down here at Town Creek. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, what do we -- 5 are you going to change that, or are we going to change 6 that? 7 MR. ODOM: Well, I -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we start at -- 9 your road districts is correct, High Water Bridge? 10 MR. ODOM: High Water Bridge, I have nothing 11 there. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. But that's going 13 to -- 14 MR. ODOM: Road districts, I had 40 -- 15 proposed $41,500. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: But, for the budgetary 17 purposes that we're dealing with here, we don't want to roll 18 that up -- 19 MR. ODOM: Okay, I see what you're saying. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: -- in this line item to be 21 charged against your general Road and Bridge budget. 22 MR. ODOM: Okay, sir. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Now, what -- the other thing 24 we probably need to clarify here is, what we're doing is 25 tracking the material costs down here. That pairs up with 8-17-04 wk 70 1 the contract fees up in 553, which is the labor costs for 2 these same projects. 3 MR. ODOM: That's right, or for contractor. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 5 MR. ODOM: For contractor. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we can delete 580. 7 Road District doesn't need to be here. It's on a separate 8 page, correct? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Should be, yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Should be outside. 12 MR. ODOM: Should be outside. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get rid of 580. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: On the summary sheet, it shows 15 separately any road districts. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's try the High 18 Water Bridge again. What is the status of that? Remind me 19 again. 20 MR. ODOM: The High Water Bridge, we have no 21 costs associated with that. These numbers always roll until 22 the Auditor -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 24 MR. ODOM: -- takes them off. I can't -- 25 we've asked him to take certain ones off, but they always 8-17-04 wk 71 1 keep showing up. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the 3 purchase of right-of-way at the end? 4 MR. ODOM: That should be totally with the 5 State. My understanding with the State -- I talked to Mike 6 Coward -- that's 100 percent now. Somehow, they worked it 7 that all that's 100 percent. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember something 9 like that. I couldn't remember exactly how it worked. I 10 think you're right. 11 MR. ODOM: I believe so. And I don't think 12 it's going to start this budget year. I believe that that's 13 been postponed until January of '06 or September of '05, 14 which would be the '06 budget form. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. 16 MR. ODOM: But I don't believe it's in this 17 year. I think Hermann Sons is -- is a go very quickly, and 18 then, maybe late fall of '05, we may have that High Water 19 Bridge going out. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the High Water 21 Bridge, we can leave it on here, because it is something 22 that's going to still happen. 23 MR. ODOM: It will happen. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: May never have to budget 25 for it. 8-17-04 wk 72 1 MR. ODOM: Right, I don't believe we'd have 2 to budget for it. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 588 is now going to read 4 Fall Creek? 5 MR. ODOM: Should be Fall Creek. That's what 6 we had it down for. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 580? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 588. 10 MR. ODOM: 588. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 589, Sheppard Rees. We 13 need to keep Sheppard Rees? 14 MR. ODOM: I don't think so. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask you, before we get 16 too far astray here. On the High Water Bridge, maybe you've 17 gotten some information that I'm not privy to. My 18 understanding was they were going to let that this coming 19 fall, October-November. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was my 21 understanding, too. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there some change in that? 23 MR. ODOM: Are we talking about the High 24 Water Bridge or Hermann Sons? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: No, talking about High Water. 8-17-04 wk 73 1 High Water. Guadalupe, Thompson Drive. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Arcadia. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Arcadia Loop, yeah. 4 MR. ODOM: Well, I'll go from my memory. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6 MR. ODOM: I can't remember specifically what 7 Mike said. I know that there was a holdup on real estate. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's over. 9 MR. ODOM: And that's over with. And, so, 10 there was anticipation that that -- once it gets to Austin 11 and their Real Estate Division, he says it takes forever. 12 You can figure another year, the last time I talked to him 13 about it. And he said that they dot the I's and cross their 14 T's, but then they came back and said it did clear. But my 15 understanding is -- is that I don't know whether it was 16 cleared in time to be scheduled. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My understanding, 18 Leonard, and I think it's the same as the Judge's, it -- all 19 the right-of-ways have been acquired, and so the Real Estate 20 Division has accepted or signed off, and it is scheduled for 21 letting this fall. 22 MR. ODOM: This fall. So then the new budget 23 year, then. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: September. 25 MR. ODOM: That doesn't jeopardize, then, the 8-17-04 wk 74 1 Hermann Sons, because I heard Hermann Sons -- I was told 2 Hermann Sons was going before the High Water Bridge. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not so sure that the 4 High Water Bridge is letting, because if it was letting, 5 that -- those documents are out to the public to be bidding 6 on right now, and I hadn't heard anything about that 7 happening. I know Hermann Sons is out there right now. 8 MR. ODOM: I know that they -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This fall can be 10 anywhere up to December. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but Hermann Sons 12 is -- it's in October. It's in a firm line in the chute 13 right now. 14 MR. ODOM: That's right. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in October. I 16 haven't heard about the High Water Bridge being in that -- 17 could be November. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's supposed to be. 19 MR. ODOM: It was supposed to be, but I -- I 20 think that they anticipated taking longer than what it took, 21 and I think it got reshuffled back some. And it may -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Regardless, we don't 23 have any budgetary obligation. 24 MR. ODOM: To my knowledge, we have none. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we've only been at 8-17-04 wk 75 1 this 10 to 11 years. 2 MR. ODOM: I've been here 13; we've been 3 working on it that long. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thirteen. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before we stray too 6 far off Line 589, I want to bring an issue up to the Court 7 that I have not had an opportunity to talk to Leonard about, 8 but it does have to do with Fall Creek Road. Now, he's got 9 the rehabbing of Fall Creek, the last section, and that's 10 fine. I had an e-mail from constituents out there that want 11 us to address -- or want me to address with the Court the 12 issue of the low-water crossing on Fall Creek, which is the 13 Turtle Creek Crossing on Fall Creek Road, being inadequate. 14 And, of course, it was engineered years ago when there 15 weren't many folks out there. Now there are 17 families out 16 there, and additional personnel who go back and forth every 17 day for work purposes, and what they're telling me is that 18 it is no longer acceptable that people be stranded in a high 19 water situation for long periods of time. The cost of that 20 is not in your budget to do that, but I want to bring it to 21 court because there are two things. First of all, the cost 22 to -- an estimated engineering cost to rehab the low-water 23 crossing is about a $90,000 to $95,000 project, of which the 24 residents out there are willing to subscribe to at least 25 50 percent of it to get it done. So, you know, I think it's 8-17-04 wk 76 1 -- it's a health and safety issue for some people. If folks 2 are ill or in need of medical attention, and they can't get 3 out because of the low-water crossing not draining in a 4 very -- a time that's suitable, that's something we ought to 5 think about. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How -- my -- and because 7 we start going down a -- we have a lot of low-water 8 crossings in this county. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, how long are 11 they stranded, I guess is my question, in a normal flood? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good 13 question. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, if there is 15 such a thing. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have the 17 answer to that. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, if it's -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a legitimate 20 question. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's a day or so, 22 well, there's a whole lot of us that are -- are county 23 residents that are stranded for a day or so during a flood. 24 If it's, you know, a week at a time because it's so low, 25 well, then, I think that's a different issue. I mean, I 8-17-04 wk 77 1 think there's a -- we can't make everyone have access 24 2 hours a day. But I don't -- I think when you start doing 3 more than a 24- to 48-hour problem, I think then there's 4 something we can start looking at. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have any sense 6 of that, Leonard, in a major rise, how long that crossing is 7 inoperable? 8 MR. ODOM: Less than 24 hours, normally, 9 we're there. If there's any debris on there, we get out 10 with the loader and we -- we take it off. Sometime that 11 afternoon, they're normally there. It just depends if 12 Turtle Creek is abnormal, but normally within 24 hours we 13 have it, if not less. If that water drops down, they can 14 drive across. Now, small cars may not be able to do that, 15 but -- I don't mean to be facetious, but they shouldn't be 16 out there in a small car; they should have some type of SUV 17 to have a little elevation, you know. So -- 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I'm 19 surprised that -- that you can make a difference with 20 $100,000 or so. What will that money be spent for? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Increasing the -- the 22 capacity to drain the -- to take the water off. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not increasing the 24 heighth? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we've got two 8-17-04 wk 78 1 tubes there now; is that correct? Two smaller tubes, and -- 2 MR. ODOM: There may be -- yeah, something 3 like that. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we'd be 5 increasing them to 72 inches, and half a dozen tubes or 6 whatever. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We just had this 8 Cade Loop -- and there are a lot of those places, and you 9 can't -- we're going to have to win the lottery to fix them 10 all. But -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- we were just 13 talking about Cade Loop this week, and there's a lot of 14 people behind it. It's the bridge across the -- just below 15 the Ingram Dam. And I told them it might cost a million or 16 two million to raise it to where it would make a difference. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This would be 18 increasing whatever number of pipes we have there now -- and 19 I don't recall; it's two or three -- to nine pipes. Take it 20 away. 21 MR. ODOM: That still wouldn't -- if you stay 22 at the same elevation, I don't think that that would -- it's 23 sort of like the Indian Creek Bridge. Once the -- the 24 Guadalupe gets up, it's totally irrelevant what type of 25 spacing you've got. You're going to be stranded no matter 8-17-04 wk 79 1 what. Now, the water may go down a little bit more -- a 2 little bit quicker, but how much quicker for 3 cost-effectiveness, I don't know. I don't have those 4 numbers. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Another part of that 6 reality is that when -- one of the biggest problems is that 7 the culverts get stopped up, and whether you have three or 8 nine, they're still going to all get stopped up. Until you 9 get Road and Bridge out there to unclog them, you're not 10 going to be able to -- you know, unless you get a little bit 11 of height increase. 12 MR. ODOM: Height increase. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- well, 14 that's part of the reality of low-water crossings. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the other 16 reality is, I live across a creek; same creek that the 17 County Judge lives across. And I chose to live out there, 18 and if I don't have enough sense to get out while the creeks 19 are not flooded, then woe on me. I can sit at home and 20 wait, scratch my beagle on the belly. 21 MR. ODOM: Jonathan has a -- in the early 22 '90's, we built, what, a half-million-dollar structure? 23 $600,000? And he's still stranded, and I still have to 24 clean that thing off down there for them to get across. 25 So -- 8-17-04 wk 80 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess he's going to 2 be on your case here one of these days, right? 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Philosophically, 4 what Buster said is -- is half true, and half of it is 5 another issue. I've had an EMS official tell me that it's 6 okay that people way far out in the county can't get 7 adequate EMS service; they chose to live out there. Well, I 8 got to thinking about -- you know, if it wasn't for Lyndon 9 Johnson, we still wouldn't have electricity out in Hunt. 10 MR. ODOM: That's right, you wouldn't have 11 R.E.A. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No one talked about 13 that in 1936, either. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: R.E.A. 15 MR. ODOM: Wouldn't have the R.E.A. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think -- you know, 17 I think it's something Leonard could look at. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want him to look at 19 it. 20 MR. ODOM: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't propose we 22 put it in the budget, 'cause we haven't talked about it 23 before today, but I think we ought to take a look at it. 24 MR. ODOM: Certainly. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And see whether the 8-17-04 wk 81 1 costs are realistic, and if so, what he may choose to do 2 about it. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard also can come up 4 with ideas that fix problems. You know, he's a pretty good 5 fixer-upper when it comes to things like that; when you have 6 problems, just need a slight increase. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll share 8 engineering and analysis with you. 9 MR. ODOM: Be happy to meet with you and some 10 of the people and discuss these things. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're deleting 12 Sheppard Rees? Okay. That's a yes, I take it? Hermann 13 Sons Road. 14 MR. ODOM: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Delete. 16 MR. ODOM: We have 100 percent -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not hung up on the 18 bridge. 19 MR. ODOM: -- participation now. But, 20 remember, we made a resolution -- a resolution of spending 21 $110,000. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 23 MR. ODOM: Instead of spending it down there, 24 we chose -- the Court chose Town Creek. What I have is a 25 proposal of $15,000 to take a look at hydrology and the 8-17-04 wk 82 1 possibility of some purchase of some land. But, I discussed 2 it with the Judge, and he knows -- I believe he said he knew 3 that individual, and hopefully he's an Aggie, so maybe I can 4 talk to him; he'll let me talk to him. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 6 MR. ODOM: So -- but that's -- to my 7 knowledge, there's nothing else on Hermann Sons we need to 8 do, with the exception of some surveying you and I are 9 discussing. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That will be this budget 11 year. Okay. South end project. 12 MR. ODOM: The south end project has to do -- 13 let's see if I have my notes. I think it's called Eugene, 14 which is down by Hermann Sons. One is Mosty. It's part of 15 Mosty Road that is still dirt. I want to eliminate that. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 17 MR. ODOM: And let me see if I -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got Upper Mason Creek 19 in there? 20 MR. ODOM: Not at this point, sir. That's a 21 mile of road right there, so there'll be a whole lot more 22 than $6,000 on that one. I'm worse than Rusty here, 23 flipping through things. I'm sorry. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, you're not worse. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Don't put yourself -- please, 8-17-04 wk 83 1 please don't denigrate yourself, Leonard. 2 MR. ODOM: I'm not quite -- I may have left 3 that in my truck. I had some notes. I'm sorry. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. 5 MR. ODOM: I don't see it. But, anyway, they 6 were small roads; they need to be upgraded. I don't need to 7 be going out there moving rocks from one side of the road to 8 the other. I think it is cost-effective that I take care of 9 those, and that's essentially material, not my time and all. 10 If I need anything else, that comes out of contract fees. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 12 MR. ODOM: So that's -- 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, south end projects? 14 Not just one? 15 MR. ODOM: That's right, sir. