1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 8 Budget Workshop 9 Wednesday, September 1, 2004 10 1:30 p.m. 11 Commissioners' Courtroom 12 Kerr County Courthouse 13 Kerrville, Texas 14 15 16 17 Review and Discuss FY 2004-2005 Budget 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 On Wednesday, September 1, 2004, at 1:30 p.m., a budget 2 workshop of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in 3 the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call to order the 8 workshop of the Kerr County Commissioners Court scheduled 9 for this time and date, September the 1st, 2004, at 1:30 10 p.m. We've got a number of budget items. Why don't we 11 start with the -- the Youth Exhibit Center item. I think 12 that's at the top of the list, if I can find my list. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have something I 14 want to hand out, if that's where we're going to start. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: My recollection is that we 16 asked the Maintenance Director to try and get us some at 17 least starting numbers, working numbers on a possibility of 18 putting in a new roof, just over the Exhibit Center portion, 19 and that prompted, of course, the air conditioner issue, 20 because the air conditioner's got to come off. Where are we 21 on that, Mr. Holekamp? 22 MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. I -- I gave everybody 23 copies, I believe. There was a proposal. These are 24 estimates, strictly estimates, and that's what was asked 25 for. There was no -- 9-1-04 wk 3 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 2 MR. HOLEKAMP: -- bids or anything. The -- 3 on the existing roof, the recommendation was not a gabled 4 roof; it was a shed-type roof that would go from one end to 5 the other because of the water runoff. Their recommendation 6 would -- because there's really no place between the two 7 buildings to carry that much water. The price is -- with a 8 metal frame, as you can see there, is 35 -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Glenn, the shed which 10 way? Shed from front-to-back, or from middle-to-side? 11 MR. HOLEKAMP: Mid -- okay. From east to 12 west. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Side-to-side? 14 MR. HOLEKAMP: Side-to-side. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: From the arena to the west 16 side of the exhibit hall. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 18 MR. HOLEKAMP: As you're looking at it, it 19 would be kind of like this. But it's really -- I went and 20 looked at a building in Bandera County that they had done on 21 their EMS building, and they used the same procedure, and it 22 is very difficult to see the pitch because of the way 23 they -- that amount of length. It's really interesting. It 24 didn't look near as severe as a person would think. And 25 it's a 1-to-12 -- 1 inch to 12 inches pitch. 9-1-04 wk 4 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You could hide it as well 2 by putting up a wall in the front. 3 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, that -- it's a parapet 4 type thing, yeah, and it's very attractive. Very 5 attractive. And those prices with a metal frame was 6 $35,000. And if you used wood instead of the metal, it'd be 7 $30,000, okay? And when you get into that, we really get 8 into some complications with relocation of those types of -- 9 those units that are up there. My -- my best estimate, from 10 the people that have been working on them, is that they're 11 20-plus years old. There's no numbers or anything, so when 12 we have to get parts, they -- they have to kind of hunt for 13 them and to work on them, that sort of thing. They 14 currently are propane on the heat side, and electricity on 15 the cool side inside the units, so relocating them probably 16 would not be advisable. Both the companies that looked at 17 them indicated it would be very, very difficult; very, very 18 expensive to move them, and then you'd still have 19 20-plus-year-old equipment. So, I went ahead and had some 20 estimates also on air conditioning which is all electric. 21 They're heat pumps, and they would be located strategically 22 to be able to blow the air in the building without having to 23 use the roof and a lot of duct work and stuff. So, those 24 estimates were between $48,000-something and $60,000, really 25 was the range, depending on -- on some of this stuff that 9-1-04 wk 5 1 they actually get into once they start. But those were, 2 like I said, rough estimates. Those were not bids. So -- 3 and the other capital expenditure would be the sound system 4 repair on the building, which was approximately $7,400 for 5 the P.A. repair. And that is for the indoor arena, the 6 Exhibit Hall, the whole thing, the repair. So, it really 7 comes to a total of right at $100,000. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Glenn, does this include 9 demolition-slash-removal of the office space in between the 10 two buildings? 11 MR. HOLEKAMP: No, I didn't -- I didn't 12 calculate any -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When we start taking off 14 the roof, don't we really affect that? 15 MR. HOLEKAMP: No, it'll have a roof over it. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the new roof would 17 start on the -- on the arena? 18 MR. HOLEKAMP: It would start right at -- 19 where the -- the eve of the -- the indoor arena, it would 20 run that way, right up against it. It would be flashed to 21 bring the water off the indoor arena into the current 22 drains. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, so the -- so that the 24 arena will -- all that water will all go to one spot? 25 MR. HOLEKAMP: That is correct. 9-1-04 wk 6 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The far west side. Okay. 2 MR. HOLEKAMP: That is correct. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you have a 4 rainwater -- 5 MR. HOLEKAMP: What? I'm sorry. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you have a 7 rainwater cachement system planned into that? 8 MR. HOLEKAMP: No, sir. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just asking. 10 MR. HOLEKAMP: No. No, I didn't have one 11 calculated into this. So, that's really where we're at on 12 the -- on what y'all had asked me to do. Commissioner 13 Nicholson had called me also, and he had somebody -- maybe 14 he had some input from -- from him. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I don't know 16 if he's one of them that gave you one of these or not, but 17 what he told me is just what you got here, same thing. 18 MR. HOLEKAMP: Basically. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Same concept, 20 probably about the same cost. So -- 21 MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. Because I just had a 22 brief conversation with Commissioner Nicholson on the roof. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He -- this guy -- 24 well, it's Danny Feller, who's in the business of metal 25 buildings. I think he's working on Walter Liedtke's roof at 9-1-04 wk 7 1 Mooney currently, or something or other, and they're going 2 to do the same concept. Only thing I saw -- heard different 3 was he recited a quarter or a half inch for every 12 inches 4 is sufficient, but that's a minor detail. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Holekamp, on the heating 6 and air conditioning side, new units would have a fairly 7 lengthy warranty, would they not? 8 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah, they have five years on 9 the compressors, and connecting units I believe is -- I 10 believe ten, if I can -- don't quote me on that, because 11 when I got into this, they said that it really depends on 12 the -- what we plan, on where we locate them and that sort 13 of thing as to what kind of units they have to push that 14 air. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 16 MR. HOLEKAMP: But these are heat pumps. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 18 MR. HOLEKAMP: And when we talk about saving 19 energy, I talked to both companies. I called them back 20 after we -- I got these prices, and I said what kind of 21 savings can I expect over the units that are currently in 22 there with -- they call them R-factors or whatever. And 23 both of them said -- well, one of them said 25 percent. I 24 kind of toned that one down. Another one said 18 to 20, so 25 I'm thinking probably 20 percent is probably a realistic 9-1-04 wk 8 1 energy saving. Currently, our utilities out there is 2 $37,000 a year budget. Of that, a little over $6,000 is 3 propane. Well, propane would go away, basically, except for 4 a few heaters in the indoor arena that just -- some overhead 5 heaters. But most of that propane charge is for those 6 heaters in the Exhibit Hall on those big units, which would 7 go away, because we'd be going with electrical heat pumps. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Isn't propane cheaper 9 than electric? 10 MR. HOLEKAMP: I -- sometimes, but not right 11 now. We're right at $1.50 a gallon, and they're not very 12 energy efficiency -- not -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mean our current 14 ones. I know they aren't efficient in any respect. 15 MR. HOLEKAMP: You -- well, I didn't. They 16 priced everything as electrical. Because the heat pumps -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: That wouldn't be -- the big 18 charge savings is on the heat pump aspect of it. 19 MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, yes. Oh, yes, most 20 definitely. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Did you come up with a rough 22 number based upon current -- 23 MR. HOLEKAMP: Well -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: -- usage? 25 MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, it would be about 9-1-04 wk 9 1 $6,000, $7,000 a year savings in utilities. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: How much? 3 MR. HOLEKAMP: $6,000 or $7,000. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 5 MR. HOLEKAMP: A year. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Part of the advice I 7 got was that properly insulating that roof is going to make 8 a major difference, 'cause last I got was the insulation we 9 have now is -- is poor. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 11 MR. HOLEKAMP: But, there again, there's so 12 many variables because of the -- the type of units. The 13 ones we have currently now are working so hard. If you put 14 some in that aren't working quite so hard, the energy -- the 15 efficiency factor really increases. So, I would like to 16 think we could do 20 percent better on utilities. I'd like 17 to think that. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: What about the maintenance and 19 repair of these older units? What's that been running? Do 20 you have a figure on that? 21 MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, that -- that's -- it's 22 been so sporadic for the last few years, as far as repairing 23 and -- I went back and looked at what I could and pulled out 24 what I could, and it's -- I imagine we're spending $1,500 to 25 $2,500 a year to bandaid them; you know, just keep them -- 9-1-04 wk 10 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 2 MR. HOLEKAMP: -- going. But, there again, I 3 don't know if -- is it going to get worse? Will it get 4 better? I -- that's something -- these air conditioner 5 units, you can have one six years old that goes out on you, 6 and it costs you $10,000 to replace it, or it can be one 7 that's been there 20 years and still working. So, really, I 8 think the -- the bottom line is -- is thermostat control, 9 where you control your thermostat, where you don't have your 10 extremes. Where you control it yourself, and not let 11 everybody have their hands in the thermostats, and it really 12 can make these -- and changing filters quite frequently. 13 Pretty small price to pay to keep those units going. But, 14 you know, like these units, if we save $7,000 a year on -- 15 on utilities, in ten years or -- or less; eight, nine years, 16 they would probably be paid for in the energy savings. But 17 I'm not -- you know, it might be about their life, too. I 18 don't know. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're talking about 20 all of this, and I don't know -- the bill ran up to how 21 much, total? 22 MR. HOLEKAMP: About $100,000. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 100,000 bucks so the 24 ceiling won't fall on people when they're out there. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 9-1-04 wk 11 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is kind of what I'm 2 seeing. And it doesn't make any sense. This whole thing 3 doesn't make any sense. I think Commissioner Williams has a 4 thought here that I'd like to hear about. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me jump in for a 6 moment. And what I'm about to say is not going to come as 7 any surprise to Glenn, 'cause I've sort of sketched it out 8 for him. Commissioner, you got an extra copy too, in case 9 anyone else wants to listen in. I think we need a strategy. 