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 17 MR. ODOM: And I do that 'cause that's 18 Comfort; that's you down there, so -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Mountain Home 20 Yard? 21 MR. ODOM: Mountain Home Yard is taken care 22 of at this point. We bought that last year -- or this 23 budget year when we started off, so there's nothing there. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leave it or take it off? 25 MR. ODOM: You can take it off, if you can 8-17-04 wk 84 1 get Tommy to eliminate that. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's leave it; there may be 3 some -- 4 MR. ODOM: Might be something in the future. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then west end projects. 6 MR. ODOM: West end project is essentially 7 Clark Road. We've been talking about Clark for many years. 8 I've had -- in Special Projects, you know, I've had floods, 9 and I've not been able to do anything. We have -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is Clark Road? 11 MR. ODOM: Clark Road is off 1340. It's 12 several miles on the right-hand side, if you're coming out 13 of Hunt, and it's right before you hit the "T" at 41 there. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Across from 15 Leinweber's? 16 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. That goes in to Gray's 17 place; it goes about a mile and six -- mile and 18 three-quarters. It just basically takes care of materials, 19 being able to purchase some and taking care of them. See, 20 we're not going to reinvent the wheel. It's probably a 21 16-foot road. We take care of most of that. Some of that 22 money also is in cow guards; we upgrade all those. I think 23 I counted five cow guards to do, and that's quite expensive 24 to replace those little 10-foot cow guards that are my age. 25 And that's not young any more. 8-17-04 wk 85 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Beach Road becomes Byas 2 Spring? 3 MR. ODOM: All right, Beach Road is to finish 4 the last 2 and a half miles in there, to work on it. And 5 also -- basically, there is a dirt road off there that goes 6 back a good half mile back up in there. 7 (Discussion off the record.) 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then Pike's Peak is 9 -- should be Town Creek? 10 MR. ODOM: I don't recall -- I'm assuming 11 that that should actually be down here. We had it numbered 12 at 600, but the computer didn't have that number. We just 13 filled in -- I put Town Creek, and I'm assuming that's where 14 it should be. I don't recall -- I know I need to do things 15 on Pike's Peak, but -- and Keith Boulevard there, but that's 16 something I'll try to do within contract fees and -- and our 17 backhoe that we just purchased. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pike's Peak is 19 actually Town Creek? 20 MR. ODOM: Should be, sir, yes. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Len, is it Ingram 23 Hills Road and the road district -- is that the right name 24 of it? 25 MR. ODOM: That's correct. 8-17-04 wk 86 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The one we were 2 looking at? 3 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do we have any plans 5 to try to do anything with that? 6 MR. ODOM: That is part of the 35 -- I 7 believe of the road districts on that last page, if you'll 8 look at that, one is Ball Drive. That was a road district, 9 and I proposed to use $6,500, off the top of my head. Does 10 that sound right? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 12 MR. ODOM: $6,000, something like that. And 13 then I think it was -- $35,000, is what I thought I needed 14 to do to bring in the road districts, and that section is 15 bad right there, sir. I think that is the way to solve that 16 problem in road districts. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's road districts? 19 What page? 20 MR. ODOM: If you take the handout, let me 21 see if you can identify it. This was what I -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I show it on Page 98, 23 originally. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 98? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: So we're going to be close 8-17-04 wk 87 1 around there, I think. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 98. 3 MR. ODOM: This is what I presented Jonathan 4 right there. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm just showing you where it 6 was in the beginning. 7 MR. ODOM: It showed revenue of $117,000 in 8 there, and we propose taking out $41,500. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Road Districts, 86. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it in this 11 handout? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: It's in your -- it's in your 13 printout -- your most recent printout, Page 86. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 41,5, okay. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. This is Ingram Hills, 16 35. 17 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. And Ball Drive 18 Crossing, 65. And it's not -- you know, we will use it for 19 that. If I don't use that much, we never touch it. It 20 stays right there, goes back into the fund, but that's 21 enough to get -- it is not to be -- there's no fluff in 22 there for any of the other items. We keep that totally 23 separate, and we feel like that's the fairest way to -- to 24 address road districts which we don't do any more. Goes 25 exactly to the people who are paying for it. 8-17-04 wk 88 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, on the -- back on 2 Road and Bridge unit road system, between that and looking 3 at floodplain administration, -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I see -- or based on a 6 note you handed me, or told me or something, floodplain, you 7 recommend we put that all into contract services. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: However -- but you're 10 also leaving the County Engineer -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: That's on Page 75. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 76. County Engineer is 14 left as a salaried position. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I don't know how that 16 got included, because what I turned in did not have that. I 17 had included it down under 457, in Account 600; you'll see 18 it there. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 600. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, your recommendation 21 is that we go to contract services for both the County 22 Engineer and the floodplain? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is the -- I guess 25 the operational plan as to how you do that? He's -- I mean, 8-17-04 wk 89 1 contract services, but what -- how do we get a contract 2 services -- I mean, how is it going to work? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, as we need those 4 services, we can just hire them from outside, the qualified 5 professionals. We don't have any -- obviously, any track 6 record to know exactly what the -- not knowing what the 7 specific issue is, we don't know what the specific cost is 8 going to be. That would be a matter of negotiating a 9 professional services contract. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- well, and this may 11 not be the time to try to sort all this out. Just trying to 12 start. I still think that we -- I would be a lot more 13 comfortable, or feel we need an opinion from the County 14 Attorney that we're not required to have a County Engineer, 15 or -- or that can be done on a contract basis, one or the 16 other. Which I've never seen, even though we've asked for 17 over a year now for the County Attorney to give us that 18 determination; look into it. We still don't have that. And 19 the other thing is, there are a number of things that the 20 County Engineer is currently doing, primarily in the area of 21 subdivisions, that I don't think you can contract out very 22 efficiently; some plat reviews and, you know, going out, 23 looking at a location and seeing what needs to be done in 24 Road and Bridge, and just a lot of communications that 25 really, I think, are more employee-oriented, as opposed to 8-17-04 wk 90 1 contract-oriented. How do you -- I mean, do you propose to 2 truly contract for all that stuff? Or is there some other 3 -- I mean, I don't see that. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: My general philosophy, 5 Commissioner, is that any services that are directed towards 6 a particular project for which we've got a developer that's 7 going to be making a profit out of that project, that those 8 costs that are associated with it should be borne by that 9 developer, not by the general taxpayer. Shouldn't be 10 subsidized by the general taxpayer. Now, with respect to 11 subdivisions, I think it would be a fairly simple matter to 12 amend the Subdivision Rules to require the developer and the 13 developer's professional, be they civil engineers, be they 14 hydrologists, be they whatever, to certify that the 15 development, as presented to the Court when there's a 16 request for a plat to be approved, that they be -- all of 17 the improvements and the layout and so forth are in 18 compliance with our Subdivision Rules and our specifications 19 that are required under those rules. Now, if they're going 20 to seek a variance, obviously, they have to disclose what 21 that is and ask us for that to happen. But -- but when the 22 subdivision is -- is laid before the Court and accepted by 23 the Court, there needs to be a certification by the 24 owner-developer and the professionals which are handling the 25 various aspects for that developer that it's in compliance, 8-17-04 wk 91 1 so that you've got some accountability. So that when you -- 2 when you have, for example, a drainage failure or you have a 3 road failure, you've got accountability back to the 4 developer and/or his hires that assisted him. 5 I have had a serious concern for some time 6 that if we have a County representative go out to a 7 development in process -- in progress, and the developer or 8 the developer's engineer or someone acting on behalf of the 9 developer says, "Well, what do you think?" And they're in 10 mid-stage; you've got -- you've got maybe some road base 11 laid down, and maybe some drainage cut in, and that question 12 is propounded by -- by the developer's representative to a 13 Kerr County employee or representative, and they're told, 14 "Well, looks like you're okay to this point. Go ahead and 15 start laying down the asphalt," shooting it or whatever. I 16 think a serious argument could be raised by a developer, if 17 there's a subsequent failure, that up to that point, they 18 were released. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can I say something? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with 22 everything that you have said. I agree with it 100 percent. 23 But, as a Commissioner, I would like to have someone on my 24 team that -- not -- not to give advice to the project 25 managers, but to give advice to me. 8-17-04 wk 92 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That has been out 3 there on that road. And I don't care if it's a County 4 Engineer; I don't care if it's a secretary that has gone out 5 there with some knowledge that comes back in, you know, just 6 winks at old Buster and says, "Yeah, it's a good deal," or, 7 "There's something wrong with this part of it over here." 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I am a little bit further 9 than, I think, Buster is. I think that we need, you know, 10 some professional advice, because I do not want this county 11 to get back to where it was a while back on letting the -- 12 basically, the developers police themselves. And that's 13 what happens when you put everything on the developer. We 14 need to have a competent person review the reports, the 15 data, the plats, and make sure that -- I mean, yes, they're 16 certifying it. I think we do need to change -- to tighten 17 up that language on the certification from a liability 18 standpoint, but I think we also know that there are people 19 in this world and in this town that will sign anything for 20 some money, and put their license on the line and -- and 21 jeopardy there. And I think that if we -- and there are 22 also some developers that will find those people that will 23 sign anything. And I -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the key is to hold 25 them accountable. 8-17-04 wk 93 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Not let them do that, and then 3 just say, "Oh, well, we'll just not give that particular 4 professional or developer any credibility next go-round." 5 Hold them accountable. Now, you can go one step further 6 under the Subdivision Rules, I think; that in the event the 7 Court has a question or concern about the compliance or not, 8 or there is a drainage issue or a hydrology issue, something 9 along that line, that as a condition to allowing the project 10 to proceed forward, that we would have the opportunity to 11 engage an expert of our choosing to review whatever the 12 issue may be, and that the cost of that review be borne by 13 the developer. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you do that? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Huh? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you do that? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I think you can, if you plug 18 it into the rules. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Now, I can assure you, at that 21 point, they're going to be -- they're going to be playing a 22 little straighter. Don't you think so, Mr. Odom? 23 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, I do. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I also think if you 25 put that subjectivity in there and we go to some developer 8-17-04 wk 94 1 that we had -- rumor was cutting corners, and we require him 2 to spend $50,000 on a study, and he was right and we were 3 wrong, I would suspect this Court's opened itself up to 4 another lawsuit. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you're 6 probably right. I want to weigh in on a different angle, 7 too. I think we rely on the independent judgment of -- of 8 our engineer, whomever that may be, and absent that, with no 9 cost savings that I can determine, or very insignificant 10 cost savings, I think we're creating ourselves an 11 engineering logistical nightmare. I think enforcement goes 12 begging in terms of right-of-ways and all the things that 13 are monitored on a very routine basis, and I see -- I think, 14 from a Commissioner's point of view, we're left holding the 15 bag for engineering services, and we're -- and we're left to 16 the whim or devices of another professional engineer, who is 17 going to weigh his $20,000 contract against everything else 18 he's got on his plate or in front of him, and we're going to 19 go begging. And I see that as a logistical -- engineering 20 logistical nightmare. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not -- I'm somewhere, 22 I think, in between all this. I mean, I'm -- I think that 23 there are savings that can be made by contracting a lot of 24 this out. I'm in favor, I think, of probably -- of 25 looking -- at least seriously looking at and coming up with 8-17-04 wk 95 1 a definite plan on contracting out County Engineer and 2 floodplain. But we need some system where somebody who has 3 some knowledge -- I don't know if it's Leonard or if we hire 4 another person, or if it's one of Leonard's -- something -- 5 someone like -- throw out a name -- Joey Biermann, someone 6 who's knowledgeable who can go out there, fill some of this 7 void and do some -- you know, just from their knowledge of 8 road construction and things, make -- you know, we need 9 oversight over construction in subdivisions. And I think if 10 there's something that a red flag goes up, then we can 11 say -- you know, really look at that data and maybe have to 12 hire a contract engineer to say -- you know, to -- to look 13 at the situation. I just don't think that we can turn it 14 over to the -- totally over to the developers and say, you 15 know, "If you don't do it right, we're going to enforce it." 16 I just don't think that's going to work. We need to have 17 someone on our staff that's looking after our interests. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. And that 19 could be Leonard Odom, if we talk to him real nice. I 20 think -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: My whole point is, I think -- 22 I think whatever costs Kerr County has involved, to the 23 maximum degree possible, should be shifted to the developer 24 of a project where a developer's going to make some money 25 out of it. 8-17-04 wk 96 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: And not have his project 3 subsidized by the taxpayers at large. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think we've done 5 that. We're doing that right now. I mean, I think the only 6 thing that you're talking about changing is they sign the 7 certification, 'cause we are not requiring -- we're not 8 paying for any engineering on the subdivisions. And we're 9 doing some oversight, and we're changing a little bit on the 10 -- that they're -- they're certifying it, which they're not 11 certifying it now, but they're doing the work right now. I 12 mean, it's just a matter of getting -- basically, you're 13 saying that we get the developer and whatever engineer the 14 developer uses to sign the plat, and that's a pretty minor 15 change, though it may have some big legal ramifications. 16 But, in practice, it's not changing anything that we're 17 doing right now. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just have to -- I 19 just have to have somebody I can trust that's going to tell 20 me yes or no, as opposed to some engineer from Austin. I 21 can't do that. I can't take the word of a guy from -- some 22 engineer from Austin. Whether he's got four stamps, I 23 couldn't care less. It's got to be somebody I can trust, 24 that I know that's on my team. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's what's -- you 8-17-04 wk 97 1 know, I think if we can sort all this out, figure out how 2 that's going to functionally work, and have that done in the 3 next couple weeks, I think this is a good plan to look at. 4 But I'd also like to hear from the County Engineer, who's in 5 the audience, and see, you know, if there's things that, you 6 know, he thinks we're missing. Because he, obviously, is 7 doing that work, not me. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I think we need 9 to hear from the engineer. 10 MR. JOHNSTON: I think that -- I wasn't 11 taking notes, but I think one point you brought up, if we 12 just go out and look at it and say it's okay, that's 13 misrepresenting what we do. We require the developer to run 14 testing on fill and subgrade and all that they put in. We 15 have compaction tests and tests on the materials, and that's 16 routinely done, and we review it. And by that, we know that 17 they're putting in the materials that they claim they are. 18 I can't see letting a developer just go out on his own, you 19 know, "Scout's honor, I put it in right." I just -- in the 20 last 13 years, I've never seen a job work like that. 21 There's always been -- they're trying to do things that are 22 not in the rules, and you have to enforce it. And there's 23 other things besides roads. There's drainage. You know, 24 you have to evaluate the reports and -- and see if they meet 25 the rules, what we have in our Subdivision Rules. And, you 8-17-04 wk 98 1 know, there's other items besides that. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Frank, I mean, in 3 reality, we do not have that many new subdivisions, and what 4 we're talking about, we probably have at most five 5 subdivisions that require this type of thing. All the 6 revisions and plats, all the minor revisions which we tend 7 to spend most of the time in court on, they don't really -- 8 none of our Subdivision Rules really come into play, other 9 than procedure how to do it. And in a true subdivision, 10 such as a -- say, Falling Water or, you know, Cypress 11 Springs, those types of subdivisions, could a contract 12 engineer do that analysis and check the studies and do that? 13 My gut feeling is he could, 'cause there's not that much 14 work, and that we could hire a contract engineer to do that 15 work. And then there's -- the other work that is coming -- 16 that you're doing now would need to be done, but it's not 17 necessarily -- doesn't require an engineer to do it. And 18 what I'm getting at is that I see a lot of, I guess, 19 correspondence that you prepare on people on everything from 20 line-of-sight to people doing a road cut and not fixing it 21 properly, the utility company and things of that nature that 22 we clearly need to continue to do, but I don't think that we 23 need an engineer to do those things. I think a -- you know, 24 I don't think you need that engineer license for that type 25 of work. So, to me, I think that we are not utilizing -- I 8-17-04 wk 99 1 think the -- as County Engineer, you're doing a lot of 2 things that are -- a clerical person could do, basically. 3 And I -- it's not an efficient use of taxpayer dollars. 4 We're paying a higher salary to do something that doesn't 5 take engineering services. But we do need, I think, an 6 engineer's services to look at compaction tests, to look at 7 things of that nature, and I think that -- because there's 8 so little of it, I think we need to do it on a contract 9 basis. Am I off-base, or am I -- of course, I'm asking you 10 to talk yourself out of a job, but -- 11 MR. JOHNSTON: I think the term "county 12 engineer" is -- is not -- not really so much as a -- 13 actually do engineering as one that's an administrator. The 14 terminology used in the statute is the county engineer is 15 the chief executive officer of Road and Bridge. And that -- 16 you know, that's not necessarily doing the day-to-day 17 engineering. Court's never provided the -- you know, any 18 tools to do actual engineering in-house. We don't have the 19 software. We don't have the -- really, any facilities at 20 all to do that type work. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think -- 22 MR. JOHNSTON: It's always been basically an 23 administrative job. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- going back to 25 the reviewing compaction tests and verifying if -- 8-17-04 wk 100 1 MR. JOHNSTON: That takes the engineer's 2 knowledge, yes. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's something you have 4 to have some knowledge. I could not look at those and make 5 heads or tails of it, I don't think. I don't know that. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank goodness. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it -- and I think 8 that what you're mentioning, the administrative function, I 9 think goes to the core issue here; is that, for whatever 10 reason, before I was a commissioner, I think maybe even 11 before Commissioner Baldwin was originally on the Court, 12 when the road -- unit road system was created in Kerr 13 County, it was set up with a dual administrative situation 14 with the County Engineer and the Road Administrator, and I 15 think that is an inefficient system. And I think that's 16 really what we're trying to correct at this time, is get rid 17 of that dual administration. And that's -- you know, and 18 there was a reason the Court did it. There have been -- the 19 Judge, I know, has given me a copy of an Attorney General's 20 opinion that certainly puts gray light on whether we need a 21 County Engineer and a Road Administrator, but we could have 22 one or the other, is the way I read the -- or how that 23 Attorney General opinion can be interpreted. 24 MR. JOHNSTON: I think there's been a number 25 of conflicting Attorney General's opinions over the years. 8-17-04 wk 101 1 Probably need, maybe, to get -- time to get one definite 2 once and for all. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I've tried from the 4 County Attorney; asked him for about a year now, and we're 5 at about the same place we were this time last year. 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Statute says -- you know, it's 7 pretty clear; it says one thing, and some of the Attorney 8 General opinions say -- you know, suggest otherwise. Some 9 do and some don't. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 11 MR. JOHNSTON: But they are not statutes; 12 they're just opinions. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But they have the 14 same impact or same effect from our -- from my standpoint, 15 on making a decision as to a statute, because when an 16 Attorney General says it, that means he's going to go to 17 court and fight on that position. Which, to me, is -- you 18 know, so anyway, that's splitting hairs there. But, you 19 know, I think it's worthwhile pursuing it. I think we do 20 need someone with a -- some engineering background, whether 21 it be contract or salaried, to assist the Court. And I say 22 background, 'cause it doesn't have to necessarily be an 23 engineer, I don't think. But I think it is a waste of 24 taxpayers' money to have two people administering the Road 25 and Bridge Department. That's my feeling. 8-17-04 wk 102 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll weigh in with 2 my opinion. I'm not sure I know exactly what the solution 3 is, but it's a -- a situation we've got; the Commissioners 4 just simply made a mistake back then when we created the 5 unit system, and they created -- that's probably before we 6 had paved roads, wasn't it, Buster? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There was a paved 8 road. It was Highway 27. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But the -- the 10 organization we got is not -- not acceptable. It doesn't -- 11 doesn't function as well as it needs to. And it's an issue 12 that's been around for at least a few years, and it's 13 probably time to bite the bullet and deal with it. I don't 14 have the exact way we ought to do that. What the Judge says 15 about contract engineering services tends to make sense to 16 me. On the other hand, if we've got an issue out there with 17 subdivisions that maybe haven't been engineered right, or 18 it's running over its neighbors or whatever, I want somebody 19 I can talk to and say, "What's the real deal on this?" All 20 that is to say, we ought to do something. 21 MR. JOHNSTON: Is there any other county in 22 Texas that does that? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does -- 24 MR. JOHNSTON: The unit road system and 25 has -- that hires a consultant instead of a County Engineer. 8-17-04 wk 103 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you saying there 3 is or is not? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: That's my question. Is there? 5 I'm not aware of any. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know. I've not 7 conducted a survey, so I really don't know. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no idea. I 9 just -- you know, my whole thing is back to just what I 10 said, is that it's an administration issue. It's not 11 efficient to have two administrators in the same office. 12 And they're -- you know, but like I also said, I -- 13 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, with all due respect, we 14 do different things. I don't administer what Leonard does. 15 I don't doublecheck what he does, and he doesn't check what 16 I do. We have separate functions, and that's what we 17 administer. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and I understand 19 that. But I think that one administrator can do it, is what 20 I'm saying. The administration side, I think you just need 21 one person. I think you do need somebody, and I don't know 22 that -- if Leonard would be willing, or if Leonard is the 23 right person or has the understanding or whatever to do some 24 of the engineering guidance that I think this Court does 25 need. And it may be we can do it contract; maybe not. But 8-17-04 wk 104 1 I think that there is a component that a lot -- and a large 2 part that I see of the work that the County Engineer is 3 doing is -- is clerical. And I think that is a -- a poor 4 use of a County Engineer's time to do clerical-type work. 5 And when I say "clerical," I mean going out -- and it's not 6 really true -- "clerical" is probably not the right term. 7 But, you know, when we get a complaint about a visibility 8 issue and a letter goes out, "You need to cut," you know, 9 "some brush here, 'cause you're covering up a stop sign," I 10 don't think we need an engineer to do that. I think that's 11 something that, you know, someone in the maintenance crew 12 for Leonard can do that. Or if you go out and -- and give 13 the report, then have secretarial staff in the office write 14 the letter. So, I think that that's where I see an 15 inefficiency, and I think that we need to try to, if we can, 16 figure out a way to address it, and we should. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we have to 18 define what those administrative services are that we 19 require, and separate them from the clerical, and be about 20 our business. But, again, you know, I don't disagree with 21 what the Judge is saying about -- about having developers 22 pay for engineering services. To the extent that that's 23 possible, I think that's fine; we should do that. But I 24 don't want to compromise our own ability to have the answers 25 we need, no matter what the topic is, that relates to either 8-17-04 wk 105 1 engineering services, to subdivision, enforcement, Road and 2 Bridge, all of the above. And so I think if we have a 3 problem in terms of who's doing what, we need to define what 4 we want, and then separate it out. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I don't want to 6 get into the problem of where we have Franklin doing 7 those -- doing those services that he's doing for 20 cents 8 an hour, and we contract with another engineer that's going 9 to charge us 150. It's just -- just a thought. I wouldn't 10 want to get off into something like that, either. 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Has anyone done a study on 12 that? That probably is going -- the going rate is 125, 150. 13 How many hours, you know, would they -- would they do the 14 job? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the going 16 rate? 125 is the going rate? 150? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: For a principal engineer, yes. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wouldn't take you 19 long to eat up 20,000 bucks at 150 bucks an hour. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure wouldn't. But, 21 then again, how many real subdivisions do we do? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I have -- I 23 understand that. But we also ask for a lot of other things, 24 too. 25 MR. JOHNSTON: The City passes the cost on to 8-17-04 wk 106 1 the developer by charging a plan fee, which we don't do. I 2 think they charge, like -- I think it's $600, and $30 a lot 3 for preliminary, and half that much again for the final. 4 That adds up. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If the City does it, I 6 don't want to do it. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's something 8 that -- I think, I mean, to me, if we can set out everything 9 else in Road and Bridge's budget, you know, that's good. 10 And I think that is something that we're going to have to 11 hash out over the next couple weeks, as to how we're going 12 to handle this issue. I mean, I don't think we have a -- I 13 think it's on the table, but I don't think we have a 14 solution right now. I think someone needs to come up with a 15 plan that we can -- all or most of us can at least sign off 16 on. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to not be 18 talking about it again this time next year. I'd like, in 19 the next couple weeks -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I think your comment about -- 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- to do something, 22 even if it's wrong. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Time to bite the bullet, yeah. 24 Okay. We've wrung that one out? Have we -- have we pretty 25 well handled the Road and Bridge issues before us, or did 8-17-04 wk 107 1 you have something additional, Mr. Odom? 2 MR. ODOM: No, sir. I think we covered 3 everything. Any other questions you have, please present 4 them or ask. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: About lunchtime. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have anything on 7 this. I have something else for the -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not on this issue. I 9 would like to go back to the Sheriff's Office just for one 10 second. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: For pete's sake. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we go back now? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: You just used your second with 14 us. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd just like to ask 16 Mr. Odom if -- are you satisfied with this budget? If we 17 had more money, could you put it to good use? Do you have a 18 wish list in addition to this? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah. 20 MR. ODOM: Oh, yes, sir. You know, I -- I 21 have one -- one mile of road right there; could be Evans 22 Road. I have three -- we have 97 percent of all the roads 23 paved. It is cost-effective to be that way. I still have 24 3 percent that we move rocks from one side to the other, and 25 that -- those always seem to be the ones that you don't need 8-17-04 wk 108 1 to be out there after a flood or something. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What would it cost 3 to get to 100 percent? 4 MR. ODOM: In addition to each year's budget, 5 you mean? In a realistic way? $100,000 at least in Special 6 Projects for the next couple of years. If I build a bridge, 7 it might be a little bit more. There was a question, when 8 am I going to get -- when am I going to start redoing 9 structures. Last budget, this time last year, Commissioner 10 Letz asked me when we're going to get into it. I told him 11 it was this decade, but I didn't have a year frame. I just 12 went from 2001 and '2 and '3 with floods, so I'm a little 13 bit behind on trying to allocate money. If the ones that 14 have been here -- Commissioner Letz and Commissioner Baldwin 15 have seen contract fees at $276,000 on a continual basis, 16 year-in, year-out, and we rebuilt everything. Now, I would 17 assume all this would add up far less than $100,000. I 18 don't recall what it is. So, you can see that I'm down 19 considerably from where we used to be years ago. And we've 20 moved from 120 miles of dirt roads to about 12 to 15, maybe 21 10 or 12 miles now. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think in the 23 next -- I'd like to see in the next, you know, two to five 24 years, eliminate that last 12 miles of road. 25 MR. ODOM: Yes. And do I take the money to 8-17-04 wk 109 1 low-water crossings and address things like that, have 2 engineering in place and hydrology done? And -- and which 3 we don't do now. We have to contract out anyway. And so, 4 you know, those are the questions. We'd have the answers. 5 We'd know what the future would bring us, what it would cost 6 us to do some of that stuff. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the other thing 8 that we need to, you know, start tackling, really, before 9 low-water crossings, I think -- and I don't know how many of 10 these there are around everybody else's precinct, but I know 11 in my precinct, there's at least five. I don't know if you 12 call them old cattle crossings under roads, or old -- I 13 don't know if they're -- I don't know what they were ever 14 intended to be, but there's holes under the road where 15 things go through; sometimes water, sometimes animals. 16 And -- 17 MR. ODOM: They're called livestock 18 crossings. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But some of them are so 20 caved in or caving in, I don't think livestock really goes 21 through any more. Maybe a few coyotes. But I think they're 22 safety concerns, and I know those need to be addressed at 23 some point. 24 MR. ODOM: Some point in the future. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And eliminated or redone, 8-17-04 wk 110 1 because they're going to cave in one of these days when 2 cement trucks go across them. Then we're going to have a 3 real problem. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My sense of it is 5 that, all in all, we've got good roads, good bridges. If we 6 didn't have a river running through the county, it would 7 probably -- probably be in a lot better shape in that 8 regard. I just wanted to get a feel to make sure we're not 9 -- we're not falling behind; that we're at least staying 10 even, if not catching up with doing everything we can do. 11 MR. ODOM: We're making progress. I've 12 still -- I'm behind, but, you know, I have never asked for a 13 whole lot more than what I could possibly do in-house 14 anyway. That's for 13 years. And where I've been able 15 to -- to do a lot is with private contractors, but that 16 money's not there to do some of this stuff now. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't tell you how 18 good it feels when I'm around the state visiting with my 19 commissioner friends and they ask me, "How's your unit road 20 system working?" And I tell them, "About 95 percent of our 21 roads are paved, and great conditions." That feels good, 22 'cause they all -- their jaws drop, you know, "How in the 23 hell do you do that?" 24 MR. ODOM: And if you look -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or "heck." 8-17-04 wk 111 1 MR. ODOM: You know, we do it productive. 2 When you compare us to some of the others, try and get 3 comparisons -- of course, I don't know their situations, but 4 I think we do a pretty good job. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're way ahead, 6 believe me. 7 MR. ODOM: Way ahead. And if you ask me, 8 I'll be more than happy to take some more money; we'll put 9 it in Special Projects. We could do some -- have some 10 hydrology to look at. But that's planning. That's up to 11 the Court. I -- this is a realistic budget that I've had. 12 It would be better if I could get it, but I live in the real 13 world, so -- I pay taxes too, like y'all. And we're all 14 tired of it. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Odom. We 16 appreciate it. 17 MR. ODOM: Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Leonard. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: You had a one-second item 20 on -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I just 22 think that it would be wise for this Court to know that the 23 secretary-type folks in the Sheriff's Office and the jail 24 are classified properly. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Classified properly? 8-17-04 wk 112 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Classified properly. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You determined that 3 that's true? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sir? 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Have you determined 6 that that's true? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm asking that 8 question. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that we need 11 to know that. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I agree with 13 that. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What I'm hearing the 15 Sheriff say is that they're really not classified properly. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We need to know the 17 answer to that. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, and your comment 21 earlier, rather than just taking a lump of money and saying, 22 "In order to fix this problem, we're just going to do this," 23 what you're suggesting is -- is that we look at it from a 24 job duties and job description standpoint? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Exactly. 8-17-04 wk 113 1 JUDGE TINLEY: How they are classified now, 2 and how they should be classified relative to the other 3 clerical and administrative personnel? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Exactly. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's right on the 6 money. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And they should. The 8 study was done, what, two years ago? Or -- I've lost track. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Three years ago, and 11 they should be somewhere near. And I'm amazed that we're 12 talking about that they're so far out of -- out of kilter. 13 How did that happen? Did we not classify them properly in 14 the first place? Or did we not classify them at all? 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When you first set 16 up the classification system, did a consultant do the 17 classification? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You know, who 20 created the scheme? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was a consultant. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've done it twice, 23 maybe three times. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do we have that 25 expertise in-house? Does the personnel -- 8-17-04 wk 114 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We contract out for 2 it. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Some weird dude. He 4 was really weird, too. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What else do we have 6 this morning? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: What about this afternoon? 10 Have we got some more things we need to wade through this 11 afternoon? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will not be here this 13 afternoon, but y'all can wade to your heart's content. But 14 I think one thing that I would like to get on the table, 15 'cause I think it is -- is COLA, as to what that amount -- 16 what that number is going to be, and where we're going to 17 settle on that. Because I think that -- that, to me, is a 18 priority over a lot of other things, because I think that it 19 is just not right to not give a cost-of-living adjustment to 20 all the employees. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have to do that, and 23 so I think we can figure out that amount or what index we're 24 going to use. I heard -- I don't know if it came from 25 Buster. I heard it is -- what, 2.8 percent? 8-17-04 wk 115 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I told you that 2 yesterday. I read it in the business section of the Dallas 3 Morning News, 2.8. And that wasn't just metropolitan; 4 that's statewide. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Statewide. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I would probably 7 disagree with that, because of the fuel cost, 'cause you 8 have some of the fuel costs up as much as 70 percent. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what's driving 10 it up. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. It should be 12 13 percent. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it could even 14 be higher, but that's what's driving it up. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm in agreement with 16 Commissioner Letz, that if we can establish some kind of a 17 number and then adjust everything else to that, that's a 18 priority. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We do have some 20 local competitive data, I think. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Have some what? 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Local competitive 23 information. I think at least the Ingram School District 24 has moved. I can't remember what that number was; it was a 25 little higher than I expected. But the statewide data is 8-17-04 wk 116 1 important, and I think, you know, we could use that and go 2 with it. And -- but if -- if, as in the past, other 3 government employers in our area do something different, or 4 typically something more than we're doing, then I'd like to 5 know that too. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I would too. 7 And I'd like for us to do kind of a casual survey of other 8 governmental and educational units to see where we are with 9 it. We already know that the Appraisal District is plugging 10 in more than that. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They usually do. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, I think we need a 13 little bit more information. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- you know, 15 maybe we can ask Kathy to -- 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- call the -- and I 18 don't even know. Probably go to maybe our surrounding 19 counties a little bit as well. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so too. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just to kind of -- I 22 don't think we need to call the school district. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you include 24 state agencies like Kerrville State Hospital? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I would include 8-17-04 wk 117 1 the State. You know, call whoever -- the Comptroller's 2 office, whoever does that, see what they're doing as a 3 cost-of-living adjustment this year. I think you can 4 probably find that online. I think you have the State one 5 that Bill has. You get the -- the overall state, then the 6 state employee index, and then local Kerr County 7 governmental entities. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Peterson, K.I.S.D. and 9 those kinds of things. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Try to get a few, 11 and then try to -- and then first thing on Friday, really 12 try to tackle that and get that number nailed down so 13 that -- because I think that that's a priority. That has to 14 be done. And then we go from there on everything else, and 15 some of the other requests and adjustments. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Then what? 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One commercial about 18 employee productivity. I did notice, reading the newspaper 19 account of Ingram Independent School District salary 20 increases, they were tallying that they had been able to 21 give above-average increases because they had not replaced 22 employees who had left, but had taken those duties and 23 passed them around. And -- and now they're coming back and 24 saying, okay, everybody benefits when somebody gets a piece 25 of the productivity -- 8-17-04 wk 118 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds familiar. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And that's, I 3 think, some of what Barbara -- I think Leonard has an issue 4 this year reducing a level, reshuffling. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I was hopeful that I was going 6 to get some more -- more of those offers this year. 7 Somewhat disappointed that I didn't. As I think I've 8 indicated in the past, I was very pleased last year with the 9 number that was able to work out those type of arrangements 10 that allowed a position not to be filled and redistributed. 11 And, of course, the ones it was redistributed to received 12 extra compensation for it as part of the increased 13 productivity and efficiency. But maybe there will be some 14 more come along this year. We can just keep working on it. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Or maybe we can't 16 expect voluntary compliance; maybe we have to edict that. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you hope to be able to 18 achieve it through voluntary compliance. Sometimes, if they 19 dig in their heels, why, you just got to do what you got to 20 do. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just as a final note, 22 don't you think that we should set up some type of a 23 schedule for Friday? Are we going to meet with other 24 departments, or are we just going to talk about the COLA and 25 go home? Or -- 8-17-04 wk 119 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm hoping we meet 2 with all departments. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All departments. So, 4 we need to notify all departments that we're going to meet 5 with them. They need to know that. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: At least give them a copy 7 of -- of what our -- what our numerical plan is. That would 8 seem to be appropriate. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Also -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't -- why don't you, 11 this afternoon, work with me with Ms. Mitchell, and we'll 12 try and develop that. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: That okay? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Also, queries are 17 coming in from outside agencies that want to know when we're 18 going to talk about County-sponsored and so forth. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: I thought we'd let 20 Commissioner Nicholson handle that part of it. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're only going to 22 give him Extension Office. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I was going to include 24 that. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They're on my list. 8-17-04 wk 120 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, in -- 2 Commissioner 1 and the Judge, in your scheduling, I don't 3 see the need to go over every line item with each elected 4 official, as we've done in the past. I think that's a waste 5 of time. What I would like to do, and I think time-wise, we 6 don't need to schedule a lot of time with each, but I would 7 just like to hear really where they are and where they're 8 going in their department, and what's on the horizon type 9 thing, and what do they see for personnel? Are they 10 planning to try to do some, you know, reorganization that 11 may reduce personnel, increase productivity? I think that's 12 a question that you ask, and I think it's always a good time 13 to kind of give a strong indication that we're -- this Court 14 has not been real inclined to increasing our personnel 15 numbers. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, on the specific line 17 items -- 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's exactly what 19 I want to do. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: My one-on-ones with the 21 elected officials and department heads, one of the primary 22 purposes of doing that was to have a better understanding of 23 what their needs are, and secondly, trying to eliminate that 24 part out of the discussion with the whole Court. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 8-17-04 wk 121 1 JUDGE TINLEY: So that you can concentrate on 2 the more global things that you were mentioning. And -- and 3 hopefully we have accomplished that. I didn't see too much 4 items that Mr. Odom had a concern about. There was a couple 5 of items that he had some concern. And I've told them as I 6 had my one-on-ones with them, you know, what we're talking 7 about may not be what I put in the initial draft, but you're 8 free to raise any questions about it at any time until that 9 budget's finally passed. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If there's -- if 11 there's major changes in there, I'm going to want to know 12 why. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What it's all about. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. And, generally, if -- 16 if there's been a material deviation -- and they probably 17 explained it to me. If you've convinced me, you know, 18 that's all I need is the background facts. Okay. So, I 19 guess we'll try and work up a schedule for our end of it, 20 and you're going to handle the Extension and 21 County-sponsored, and we'll let you integrate that into it, 22 and then come Monday at -- I mean Friday at 9 o'clock, we'll 23 go back at it, and we'll have the COLA issue first up. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the County-sponsored, 25 issue, unless I missed something, I believe the Judge 8-17-04 wk 122 1 recommended what everyone requested. I don't think there's 2 anything cut, you know. I just don't see the point of all 3 those people coming in here. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if they're all 5 getting what they got in the past, what they've gotten 6 before, you're right. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Most of them are getting 8 increases -- several of them. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I haven't looked at 10 that; I'll be honest with you. I just know I had a query 11 about it. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nobody got reduced, and I 13 thought the Judge was overly generous. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Magnanimous. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Magnanimous on that page. 16 Must have been late in the day when he was doing it. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's one that 18 might need to come in, something we need to -- we got an 19 issue with KARFA we need to resolve, and that's this request 20 for us putting up the front money so that they can ask for a 21 grant for a telecommunications project. That's the new 22 repeaters. I think we need to bring them in here -- bring 23 KARFA in here, bring the Sheriff in here, and give them an 24 answer on whether or not we have a problem with that. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think volunteer fire 8-17-04 wk 123 1 departments -- I have no problem with KARFA coming in, 2 because I don't -- I mean, they're County-sponsored, but 3 they're not -- I was thinking more like CASA and -- 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, I -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Historical Commission. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm with you. We 7 know all we need to do that. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anything that's -- you 9 know, like, KARFA has a special request. I think that's the 10 type of thing that needs to come before the Court. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll contact KARFA 12 and ask them to come in Friday -- Monday -- I mean Friday. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: That's it? We will stand 14 adjourned, to be reconvened Friday morning at 9 o'clock. 15 (Budget workshop adjourned at 12:06 p.m.) 16 - - - - - - - - - - 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8-17-04 wk 124 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 as 5 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 3rd day of September, 8 2004. 9 10 11 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 12 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 13 Certified Shorthand Reporter 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8-17-04 wk