10 We've been all over this subject now for several years, and 11 we've been to bond issue and we failed, and we've spent a 12 lot of our own time and energy trying to get sources on the 13 same page, with not a great deal of success. Well, I 14 think -- I think we need a strategy that gets us from this 15 point in time to something that we can be proud of. And 16 it's kind of a multi -- multifaceted strategy, and if you 17 bear with me, I'll share it with you. 18 First -- first aspect of this is not to fund 19 the major improvements to the Hill Country Youth Exhibit 20 Center, as is being proposed. Cancel all bookings for the 21 facility -- probably just the Ag Barn part of it, not the 22 arena -- with the exception of agricultural events for which 23 no rental fee is charged anyhow, effective in January of 24 2005. Use the funds that were proposed for major 25 improvements to design a new agricultural facility. Create 9-1-04 wk 12 1 a facilities corporation for the purpose of developing and 2 operating a multipurpose events center on the eastern 3 portion of the Hill Country Youth Exhibit property. And 4 also, at that time when they get formed, encourage that 5 corporation board of directors to engage the City of 6 Kerrville and the Economic Improvement Corporation to 7 participate in the project. 8 At the same time -- or at the appropriate 9 time, negotiate a long-term property lease with the new 10 facilities corporation to position the event center. Use 11 the savings from a reduced Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center 12 operation to provide seed money for the initial operations 13 of the new corporation till it gets up and running good. 14 Have all plans and all cost estimates for a new agricultural 15 component ready for Commissioners Court action by June 30th 16 of '05, thereby providing us adequate time to secure funding 17 prior to the end of the '04-'05 budget. To me, that's a 18 comprehensive plan. It needs to be fleshed out, talked 19 about, added to, taken from, refined, but at least it gives 20 us a proposed strategy to get from where we are today, which 21 is limbo, to something. I offer it for whatever 22 consideration you want to give it. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can I ask you a 24 couple questions, Commissioner? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Surely. 9-1-04 wk 13 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I like this -- this 2 scheme. Probably needs to be fleshed out a little bit, but 3 the direction I think is good. If this -- if we did like 4 you've outlined here, at the end of it, do we have two 5 separate facilities there, one County facility and one 6 corporation facility? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we can deal 8 with that. We may determine later to have the facilities 9 corporation operate the entire thing, but I think -- what 10 I'm trying to create is a situation where the County 11 directly funds the agricultural improvements, and leave to a 12 facilities corporation the task of building and funding -- 13 or funding and building an event center. Now, later, if it 14 makes good sense for us to get out of the business of 15 renting and leasing, or at the time it's completed, turn it 16 over to the facilities corporation for operation, I don't 17 have a problem with that. I think we need to talk about it. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What -- have you -- 19 have you got a ballpark estimate of what we would save in 20 annual costs by going this route? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I asked Mr. Holekamp 22 to come up with some numbers. He and I talked day before 23 yesterday or whenever -- 24 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- and I gave him a 9-1-04 wk 14 1 little broad-brush scenario -- preview of this before I got 2 it refined and on paper. But I asked him to think about it 3 and tell us what kind of dollars we would be saving by not 4 expending them on the complete, full operation of the center 5 as we know it today. In the prior years, we've spent pretty 6 much a quarter of a million dollars. 7 MR. HOLEKAMP: I did work on those numbers, 8 per Commissioner Williams' request. I was -- I kind of -- 9 it's going to be real hard to -- to separate out the 10 maintenance factor from one building to the other, because 11 sometimes two -- two operations going at one time or 12 whatever. But what I did is, I pared -- pared it down -- 13 the budget down based on probably the workload of the people 14 that are currently out there, and the need for some of the 15 supplies and that sort of thing. Like, I took one -- I lose 16 one employee. Supplies, I -- I cut that down by about a 17 third, because you've still got to stock the bathrooms; you 18 still -- if you're going to continue a third or a half, that 19 does not mean there's half as much toilet paper going to be 20 used. So, I think when -- when you say you -- you want to 21 curtail the facility or the operation facility, either -- 22 either you stop using it, or you -- because I don't know if 23 you can just run it a half. That's going to be very 24 difficult, because you still have to take down, put up 25 different -- for different events in the indoor arena. So, 9-1-04 wk 15 1 when I did these numbers, I -- I got the Hill Country Youth 2 Exhibit Center budget down to approximately $84,000, give or 3 take a little bit. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Down from what? 5 MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, that's -- all right. 6 Down from two hundred -- two -- 213. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 213? 8 MR. HOLEKAMP: 210, something like that. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Down to 84, did you 10 say? 11 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Glenn, I -- 13 MR. HOLEKAMP: But some of that money that is 14 in that budget is going to have to go towards the -- the 15 booking that we do. That -- that was in that budget. I 16 took it out, because you can't -- these budgets, the way you 17 use people, they still need to be there. They just need 18 to -- how do you -- do you chop it up in little pieces? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Glenn, I think for 20 today's exercise, I think all that -- what the Court needs 21 to know is, yes, we can effect some savings in operational 22 costs. We can get into the nitty-gritty of how many rolls 23 of toilet paper we buy and how we do the booking in another 24 setting, but just for this exercise, because it's just a 25 proposed strategy in my mind, the answer is either, "Yes, we 9-1-04 wk 16 1 can effect some savings over the next year," which helps us 2 get started in another scenario, or, "No, we can't." 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have -- I have a 4 question. I don't -- I don't understand, I don't think. 5 And let me -- maybe -- let me say what I think I'm hearing. 6 And what Glenn's saying, that savings of $116,000, I don't 7 see how it's possible. 8 MR. HOLEKAMP: No, it -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're going to keep using 10 it for the stock show and any stock show-related events. 11 We're going to keep using it for 4-H uses. That means we're 12 going to have to keep the exhibit hall up and running, I 13 mean, where it's going to have utilities have to be going. 14 May be able to cut it a little bit, but we can't turn the 15 heat off. It's going to have to still be ready to go pretty 16 much year-round. The arena is going to continue to operate 17 as-is, and the grounds have to be kept up. I would be very 18 surprised if we come up with 10 percent savings. I don't 19 see why the -- I don't see how you can have savings, 'cause 20 you have to have a maintenance crew out there to keep the 21 exhibit hall open, so you -- and, to me, the only way to get 22 a significant savings is to shut the whole thing down except 23 for the stock show, and I don't know what you do with 4-H 24 then. That's why I can't -- I mean, that doesn't make 25 sense. I just -- I don't see how you can cut it back and 9-1-04 wk 17 1 make a whole lot of savings on the operational side. I 2 think we -- I think you could save some labor, probably get 3 one person on the setup, that type of stuff. But the actual 4 maintenance of the facility, I just don't see how it's going 5 to change. 6 MR. HOLEKAMP: I would say, just in -- just 7 in basic calculations of everything, you could probably have 8 a net savings of somewhere around $40,000 or $50,000 a year, 9 based on these numbers, if you did not use the exhibit 10 center and -- but you would not be receiving any rent. 11 There's no revenue. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you are using the 13 exhibit hall. We have to use exhibit hall for 4-H. 14 MR. HOLEKAMP: True. But I'm saying from a 15 revenue standpoint versus expenses, and that's still based 16 off of dropping one employee. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, what 18 would be the consequences of following your Point Number 2 19 there, canceling bookings effective January 1? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I guess my 21 whole point in that was to see if we could effect savings 22 which could be used in another direction. Now, if we're 23 hearing we can't do that, then, you know, maybe that's not 24 part of it. But I think it certainly needs to be explored 25 and examined. 9-1-04 wk 18 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I just -- I have 2 a hard time seeing how you can -- kind of what Glenn said; 3 you can't run a scaled-back operation on the maintenance 4 side. I mean, you can do something on the setups and that 5 stuff; you can get rid of probably an employee, but I don't 6 see you get a whole lot of -- beyond that, a whole lot of 7 savings without shutting the facility down, which isn't what 8 I'm hearing, anyway, what you're proposing. And I think the 9 -- the rest of the proposal -- I mean, I think the idea of 10 exploring a facilities corporation is a good idea. I don't 11 really understand what that means, so I need a lot of 12 education as to what a facilities corporation is, what are 13 the liabilities to the County, what it means to the County, 14 'cause we've never done one of this type since I've been on 15 the Court. So, I'd like to explore that, but I don't see 16 how that really impacts trying to do something to make what 17 we currently have usable. Even if you just were to scale it 18 back to 4-H and stock show, you still need to put a new 19 pitched roof and new air conditioners on the building. I 20 mean, I don't -- I don't see -- and if you go with a 21 facilities corporation and you build another facility out 22 there, you still are going to have this facility. Doesn't 23 make sense to tear it down. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. No. When this 25 facility needs to be replaced, this would propose -- we 9-1-04 wk 19 1 would fund a new agricultural complex. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what it 4 embodies. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, I didn't understand 6 that. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: What is the time frame between 8 the initiation of -- of this strategy and -- and the new 9 facility being turnkey, ready for use by, for example, the 10 4-H youth? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the ag side -- I 12 think Commissioner Letz can help me recall what our strategy 13 was in terms of the ag side. Only talking about the ag 14 side. A new facility -- in my mind, a new facility entails 15 a new barn that is really Class A; take care of stock show 16 and related things, and replacing the existing building for 17 which we're talking about a roof and air conditioners, and 18 rehabilitation of the arena. To me, that's the agricultural 19 side. Now, if I recall correctly, in the bond issue we 20 talked about, that was about $2 million, right? And it was 21 a new barn -- state-of-the-art new barn, and a total rehab 22 of the arena. The logistics of it is that it has to start 23 at such a time so as the stock show has completed its yearly 24 activity so that it can be ready for the next stock show, as 25 I recall. Was that the thrust of your question? 9-1-04 wk 20 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, my question related to 2 time frame. And the point of my question, Commissioner, is 3 this -- this 4-H activity goes on out there year-round, and 4 we've got an obligation to those 4-H youth. And I'm 5 concerned right now, from a safety standpoint -- you know, 6 the issue may be that the ceiling tiles not get loaded up 7 with water leaking through roof and falling on somebody, but 8 that -- that's a potential safety hazard. And I'm concerned 9 about the safety aspects of it now, but I don't know what 10 we're going to do with all these 4-H kiddoes that we have 11 this absolutely honor-bound obligation to take care of in 12 this facility. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't want to -- I 14 don't want to foreclose the 4-H operations or their 15 programs, or disenfranchise them is a better way of putting 16 it. I'd like for somebody to tell me which of those 17 programs could not be temporarily housed in the arena. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, if you're 19 -- so what you're talking about is a new barn, and rehabbing 20 the arena? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That the Court should be 23 responsible for? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couldn't you build the 9-1-04 wk 21 1 new barn, and if it were to go this way, put the new barn on 2 the opposite side of the arena, and then do something with 3 the existing one afterwards? I mean, talking about a whole 4 new barn. You could leave the -- what is there in the 5 exhibit hall there for the time being. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think, once 7 again, we're going to engage ourselves in the -- in the 8 nitty-gritty of the thing. We need to think it out, talk it 9 out, point out what's good and bad about it, and see whether 10 the strategy works, and what needs to be done to make -- 11 fine-tune it. It's offered today as a substitute for 12 spending money which later on we're going to find that we 13 didn't need to spend or shouldn't have spent. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question, maybe 15 for Commissioner 1 down there in his aggressive red shirt 16 today. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. Are you listening 18 to the radio again? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, he is. 20 Aggressive red, look at that. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I thought I heard 22 you say at our last meeting that you were more or less in 23 favor of about an $80,000 new roof, and I thought I heard 24 you say today you're against a $100,000 new roof. Is there 25 -- I mean -- 9-1-04 wk 22 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, no. If -- if 2 I had -- I want us to take a look at this. I think that 3 this is possibly the long-term solution to what we've all 4 been thinking. And, obviously, I don't know if we're lazy 5 or crazy, but we can't seem to get to Point B. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I -- I like what I'm 8 seeing here, to be honest with you. I like it a lot. And 9 we're talking about -- and I don't know what kind of bond 10 issue and your time frame. I think that that -- that is the 11 time frame we're not going to be able to figure out, is if 12 we was to vote for some kind of certificate of obligation or 13 something like that, how long does that take for that money 14 to come in and -- I mean, we can figure out how long it'll 15 take to put a building up. That's -- Glenn can tell us 16 that. But all those things are interesting, but if we could 17 move in this direction, I -- you know, I think it's the 18 direction to go. And I don't know about -- if we can move 19 in this direction, it would -- it would not make much sense 20 to spend $100,000 out there when we're going to -- I like 21 what you're saying now about building the -- another barn 22 somewhere else. I don't know about on that side, but 23 somewhere else out there, and leave that thing there. And I 24 understand your concern. I have the same concern, because 25 we don't understand the time frame, and that is frightening. 9-1-04 wk 23 1 And I think Bill's right, too; some of those 4-H activities 2 can move over into the present arena and function over 3 there. But I just -- I think that we need to -- I think 4 that we need to take a really hard look at this thing here. 5 I really and truly do. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't disagree with 7 that. I mean, I think that -- you know, I have, for the 8 last years, been not in favor of putting a bandaid out there 9 and spending a bunch of money. And, you know, if we 10 seriously are going to look at doing something this year, 11 then I would -- I have no problem with this proposal. But, 12 you know, I'd like to have some kind of an assurance that 13 we're going to really, really try to tackle this and solve 14 this problem this year, because -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, count me in. 16 If -- if we get down -- I'll tell you this much. If we get 17 down to having this plan in place, you'll probably see me 18 vote to spend some money, or to do some kind of funding 19 mechanism. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a couple 21 questions. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One of -- or all of 24 you know the answer. Two or three years ago, when you all 25 were considering ways to finance creating a facility similar 9-1-04 wk 24 1 to this, an event center -- multipurpose event center, you 2 chose to go a bond route. Was revenue bond an option -- an 3 opportunity? Would it generate enough revenue to pay the -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's an 5 opportunity for the facilities corp. I don't think it's an 6 opportunity for us. I think that's a vehicle they can take 7 a real serious look at. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In my view, revenue 9 bond is a whole lot more palatable -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- to the taxpayer 12 out there in west Kerr than -- 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. 14 Absolutely. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- than raising 16 taxes. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can I offer a 19 suggestion, so we don't get all bogged down? For -- for 20 us -- if we're serious about it, for us to take a hard look 21 at it, I'll put it on the agenda, on a regular Commissioners 22 Court agenda for our discussion. And, in the meantime, we 23 think about how we -- of the problems that might be -- we 24 might encounter, and what suggestions we might have to offer 25 to make it better, and we'll discuss it. 9-1-04 wk 25 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me suggest 2 something. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I usually have to 5 do all the thinking around here. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: True. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why don't you put that 8 on a regular Commissioners Court agenda, and let's just 9 hammer it out? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a hell of an 11 idea. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much. 13 It's not easy -- this is not easy. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know what we'd do 15 without you. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know it. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Don't try it at 18 home. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: I just -- in whatever plan we 20 come up with, whether it's a short, mid-range, long-term, I 21 just want these 4-H and ag people that we've got an 22 obligation to when we -- when we assumed ownership of those 23 facilities out there, that we honor that obligation. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: That's an absolute. 9-1-04 wk 26 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: In my mind. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't disagree with 4 that at all. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we have to 7 sort out our long-term obligation from perhaps some 8 temporary inconvenience. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- 11 MR. HOLEKAMP: Whoa, whoa, whoa. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The question is, are 13 we putting roofs on hold? 14 MR. HOLEKAMP: What are we going to -- what 15 about my capital -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sound system. That's it. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sound system. 18 MR. HOLEKAMP: Permanent one? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, temporary one. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Patch it up. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Patch it up, and we sure 22 hope it works. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just make sure it 24 works good enough to get Commissioner Williams through the 25 next -- 9-1-04 wk 27 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm standing in front 2 of everybody in the hog world in January saying, "This will 3 not happen again." 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm sure. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm depending on you 6 to bail me out. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or you can get him 8 some megaphones, little tripod thing, and let him -- like 9 Rudy Vallee. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Rudy Vallee, yeah. That'll 11 work. That'll work. Is that it on this issue, gentlemen? 12 Let's move on to County Engineer issue. I believe 13 Mr. Motley has furnished an opinion. If I'm reading that 14 opinion correctly from Mr. Motley, essentially, it says 15 that -- that the 1995 A.G. opinion that I think every member 16 of the Court is familiar with is the controlling -- 17 controlling authority at the present time. Is that correct, 18 Mr. Motley? 19 MR. MOTLEY: There's no court cases on the 20 issue. And without any appellate level court cases, the -- 21 my interpretation is, the most recent Attorney General's 22 opinion on the issue would be controlling. Unless and 23 until, you know, there's a court case on it. I didn't find 24 anything on that at all. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, on the -- in your 9-1-04 wk 28 1 summary, the way I interpret it -- make sure I interpreted 2 it correctly. 3 MR. MOTLEY: I don't have a copy with me, so 4 -- but go ahead. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It basically says that 6 Commissioners Court has discretion with the unit road 7 system, the type that we have, on hiring a county engineer 8 or not, if the County is -- and you have it in quotes -- 9 "unable to employ a county engineer." 10 MR. MOTLEY: Unable. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there's not -- and if 12 I'm reading this -- in the 1995 opinion, there's not a whole 13 lot of definite language as to what that means, "unable." 14 MR. MOTLEY: Well, it gives it -- and, again, 15 I -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You want to see my 17 copy? 18 MR. MOTLEY: Well, that's fine. I'm all 19 right. They -- they didn't -- the way I read it is that 20 they said that the "unable" means if you're unable to, for 21 any reason, so long as it's accurate, truthful, you know, a 22 legitimate reason to be unable to do it. They gave an 23 example, and I think it maybe was in -- you know, it was 24 from this fact situation where they said, what if we are 25 unable to hire an engineer full-time? And in this case -- 9-1-04 wk 29 1 in this very opinion, it said it doesn't matter, because 2 there's nothing in the statute that requires an engineer, or 3 for that matter, the road administrator to be a full-time 4 position, so that would not be a legitimate reason, is one 5 that they gave an example of what was not legitimate. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: In itself. 7 MR. MOTLEY: Right, in itself. That's right. 8 That's right. And they -- they -- I think the way that I 9 read it is that they're saying "unable" is -- it gives the 10 Court broad discretion according to this -- this most recent 11 opinion. It's different. This opinion is different than 12 any prior A.G. opinion. The one before was H-201, which was 13 a 1974 opinion, and the last opinion that we wrote from our 14 office about it was in 1992, which was before this opinion. 15 The DM-368 came out in December of 1995, so that's the most 16 recent thing on it. And it seems to say that the discretion 17 of the Court is broad to do so for any reason, so long -- 18 any reason that they're unable to; you know what I'm saying? 19 Any reason they're unable to do so, so long as it's a 20 legitimate, accurate reason. And I don't know if that 21 answers it or not. But -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably as close as 23 we're going to be able to get. 24 MR. MOTLEY: Well, about as close as I'm able 25 to get. I going to say that's it, best I can tell you. 9-1-04 wk 30 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not having money -- 2 enough money to hire an engineer would be just one of those 3 reasons, but a good reason, wouldn't it? 4 MR. MOTLEY: I mean, I think finance -- if 5 the Court is financially -- does not have the money to do 6 that, you know -- of course, you know how the budgets are. 7 I mean, a lot of shifting and priorities and all that stuff. 8 But if the Court comes down to it, it boils down to they 9 don't have the money to do that, I believe, you know, that 10 they could advance that as a reason. And -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What if -- what if the 12 Court required the engineer to have blue eyes, and we can't 13 find a blue-eyed engineer? Will it go that far? 14 MR. MOTLEY: I don't believe that's a good 15 reason. I don't believe they -- let me say this. And I 16 didn't say this in the opinion, but I believe -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm really asking that 18 question. 19 MR. MOTLEY: -- it needs to be related to the 20 function -- the job to be performed, certainly, and to the 21 organization and staffing of the unit road system. And I 22 think, certainly -- I mean, that wouldn't be -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you think it goes 24 to a specific type of engineer? Whether he be electrical -- 25 MR. MOTLEY: No, it says -- 9-1-04 wk 31 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- structural? 2 MR. MOTLEY: It says in the statute, Chapter 3 252, that it has to be an engineer that meets the criteria 4 the State Highway Commission would set for a district 5 engineer. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Road-builder. 7 MR. MOTLEY: Yeah. And, I mean, that's the 8 emphasis. I think probably most engineers that I know in 9 the Highway Department are -- are -- what do you call -- 10 civil engineers; just general-type engineer. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, are you finished? 12 There's one, just, quick -- or not quick question, 13 necessarily. The statute -- or the Attorney General's 14 opinion said you can have it full-time, part-time. How 15 about contract? Can you have a contract county engineer? 16 MR. MOTLEY: Well, okay, that's really a 17 different issue, it seems to me, because what we're talking 18 about is -- the staffing of a county office is one thing, 19 and a contract engineer, by definition, would be outside of 20 that. The opinion -- you know, and I got to say, I read six 21 of them, and they kind of run together a little bit, but it 22 seems to me that what they're saying is that the engineer -- 23 Engineering Practice Act and the Chapter 252 of the 24 Transportation Code sort of work together, because they 25 think it's important that, for public works, where public 9-1-04 wk 32 1 health, safety, and welfare is involved, that we be sure 2 that the plans are drawn by a Registered Professional 3 Engineer for new construction. And they be drawn by this 4 engineer, and the construction should be supervised by a 5 Registered Professional Engineer. 6 Now, for -- for maintenance and upkeep of 7 roads done by -- at the behest of the Commissioners Court, 8 these opinions say you do not need an engineer for that. 9 But for construction -- or for, you know, drawing plans and 10 supervising construction on new construction of public 11 works, they say an engineer needs to put his stamp of 12 approval on and supervise it. There's nothing in the 13 opinion that addresses the idea of a contract engineer, but 14 it -- the goal is to have an engineer look at the plans, 15 design the plans, and supervise the work. So, it -- they 16 don't say that has to be in-house, if that answers your 17 question. That's not -- it doesn't require an in-house 18 engineer, but it requires an engineer. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: David, can a -- a 20 person functioning as a road administrator -- under the law, 21 can that person review and certify plans that are presented 22 for hydrological studies or other engineering submitted to 23 the County in respect to plat -- plat and other development? 24 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I got to say, I didn't -- 25 I researched this strictly as a Road and Bridge question. I 9-1-04 wk 33 1 didn't look at subdivisions on it. I think the engineer -- 2 Engineering Practice Act must be read very carefully in 3 conjunction with this Transportation Code. And if you're 4 doing engineering work -- doing engineering work related to 5 -- you know, I would say if you're reviewing some 6 engineering data, you know, I think it would -- you possibly 7 run afoul of the Engineering Practice Act if you had a 8 non-engineer reviewing another engineer's work and 9 interpreting that. I don't know. And I got to say, I 10 didn't -- did not research that. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me give you a 12 hypothesis. 13 MR. MOTLEY: Sorry, say that again, please? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let met give a 15 hypothesis and see where you come. 16 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have a plat 18 submitted for review, and it has with it a hydrological 19 study for stormwater takeoff, and someone other than a 20 Registered Professional Engineer reviewed that plat for 21 stormwater takeoff and approved it. County subsequently -- 22 Commissioners Court subsequently approves it. It later 23 turns out that that hydrological study was flawed. Is there 24 recourse against the County? 25 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I think -- you know, I 9-1-04 wk 34 1 think there'd always be recourse against the County. I 2 think all they got to do is file a lawsuit, and the County's 3 got deep pockets, and if you got a filing fee, a typewriter, 4 and some paper, you can file suit against the County. But, 5 in that instance, it seems to me that if the data is 6 expressed in a summary fashion, if it's a study -- hydrology 7 study that was supposed to be done, and is -- it either 8 meets or does not meet certain set criteria, then a person 9 experienced in looking at that stuff and road-building 10 probably -- you know, subdivisions, roads and such, and 11 drain off -- runoff and drainage, could probably look at it 12 and say these numbers either do or do not meet criteria. 13 Such as, maybe, something is or is not in the floodplain. 14 But as far as doing, you know, crunching of numbers and 15 engineering, I'd stay away from that. 16 You know, it's like the Commissioners Court, 17 all the time, I guess -- or all the county officials sign 18 off on these plats. And the act of the Commissioners in 19 doing so, I don't think, is -- I think it's really 20 ministerial most of the time. And, you know, you can turn 21 around and you can be sued, certainly, but whether you're 22 ultimately held responsible over the person who is the 23 hydrologist that you relied on, I -- you know, I think you 24 would certainly have them to look to if you were sued, 25 saying, "We relied on this bonded hydrologist. We didn't go 9-1-04 wk 35 1 out and measure the water. We don't know anything about 2 water, except we know how to drink it, you know, and that's 3 about it." And, so, I would say that you could certainly be 4 sued, but whether it would be successful is another 5 question, you know. I'd be real careful if it were me. I'd 6 be very careful. 7 And I don't know if I could say, without 8 having researched it -- even if I researched it, I don't 9 know if I could give you a bright-line rule, but anytime 10 you're asking somebody who's not an engineer -- the more you 11 ask them to creep over into doing engineering tasks, I think 12 you're running afoul of the Engineering Practice Act. And, 13 you know, at that point, you want to have somebody in-house 14 or you want to have somebody, you know, if you get over the 15 line, on a contract or something to review that stuff for 16 you. And, unless it's something that's just real clear, a 17 test was asked -- you know, I don't know much about 18 hydrology, but, I mean, I know -- you know, talking about 19 certain velocities of water and volumes of water, and you 20 have a FEMA test or a FEMA qualification for insurance 21 purposes. It says, you know, the velocity can be no more 22 than this at this level. I mean, somebody can look at it 23 and see the velocity is plus or minus according to 24 hydrological calculations. But I think, other than just 25 reading numbers and plugging them into requirements, I 9-1-04 wk 36 1 wouldn't -- I wouldn't want to see somebody doing much more 2 engineering than that. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems -- it seems to 4 me that this County needs engineering work, at most, in two 5 scenarios. One is in a new road construction project, which 6 we don't do. I mean, we really -- I mean, I don't think 7 we've built a new road since I've been a commissioner. 8 We've redone a lot, rebuilt -- I mean, fixed up a lot, but I 9 don't think we've gone out and said, "We're building a road 10 through this mountain." So, I think that's a minimal usage 11 that we would do, and if we do, we'd probably have to hire a 12 contract engineer to do that anyway, 'cause I don't think it 13 falls under the services of the County Engineer, the way 14 it's currently done. The other -- in fact, I don't -- 15 Franklin, I'll ask you. You haven't -- have you ever done 16 the engineering on a county project? I mean, I don't know 17 that we've done any county projects. 18 MR. JOHNSTON: No. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't think 20 we've done any county projects that would require a road 21 engineer, but -- so it's conceivable that we could need an 22 engineer there, but that can be on a contract basis. The 23 other area that we may need an engineer is reviewing 24 engineering data that we receive, which is a very -- you 25 know, and the only time I can see that that would come into 9-1-04 wk 37 1 play is through subdivisions. I think, through a revamping 2 of the Subdivision Rules, we can put more of that on the 3 developer. And I also -- but I still think you need to have 4 an engineer. For me to raise my hand to vote for it, 5 somebody would have to say -- an engineer that says, "Yes, 6 that looks basically okay." But the reality there is that 7 we -- if you throw out the revision of plats, we do, at 8 most, two to three subdivisions a year. And either -- and 9 that, to me, we can either eliminate the County Engineer or 10 greatly reduce the scope of the County Engineer. 11 And that's another option we haven't talked 12 about. We could have a -- you know, based on -- and this 13 kind of goes back to what I said at the last meeting. I 14 think the current County Engineer structure we have is 15 doing -- the County Engineer is doing a tremendous amount of 16 work that is not engineer-related. Most of it is actually 17 clerical-related, in my mind. But we could try to find a 18 County Engineer -- maybe it's the same County Engineer that 19 we currently have -- to work on a much reduced basis, and -- 20 you know, and keep it part-time, and keep it, you know, very 21 -- I mean, a whole lot less than current -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Well -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- is my idea. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, based on some 25 information that we've had available to us, and more 9-1-04 wk 38 1 recently disclosed, our current engineer is on a part-time 2 basis, and in large measure, that's for an administrative 3 and supervisory-type situation. And, as a part-time 4 individual, that's not being performed in the sense that I 5 think the statute anticipates that it be performed. And 6 if -- on a part-time basis, if -- number one, I don't think 7 we can afford to employ one on a full-time basis. I think 8 that's just beyond the realm of -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you say 10 full-time? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Full-time, yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I agree. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: But even on a part-time basis, 14 if -- a number of the functions presently being performed by 15 the part-time engineer are really not engineering functions, 16 but rather more in the nature of clerical and checking 17 against administrative or regulatory-type standards. I 18 think that indicates a further reduced need for even a 19 part-time engineer, possibly, and it would seem to me that 20 our engineering functions for which we require professional 21 engineering qualifications and -- and activity are very, 22 very minimal. And, like you, I'm -- I'm -- I think we need 23 to shift these engineering functions on subdivisions over 24 to -- to the developer, because the money to be made off the 25 project is going to be made by the developer, and the 9-1-04 wk 39 1 expense involved ought to be -- ought to be his. 2 Now, with regard to performing the functions 3 of -- of what our current engineer does, if we have a set of 4 standards, such as Mr. Motley referred to; these are the 5 runoff rates, these are the velocity rates, these are 6 whatever, I think anybody that's experienced in -- in 7 knowing what those factors are can -- can put them up 8 against a set of standards and see whether they are or are 9 not in compliance. I think that's fairly easy to do. 10 Someone that's reasonably literate and has the ability to 11 understand the terminology is able to do that. Also, in 12 addition to that, pursuant to the Court's request, the 13 functions that are presently performed -- this was provided 14 to you earlier today, some information regarding how those 15 duties could be reallocated among existing personnel. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I haven't seen 17 that. I'm not saying you didn't give it to me, but -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm looking for it 19 too. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Keep going. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in the very back -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Very back. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- of the Road and Bridge 24 package with budget, last two pages. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you've hidden it 9-1-04 wk 40 1 from us? Is that what you're trying -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I haven't hidden it. That's 3 just the way it came through the copier. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who prepared this, 6 Judge? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: This was prepared by the 8 administrative people at Road and Bridge. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, you know, going 10 back to one thing you said, Judge, where I -- I think I dis 11 -- or I don't know if I disagree or we're slightly 12 different. I don't -- I hate to -- I was searching, trying 13 to find the right word here. I hate to use the word trust, 14 but I don't know that I trust developers' engineers. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bingo. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you know, I -- one of 17 the things, I mean, I don't think is a negotiable point in 18 my mind would be -- like the City here, "This is not 19 negotiable." I want engineering data reviewed by an 20 engineer on a new subdivision. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do too. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, that is -- doesn't 23 mean it needs to be done by a county engineer. I think it 24 can be done on a contract basis, but that's something I want 25 to pay someone to look at this and say, this is reasonable. 9-1-04 wk 41 1 I think we need to budget for that. Now, whether it's best 2 to do it through a county engineer, best to do it through 3 contract, that's -- I'm up -- you know, that can be easily 4 worked out. But I think it's very important to assure the 5 public that we're doing subdivisions properly, that we have 6 an engineer tell us that, yes, that developer -- that 7 engineering provided by that developer is reasonable and 8 good, you know. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: What is your opinion with 10 regard to a provision in the Subdivision Rules that permits 11 us to have a developer's engineering data reviewed by an 12 engineer or expert of our choosing at -- at the developer's 13 expense? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Just be part and parcel of the 16 development process. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm opposed to that, and 18 the reason is I think it's an arbitrary thing. And I think 19 we are in -- will get into -- easily get into a situation 20 that one of our neighboring counties was in not long ago, 21 about having different sets of rules for different 22 developers. And I think, all of a sudden, as soon as -- you 23 know, if someone tells me that, hey, you know, Developer X 24 used a substandard hydrologist; y'all ought to check that 25 out and we require another hydrology study done, and then 9-1-04 wk 42 1 Developer C comes in and we just let it sail right on 2 through, I think that we're opening ourselves into being 3 very arbitrary as a court. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree with the 5 Commissioner on that first point, that we want somebody 6 that's objective to take a look at it and say it's okay or 7 it's not. And I think that could be done the way we're 8 doing it now, or it -- we could outsource that; we could 9 make a deal with an engineering firm and say, "We'll send 10 these over to you; when you get them, you charge us "X" 11 dollars an hour to give us our answer." 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I like -- I mean, 13 what I see as a system that kind of is built on what Dave 14 just said is that we, you know, have a County Engineer, but 15 he's paid on an as-needed basis for specific work. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, my only point is in 17 enforcing accountability on developers. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: I would like to have those 20 developers who are going to profit from that project to pay 21 for having that accountability enforced, and not the 22 taxpayers at large. That's my only point. And if you 23 required it on every case, to have their numbers or -- or 24 their data, as it may be, reviewed by someone of our 25 selection, just as an automatic, I'm not sure how that 9-1-04 wk 43 1 creates different standards. But my -- my whole point is to 2 load these costs on those that are benefiting from them. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: That's my whole point. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I was a developer, I'd 6 just say, "Okay, County, you go pick the engineer, then." 7 Why pay for it twice? Let the County pick the engineering 8 firm they want to use. And then I think we're opening 9 ourselves up to a whole bunch of other problems. I mean, I 10 just think it's -- you know, but I think there -- there is a 11 way to put a lot more -- based on signing off on the plat, 12 more, I guess, responsibility back on the developer through 13 the developer signing the plat and assuring -- and the 14 engineer signing the plat and putting their license on the 15 line. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that definitely 18 can be done. But I still think you need to go the other -- 19 we still need to have oversight by an engineer. 20 MR. MOTLEY: Question. Jon, you said that if 21 -- if the County were requiring, you know, engineering to be 22 done on the project initially, and then there was -- there 23 were a clause that said a second opinion would be paid by 24 this subdivider for an engineer of the County's choosing, 25 you think that the subdivider would probably just go with 9-1-04 wk 44 1 the County's choice initially. And you said if they did, 2 you felt like that would open -- cause a lot of other 3 problems. I -- I'm not sure what you're seeing there as 4 problematic in that scenario. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I see then that, 6 all of a sudden, the County's in a situation of picking the 7 -- the engineering companies for all the developments. 8 MR. MOTLEY: You're talking about, like, an 9 exclusive type -- kind of a buddy-buddy deal? I didn't know 10 for sure what you were saying. Just a group of engineers 11 that the County considered to be competent in their 12 experience or something like that. But I hear what you're 13 saying. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think that if the 15 -- you know, if the develop -- I don't think we've had a 16 real problem with developers in this county. I don't know 17 that we've had any problems, actually, since I've been a 18 commissioner. I think they're doing good engineering, but I 19 think there's a -- you know, if we just -- it shouldn't take 20 that much money to hire an engineer to review another 21 engineer's work and say, "Yes, it's good." And if it isn't, 22 tell us the questions that we need to ask and say, "This 23 doesn't look right; can you recalculate that?" And, you 24 know, I don't have any problem with telling -- you know, 25 making them go back and reprove the numbers through their 9-1-04 wk 45 1 same engineer that they're using. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: If we see something that is 3 kind of glaring? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I think we 5 need to have an engineer telling us this is glaring, so 6 we're just not doing it arbitrarily. 7 MR. MOTLEY: I have another question. I 8 don't know if the -- the information that is in your books 9 in the budget section about Road and Bridge talks about all 10 the functions of the engineer, but one of the -- of the 11 things that's happened in my experience that is important, 12 or should be important, can be important to me is, when you 13 have something -- I guess what you would call truly, like, a 14 wildcat subdivision, as opposed to a subdivision where you 15 want to make sure that the infrastructure is sound, to meet 16 county standards or whatever if you're talking about a road. 17 But a subdivision that is just going in -- and I know that 18 in the past, our engineer has sort of functioned as a 19 watchdog or a -- a receiving point for people who become 20 aware of these wildcat subdivisions; kind of funneled it to 21 Franklin in the past, and I don't know if that's a function 22 that -- that could be just somebody else in Road and Bridge 23 or what. That is a -- that's an important function in my 24 dealings in the past with Road and Bridge, is that, you 25 know, that's where I become aware of things, usually, is 9-1-04 wk 46 1 through the engineer having reviewed it, and then we usually 2 go out and make an on-site inspection. Typically, we know 3 about it and look at these things and see if we have a 4 violation of the Subdivision Rules or not. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a good point. I 6 think it's something the County Engineer has done, but I 7 think it's also not an engineering function; it's more 8 keeping your eyes and ears out, and I think that -- I would 9 imagine that the Road and Bridge supervisors and 10 administrator are able to do that. And I have not -- I 11 don't know if there's some training that could be learned as 12 to what -- you know, to educate them as to what our 13 Subdivision Rules are so they would be able to identify that 14 situation. Again, I don't think that's an engineering 15 required function, but it does need to be done. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one more 17 question of David. If the Court were to take an action, 18 David, and eliminate the County Engineer's position as we 19 know it today -- and I'm speaking now -- my question is 20 under the -- the various road unit law -- unit road law that 21 you reviewed. If we were to take that action and eliminate 22 the engineer's position, and -- which is currently a 23 part-time position, and hire a consultant on an as-needed 24 basis, is our action, in your mind, defensible under the 25 existing law? 9-1-04 wk 47 1 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I think, strictly by the 2 A.G. opinion, DM-368, and really the conclusion of the 3 information -- the opinion I wrote for the Court, I'd say 4 that it depends on the reason that you are unable to hire 5 the person. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think there's the 7 key word, "unable" to hire. 8 MR. MOTLEY: You know -- and, you know, in 9 the previous versions of the law, before it was codified, it 10 said if you were unable to do so for any reason. And the 11 research I did said that, even though that "for any reason" 12 language has not been retained in the new code section in 13 1995, that it should be read as still being in there, 14 because when they put it into the code form, it was a 15 nonsubstantive revision or codification of the other law, so 16 it should be read as being in there, unable to for any 17 reason. But it does say in the conclusion of DM-368, for 18 any reason -- you know, for any reason the Court chooses to 19 do so, so long as it is a legitimate, you know, true -- I 20 can't remember the exact language, but an accurate, true, 21 legitimate, actual reason to do that. And the only thing I 22 know is they tell what is not a good example, which was the 23 not, you know, having an engineer full-time and saying 24 because there's not a full-time requirement. You could have 25 a part-time engineer, so that -- 9-1-04 wk 48 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Reading from the 2 second -- from the last part of your summary, If the 3 Commissioners Court is to have a county road administrator 4 instead of a county road engineer, they possess the 5 discretion to do so if the reasons determined by 6 Commissioners Court for not employing the engineer indeed 7 reflect factual conditions under which the County is truly 8 "unable" -- you used the word in quotes -- to employ an 9 engineer. Would that action be defensible? Would our 10 action be defensible? 11 MR. MOTLEY: Well, the Court would state the 12 reason that they believed that they were unable -- this -- 13 my interpretation of what the Court would do, they would 14 state the reason that they are unable to do so, and if that 15 reason is -- is actual, true -- you know, actually true, 16 whatever you want to call it, but if it's a correct and true 17 reason, you know, it's supported by the facts, I think you 18 would be defensible. You know, I can't -- I can't say, you 19 know, any -- it does say in this opinion, DM-368, that the 20 Court is not required to have a county engineer in all 21 situations in a unit road system. It says that. So, the 22 idea of shall -- shall have an engineer, the old cases -- 23 excuse me, the old A.G. opinions were of the opinion that if 24 one is available in the county who meets the requirements 25 and you don't hire him, then you may have messed up. That's 9-1-04 wk 49 1 what the old A.G. opinions say. And they go back and forth, 2 by the way, since 1940-something -- or 1952; they go back 3 and forth. That's what the old ones said at some time. 4 The new ones say that the Court has 5 discretion to do that. They don't set a bright-line rule 6 about what is able and what -- or a definition of what is 7 able and unable. They say that if the Court says they are 8 unable to do it, and they state a reason that is true -- and 9 I'm -- I'm going to say assuming that it's related to the 10 job and the duties of the job, certainly, then I think you 11 would be defensible. And I really -- there's not more of an 12 answer that I can give you legally, on the legal end of it. 13 I mean, there's going to be the policy end of it for the, 14 you know, executives to decide if they're able or not, and 15 why they're able or not, and if it's a truthful "able or 16 not" reason, I guess is the way I would look at it. And if 17 you do that and all that bears out, I think it's defensible. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Have we pretty well wrung that 20 one out, gentlemen? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to go back to, I 22 guess, the information provided by Road and Bridge. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And as I'm going through 25 this, I don't know -- about midway through, there's a 9-1-04 wk 50 1 position schedule, and am I to take it that the 2 recommendation from, I presume, Len is that if the County 3 Engineer position is deleted, that those adjustments are 4 requested in salaries -- in remaining staff? 5 MR. ODOM: That's correct. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, what does that 7 mean? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That means that we don't 9 save any money. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't have to -- I 12 mean, I haven't looked at that. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You do not have to 14 approve it, I know. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And you don't 16 have to give as much. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I understand that. 18 But, I mean, as proposed, it -- it doesn't save any money. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we would -- in 20 other words, we would be taking the entire salary that we're 21 paying the present County Engineer, and just spread the 22 entire -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I take that back; 24 that's not true. We do save money. We save in floodplain. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What? 9-1-04 wk 51 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The floodplain amount, 2 which is about $20,000. It looks like we probably save 3 about $20,000. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do we pay the 5 engineer, 15? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thirty -- 24 -- $24,465 7 right now. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It used to be 15. And 9 is that being spread out amongst the -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- the new -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The request is $20,000 13 addition to the Road Administrator, a little less than 14 $1,000 to two supervisors, and a little less than five to -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Admin. assistant. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the admin. assistant. 17 Which is roughly $26,000, $27,000 in increases. That's 18 slightly more than the engineer's salary, but then the 19 floodplain is rolled in automatically, and there's no 20 contract -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How is it rolled in 22 automatically? Who's going to do that? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in the -- on the 24 last page. It's done by -- mostly by a combination of the 25 Road Administrator or by the administrative assistant out 9-1-04 wk 52 1 there. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, who's been 3 trained, other than the County Engineer, at this point to do 4 that? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you'd have to 6 train -- some additional training would be required. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so too. What 8 did we spend this year on training for the County Engineer? 9 Seven, ten thousand bucks? Reinvent the wheel here. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's a one-time -- 11 one-time fee. Right now, we're paying an engineer to do a 12 lot of clerical work. I mean, in my opinion. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand your 14 opinion. I don't necessarily agree with that, because in 15 order to write a letter, you have to know what you're 16 writing about. So, if he's writing a letter critiquing a 17 plan, he's writing a letter on the basis of his knowledge as 18 an engineer. So, you know, I can sit down at my computer 19 and I can write all sorts of letters; I can write legal 20 briefs, but that doesn't make them a legal brief that would 21 stand up anywhere. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the current County 23 Engineer isn't a civil engineer. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Judge. I 25 didn't mean to get in your territory there. 9-1-04 wk 53 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- and so, you 2 know, which is -- well, it's neither here nor there whether 3 he's a civil engineer or not, but most of the type of work 4 that's required is civil engineering-type work. But the 5 reality is, the County Engineer currently does not do 6 engineering specifically for the County. He reviews 7 engineering. And I think, under the engineering practices, 8 you know, you don't -- I guess you can get by with having a 9 -- a non-civil engineer review civil engineer-type work. 10 Now, I don't know the details about that act, but, you know, 11 I don't think that -- I think you can -- I just don't think 12 most of that work needs -- you need an engineer to do it. 13 And I think you can train somebody to do the floodplain 14 administration part of it. 15 But, by looking at the monthly reports that 16 the County Engineer did at our request, a whole lot of that 17 is dialogue with the public, and very little of it is going 18 out there and actually doing engineering on-site for a 19 project. It's a lot more administrative, and that's what 20 I'm trying to -- I think it's a poor use of a relatively 21 high-level individual to do. Now, I don't have a problem at 22 all, if we can work out a deal with the current County 23 Engineer, on keeping a part-time county engineer, but on 24 a -- either on an hourly basis and no salary, or on a much 25 reduced, you know -- you know, or very reduced salary, and 9-1-04 wk 54 1 then kind of on a contract basis. You know, I think there 2 is some benefit there, but I just do not think the taxpayers 3 are getting their money's worth paying the County Engineer 4 almost $50,000 a year for what he is doing. I think it's a 5 misuse of funds -- "misuse" is not the right word. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Inefficient. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Inefficient use of funds. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, you were talking 9 about savings. I believe at the bottom of that position 10 schedule, there's a calculation. I -- I assume the number's 11 been calculated correctly, but that indicates over $38,000. 12 I didn't notice that when we were looking at it a minute 13 ago. I just -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't either. Well, 15 there are significant savings. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. There's some real 17 numbers there. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, as Commissioner 1 19 said, we don't have to approve the requested amounts, 20 either. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's true. Those 22 savings could increase if those -- if -- if those numbers 23 that are requested are adjusted downward, as far as that 24 goes. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We need to ask 9-1-04 wk 55 1 Mr. Odom, is this non-negotiable? 2 MR. ODOM: Life is negotiable, Commissioner. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well -- 4 MR. ODOM: I was asked -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further for the Road 6 Administrator? 7 MR. ODOM: I was asked to give you a number. 8 I gave you a number. I showed you $38,000. Now, you can 9 try and make me bleed orange, but everything in this life -- 10 my religion, my family, my reputation are not negotiable. 11 All other things are. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Pretty good. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Well-spoken, Mr. Odom. 14 Well-spoken. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that a John Wayne 16 line? 17 MR. ODOM: Sir? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Was that a John Wayne 19 line? 20 MR. MOTLEY: That's a Leonard Odom line. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was an Aggie 22 line. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just read that 24 somewhere recently. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else here? 9-1-04 wk 56 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, can we 2 decide something? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Can we lawfully do that today? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, we can't make the 5 decision, but we can come to a consensus of some sort, I 6 think. Or is that the same thing? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I just -- I don't 8 want to come back and do this again. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Don't want to start 10 over again. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you know, my feeling 12 is -- I'll get it on the table first. I think I've already 13 said it, but we can either greatly reduce the salary of the 14 County Engineer and greatly reduce his duties, or eliminate 15 the position and do it on a contract basis. That's my 16 feeling. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree with you, 18 and I prefer the contract basis, I think. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's probably my 20 thinking, the contract basis. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I could probably be 22 convinced on a contract basis, if that -- if we're able to 23 structure one that encompasses his work and gives us the 24 protections I think we need. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does that fit your 9-1-04 wk 57 1 needs, Mr. Letz? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to hear from 3 one. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Mr. -- yeah, I'm a 5 contract guy. But I've kind of gone beyond that already. 6 Would Mr. Odom be the person that would make sure that the 7 engineer came in and did the readings and make the 8 assessments and -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: He'd be the one that would 10 individually recommend to the Court that we need to refer 11 this to an engineer if it's a matter that he thinks requires 12 that attention, I think. Or if a member of the Court -- for 13 example, if Commissioner Letz were to see something in a 14 subdivision that he really had a serious question about, 15 obviously. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you don't see -- 17 you don't see the requirement of an engineer possibly before 18 it even gets into this room? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I've modified the 20 way I think these work. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, just on the last two 23 pages, under the Subdivision Rules, I think that under 24 Review of Plat, where -- the Number 3 item, Review of Plat, 25 and it says Road Administrator, Administrative Assistant, I 9-1-04 wk 58 1 think the Commissioner for that precinct needs to be added 2 there so we're brought in -- 3 MR. ODOM: Which one? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- early on that. 5 MR. ODOM: I believe we have you on 6 preliminary plats, and then on the final. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I want to be in -- 8 the first time I see the Commissioners on the list is down 9 in sign-off on final plat. 10 MR. ODOM: No, it should be preliminary. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, has to be by our 12 Subdivision Rules. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I need a 14 clarification. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they need to be 16 in there anyway on the first plat. Let me finish my 17 comments. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then, after 4, it says 20 check to see that all documentation has been received. I 21 think you need to have another item there, which is review 22 documentation. I think that needs to be done by the 23 Commissioner, Road Administrator, and possibly a contract 24 engineer at that point. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would see in that 9-1-04 wk 59 1 process -- and I think you're probably saying the same 2 thing -- that somebody's got to have the responsibility to 3 say, "Take that over to our contract engineer and tell him 4 to bring back a letter saying everything is okay or not 5 okay." 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that person is 7 the Road Administrator. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I do too. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my question. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My clarification -- I 11 need a clarification. If we're talking about a contract 12 engineer, are we talking about restructuring a situation and 13 trying to work out a contract with the existing engineer? 14 Or going out for an RFP for all these services? What are we 15 talking about? 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Professional 17 services, I -- I'm guessing you don't need an RFP. But, in 18 my estimation, we can contract with anybody, giving a 19 preference to Kerrville people, just like an attorney that 20 wanted the work. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would like to have us 22 not really do a -- necessarily do an RFP, because I don't 23 think you have to. But I think get a relationship and an 24 hourly rate negotiated with an engineer, whether it's the 25 current engineer or a different engineer in town, and we use 9-1-04 wk 60 1 one engineer so we can build a relationship with that person 2 or company. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I see it almost like 4 contracting for legal advice. It might be a small retainer 5 plus an hourly rate. Well, in the case of lawyers, it 6 wouldn't be a small retainer, but the engineer might be a 7 small retainer. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I would hope not in the legal 10 aspect. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the reality of 12 that situation is, then, if we did -- even if we did an 13 RFP -- or even if we didn't do an RFP, and we follow along 14 the lines of what Commissioner 4 is talking about, we might 15 have a basic contract with an engineer -- could be the 16 existing engineer or another professional engineer -- for 17 services, so that we are first in line when we need our work 18 done, and he bills us the existing -- he will be billing us 19 for his or her work at the existing rates that engineers 20 would charge any other client. Am I correct? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Negotiated rate. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then those 23 numbers would supplant these numbers that have been proposed 24 for incremental advances to do all this work; is that 25 correct? 9-1-04 wk 61 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, then, we're -- 3 then we are really -- then we are really mushrooming out the 4 whole bit. You know, you got a lot of dollars out there. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, 'cause I think we 6 only do -- I mean, I don't think we've done -- averaged 7 three new subdivisions that need engineering and hydrology 8 studies, you know, since I've been a commissioner. Now, we 9 may take a new one and redo the replat ten times, so we look 10 at it a whole lot, but there's just not that many new 11 subdivisions going in. So I think that the -- you know, 12 you're looking at -- on the subdivision side of it, I can't 13 see -- maximum, 15 hours a year. And even at a -- you know, 14 at $100 an hour -- or $200 an hour, that's $3,000. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We kind of thought the 16 same thing, though, on the floodplain. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thinking -- I mean, 19 that was kind of the same kind of conversation when we 20 brought the floodplain back over here. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there was a lot 22 of -- there was a whole lot of administrative work that was 23 being done, that needs to be done and will be done, but it 24 doesn't need to be done by an engineer. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, it appears to 9-1-04 wk 62 1 me that if we go with this plan here, that we are spending a 2 couple of thousand dollars more than what we're spending 3 right now. Then if we add on an engineer, which, you know, 4 is 2,000 more dollars, maybe, I mean, we're -- to me, we're 5 going the wrong way with our spending. It seems to me that 6 we need to take these numbers that Mr. Odom has laid out 7 here and whack them back and make an offer to him. That's 8 my opinion. And that may not be something that we can do in 9 this meeting today. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I would agree with you, 11 Commissioner. The -- insofar as what direction we're going, 12 before we even attempt to make Mr. Odom bleed orange, if we 13 use the numbers as he's submitted them, we start with a 14 savings of $38,000. Now, to the degree that we can make him 15 bleed orange, as he's indicated, that number will go up. 16 Now, the next issue is, to offset against those savings, 17 what are you going to -- what are you going to incur in the 18 cost of contract engineering? And I don't think any of us 19 know that, except, based upon Commissioner Letz' experience 20 with a number of subdivisions and what he sees having to be 21 submitted for review to someone to keep our own comfort zone 22 adequate, it doesn't appear like it's going to be anywhere 23 close to $38,000. Isn't that what I heard from you, 24 Commissioner Letz? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- and the wild card 9-1-04 wk 63 1 is if we get a whole lot of new subdivisions, you know, and 2 that's just something that's unknown. I mean, I just -- my 3 familiarity with the Subdivision Rules, I think five hours 4 of engineering time is sufficient to review that data and 5 see if there's a problem. If there's a problem, you know, 6 you may need -- you may -- it may cost a little bit more, 7 but I'd say -- I'd recommend probably budgeting $5,000 or 8 $10,000 there just to be safe. I think five would be 9 sufficient, maybe six or seven thousand or somewhere in 10 there. I think you double what you think, and hope that 11 we're in line. But, I mean, I don't know -- in my precinct, 12 there are no subdivisions that are immediately on the 13 horizon that I'm aware of. There hasn't been -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably not at the 15 moment. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there hasn't been 17 in -- I guess The Reserve started -- there hasn't been one 18 this year, I don't think. The Reserve is the only one 19 that's fairly new. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got two on the 21 horizon. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We've wrung that one 23 out pretty good. Let's see if we can't get you wound up 24 before we take a break, Mr. Odom, on your wish list. 25 MR. ODOM: Capital outlay? 9-1-04 wk 64 1 JUDGE TINLEY: You were asked to prioritize 2 your capital outlay items. 3 MR. ODOM: Right. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: It's before the Court, the -- 5 the hand-held stuff. 6 MR. ODOM: That is actually not capital 7 outlays. That's called -- for GASB, we call it something 8 else. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we don't use that for a 10 priority list. You're starting out with distributor and the 11 chip spreader. 12 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Now, what I tried to 13 explain to the Court before, what I did want to -- at this 14 point, I think we could use municipal loan. It wouldn't be 15 an outlay of capital in this budget year -- this new budget 16 year. And you see on the back side of this that I have an 17 amortization sheet where the payment will be picked up in 18 October of '05. So, those -- that is the way to do it. The 19 new distributor is going to be available. That brand-new -- 20 that thing runs over $100,000 -- $120,000, $140,000 maybe. 21 And I'm -- we're picking -- have the ability to pick one up 22 for $48,000. So, that's the reason I put up -- it's either 23 now or I miss it, and it has a capability of shooting 24 20 feet. Now, variable-width chip spreader goes with the 25 distributor. If I don't get the distributor, I don't need 9-1-04 wk 65 1 the chip spreader. But my problem is, that Flaherty is 2 coming apart, and we don't know if we can finish the 3 sealcoat program this year. That's -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: This summer? 5 MR. ODOM: This summer. We've already had it 6 down in August, and we had to have the pulley assembly made 7 by a machine shop because there was no parts. When Flaherty 8 built this back in the '80's, they said they went out and 9 just started picking up parts and put everything together, 10 and there is no -- there were no parts. It's obsolete, so 11 I'm going to have to do -- we're being pushed to make it 12 work. We've done -- 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like a must to 14 me. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, you need to 16 defend more on the bottom end of your list rather than the 17 top. 18 MR. ODOM: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think, in my 20 mind, if that is your number-one priority, you get it. 21 MR. ODOM: That's my number-one priority. We 22 got to keep sealcoat going. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. 24 MR. ODOM: Then two -- two is the broom. If 25 I get the chip spreader and all, that is part of it. And 9-1-04 wk 66 1 we're having a problem now with the old broom. We wish to 2 keep it just as a backup in case I need it. So, that -- 3 that is my second priority. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 5 MR. ODOM: We get -- 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Go down to Number 7. 7 MR. ODOM: Number 7? 8-cubic-yard dump 8 truck. I would -- I always need it, but if I looked at the 9 priorities of things, I'd push that back to number 7. I 10 need that. I need to continue that. If I can't get it this 11 year, then it will be next year; I'll be coming to you next 12 year with trucks. And the trailer for skid loader, I need 13 to do that. However, if I look at the scheme of things, 14 that was the bottom of it. And it's only $4,500, but I 15 bought one and I was told the wrong data, and I have a skid 16 loader in itself that exceeds the capacity of the trailer we 17 bought, so I can't use it. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to talk about 19 Number 6, Leonard. 20 MR. ODOM: Number 6 is a water truck with 21 tray. We have a problem with the two tankers; that's the 22 yellow trucks that we use, and we cannot hold water in them. 23 And I'm -- we've been trying to repair and repair them. We 24 can't seal them. They'll leak down to the point that we 25 can't even prime it; we have to find a water hose to fill it 9-1-04 wk 67 1 up to do it. That is a backup that the fire departments ask 2 us about. And, you know, I -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I'm 4 getting to. 5 MR. ODOM: That's right. And now there's an 6 opportunity to pick one up that's got 10,000 miles on it 7 that's coming from the city of San Antonio for $27,000, and 8 it's like a brand-new truck. They have a system. That 9 system was a system I set up when I was system manager for 10 streets and drainage, and that system is -- is dollars or 11 years. And it has hit years, not dollars, and hasn't been 12 used. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's defer Number 7 14 till next year, and go with the rest of this. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What size is that 16 water tanker? I'm in favor of it. 17 MR. ODOM: 2,000. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh? 19 MR. ODOM: 2,000 gallons. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's available to 21 fire departments? 22 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. That's -- that's the 23 reason I'm trying to do it that I have that backup, 'cause 24 I -- why send something out there that can't get water in 25 it? 9-1-04 wk 68 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm in favor of 2 that. I just wanted to know that. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Len, I agree. I think 4 the bat wing needs to go. Only other question is on the 5 roller. The one we have is in bad shape? 6 MR. ODOM: The one I have is -- it's 7 deadline. That's the one that the brakes went out, and it 8 went -- went over -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I thought. 10 So, basically, the items -- well, 1, 2, and 4 will give you 11 what you need for quite a few years for your sealcoat 12 program? 13 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. But the other thing -- 14 don't -- the chip spreader -- I mean the chipper. That 15 is -- that Vermeer is gone, and that has just happened. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, yeah, that's -- I'm 17 not saying -- I'm -- I agree, you need that. 18 MR. ODOM: I need that. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I agree with Dave. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: What about 5 -- well, that's a 21 small item. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I agree. I think 23 you can delete the dump truck till next year, delete the bat 24 wings, spreader, and -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go through Items 1 9-1-04 wk 69 1 through 6? Is that what we're saying? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And 8. Leave 8. 3 MR. ODOM: Now, the bat wing was just a wish. 4 If I had my -- you know, I've looked at it next year too. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you add the 6 trailer. I think it's a -- it's a safety issue to the 7 County using an un -- overloading the trailer. And they use 8 that skid loader a lot, so I think -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're only 10 deferring the dump truck and the bat wings? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cuts $52,000, about 20 -- 14 little over 25 percent. 15 MR. ODOM: And if we do that municipal loan, 16 we don't have to pay for -- I'll be paying for it for the 17 next four years. And -- 18 JUDGE TINLEY: But you won't pay anything for 19 this year. 20 MR. ODOM: That's right, sir. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 22 MR. ODOM: And then next year, for the next 23 several years till it's paid off, I'll just reduce my 24 capital outlays. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 9-1-04 wk 70 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So it comes to about 2 $74,000, one plus the two little items up top? 3 MR. ODOM: Is that question directed to me? 4 I'm sorry. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, more than that. 6 That's wrong. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: What I've done, Leonard, is 8 take everything from the top down through the 190,600. Have 9 you got yours in front of you? 10 MR. ODOM: I have this in front of me. All 11 right, sir. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Then I've subtracted 13 the 50 -- I took 190,6 and I subtracted out 52,5 for the 14 dump truck. 15 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I subtracted out 2500 for the 17 office equipment -- computer. You say you're going to pull 18 that out of O.R.C.A. money? 19 MR. ODOM: Well, I'm going to ask the Court 20 to do that. I think that's the way to do it, and just save 21 the 2500 for next year. Just not spend it at all. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, I pulled those two 23 out, and I come up with 135,6. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How'd you do that? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Took 190,600, took out 52,5 9-1-04 wk 71 1 and then 2500. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you not take out 3 the 21,6? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Didn't have to. It's not 5 included in the 190,600. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. I 7 got you. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: That's a supplemental wish 9 list. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got you. 11 MR. ODOM: We're taking 190,600, taking 52,5 12 and 2500. Right. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm. 14 MR. ODOM: 136,6. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Got it. 16 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: What's the number? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 135,6. 19 MR. ODOM: 136,6. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: 135,600. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Works for me. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think I'm catching 23 on. Anything you put on the wish list is -- is dead. If 24 you really don't want it -- I mean, if you really want it, 25 don't put it on the wish list. Is that right? 9-1-04 wk 72 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That makes a lot of 2 sense. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Have any of you ever 4 proven -- 5 MR. ODOM: If you don't ask, you don't get. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: That's right. I think that's 7 got -- got your capital outlay items, doesn't it? 8 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Why don't we take a 10 break for about 15 minutes? We'll stand in recess. 11 (Recess taken from 3:03 p.m. to 3:20 p.m.) 12 - - - - - - - - - - 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to 14 order. We've been in recess. Let me note that, for 15 contingency purposes, I posted another workshop meeting for 16 Friday at 9 a.m. so that we'd have that available to us if 17 we needed it. If we don't, that's fine; we don't have to 18 use it. But if we need it and don't have it posted, we're 19 up a stump. Our Treasurer indicated she would take no more 20 than three minutes if I would give her a bit of time. 21 MS. NEMEC: Thank you, Judge. I am going to 22 hand out to you all -- I know you probably don't want to 23 hear this, but it's the holiday schedule for the past ten 24 years. You can just -- I didn't have anything to do, so I 25 thought I'd do that. 9-1-04 wk 73 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did we do wrong 2 now? 3 MS. NEMEC: Well, I have gotten some phone 4 calls, and I want to share those with you, and -- or the 5 reasons behind the -- on the last page, you'll see the 6 2004-2005 proposed schedule again. And, just so that y'all 7 could make some decisions, that's why I just listed the 8 holidays that had been approved before. And if you'll look 9 on there, some years we've had 12, some years we've had 13, 10 and some turn out to be 11, and the reason for that is 11 because of the way Christmas holidays fall sometimes. So, I 12 don't -- I heard the comment that we didn't want to give 13 13 this year. We were going to go another holiday. I'm asking 14 you to look at the schedule and see that some years, let's 15 give the 12, and on the years that it falls -- the way the 16 days fall, it's going to be 13. Not just be set on 12, 13, 17 or 11 days per year; to look at the -- the reason behind 18 giving those days. On the 2004-2005 holiday schedule -- my 19 error -- I did not include Easter holiday, which we have 20 always gotten, so I'm asking that to be approved. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that make it 14 22 for '04-'5? 23 MS. NEMEC: No, 13. This will make it 13, 24 and I'm asking again for Martin Luther King Day for reasons 25 that I have had several calls from employees and elected 9-1-04 wk 74 1 officials. Employees are just questioning why that 2 holiday -- or why they do not get that holiday. On the side 3 of the elected officials, the attorneys' offices are closed, 4 the banks are closed, the City's closed, the title companies 5 are closed. Everyone is closed, and we're here working, and 6 so that's the reason behind their request. So, I get the 7 calls and I present to you what -- what is relayed to me. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the change? I 9 know you said a whole lot of words just then, but what -- 10 what's the difference between this one and what we did the 11 other day? 12 MS. NEMEC: This one includes Easter. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 14 MS. NEMEC: And I think y'all probably -- 15 y'all just didn't see it on the schedule, because I just 16 forgot it and left it off. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that all, Easter? 18 MS. NEMEC: Easter and Martin Luther King. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: We drew a line through Martin 20 Luther King the other day when we added -- 21 MS. NEMEC: The half a day on the 23rd. And, 22 you know, that's -- that's entirely up to you all. I 23 haven't heard anything about the 23rd, but I have heard 24 about these two days, and so that's why I'm presenting them 25 to you all again. 9-1-04 wk 75 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 23rd of December? 2 MS. NEMEC: 23rd of December, half day. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We have to do Good 4 Friday. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. My preference would 6 be to add Good Friday back, but leave Martin Luther King 7 off, and make it 12 and a half days, but I can go with 13 -- 8 it goes to 13 and a half. Doesn't go to -- 9 MS. NEMEC: Right, if you put the 23rd in 10 there. That's why I didn't put it in there. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to ask a 12 question again. Have any -- any significant number of 13 employees spoken to you about a floating holiday; i.e., 14 their birthday? 15 MS. NEMEC: No. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No? 17 MS. NEMEC: Not to me. Maybe to their own 18 department heads or elected officials. But I usually get 19 calls on -- on the proposed holiday schedule and the holiday 20 schedule once it's adopted, but I haven't been asked that 21 question. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I find that 23 interesting. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff, does a 25 holiday drive up your overtime costs? 9-1-04 wk 76 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. But -- well, yes 2 and no, okay? We do not pay overtime on the holidays; we 3 give them a comp day. That's the only comp time that I 4 allow them to build up, so they can take that day back off 5 later. Now, if they quit, you're going to have to pay them 6 for that comp, but otherwise we give it to them off. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Barbara, in reality, even 8 though you're showing, you know, 11 or 12, in reality, there 9 actually should be probably 11 and a half, 12 and a half, to 10 13 and a half, 'cause even though we don't -- never called 11 it a holiday, we pretty much -- 12 MS. NEMEC: That's what it was. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what it was. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Christmas Eve? 15 MS. NEMEC: Day before. 16 MS. UECKER: Not for everybody. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I knew we were going to hear 18 that. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. For most, it was 20 13 and a half. 21 MS. UECKER: Okay. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Save yourself some trouble and 23 make a recording; we'll plug it in for you. 24 MS. UECKER: What? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: The child support spiel. 9-1-04 wk 77 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The three minutes is 2 gone. I agree with Commissioner Letz' proposal. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is, again? 4 Tell me? 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Add Easter and cut 6 M.L.K. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Add Easter and cut 8 out M.L.K.? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How did -- tell me 11 again how M.L.K. got back in there. 12 MS. NEMEC: Because I have had a lot of 13 calls. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the reason? 15 MS. NEMEC: Well, I think -- I think the 16 K.I.S.D. does have school on that day. There's -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But banks are closed. 18 MS. NEMEC: Banks are closed, title companies 19 are closed, law firms are closed, the City is closed. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, see, that's a 21 major plus, in my opinion. 22 MS. RECTOR: And the Appraisal District's 23 closed. 24 MS. NEMEC: Yeah. 25 MS. RECTOR: Our business about comes to a 9-1-04 wk 78 1 standstill, 'cause we have no banking to do; we can't call 2 the Appraisal District. The State's closed. Our regional 3 office in San Antonio is closed. 4 MS. NEMEC: Federal holiday. 5 MS. HENDERSON: All courthouses in the 198th 6 and 216th but Kerr County's been closed. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say again? 8 MS. HENDERSON: All the -- Kendall, Bandera, 9 Gillespie -- I take that back; Gillespie I think is open, 10 but Kendall, Bandera, Menard, Mason and all them are closed. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can put Martin Luther 12 King Day back and take a day off Christmas. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're all wrong. 14 They're all wrong, but -- 15 MS. HENDERSON: Well, we're right. But, you 16 know, how do we explain that to them? 17 MS. NEMEC: Why are we going to take a day 18 off Christmas if we put Martin Luther King back? Because 19 it's 13 days? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- I mean, we can 21 do 13 and a half days, but -- 22 MS. NEMEC: I'm not -- I mean, I'm not 23 proposing the 23rd half a day. I'm just -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's reality, what most 25 have done. 9-1-04 wk 79 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't get the idea 2 of December 27. 3 MS. NEMEC: That's a federal holiday; the 4 banks are closed. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: December 27? 6 MS. NEMEC: Well, actually, no, the banks are 7 not going to be closed on December the 27th, but it is a 8 federal holiday. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because the 26th is a 10 Sunday. 11 MS. NEMEC: Right. 12 MR. MOTLEY: What's December 27th? 13 MS. HENDERSON: Monday after Christmas. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The oil companies 15 are opening. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gas stations are 17 open, right. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They get 11 19 holidays. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is the Hunt Store 21 open? 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm sure it is. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: You hit on the barometer. 24 That's it. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If they're closed, 9-1-04 wk 80 1 I'm closed. Well, I still want Texas Independence instead 2 of Martin Luther King, but obviously can't have it. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You haven't been 4 successful in that argument since '96 and '97. 5 MS. NEMEC: '96-'97, we put it in there. 6 MR. MOTLEY: I used to work at the State, and 7 they -- they had three holidays, and could you pick two of 8 them. Of course, that's not probably efficient for an 9 organization our size compared to the State, but between 10 Texas Independence Day and Emancipation Day, I think Martin 11 Luther King's birthday, and maybe even L.B.J.'s birthday or 12 something, you could pick, like, two of the four. Any two 13 you want, but you pick them. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if, as the Tax 15 Assessor/Collector, who handles licenses, is saying that 16 everything's closed and she can't conduct business in her 17 office, that doesn't make a lot of -- 18 MS. RECTOR: I'm not saying I can't conduct 19 business, but when taxpayers come in and I need to call the 20 Appraisal District for information, they're closed. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's what I'm 22 saying. If you can't conduct business, the majority of what 23 you do -- a lot of what you do, it doesn't make a lot of 24 sense to be sitting there twiddling your thumbs. 25 MS. RECTOR: Most everybody else is off, so 9-1-04 wk 81 1 our business is very slow. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we're saying 3 the same thing. 4 MS. RECTOR: Yeah. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 13 and a half doesn't 6 seem that bad, really. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, that's fine. 8 MR. MOTLEY: There's been an effort in the 9 past to try to coordinate County holidays with City and 10 school, and I think it's getting better. I think Barbara's, 11 you know, trying to get that accomplished. Everybody tries 12 to observe the same holidays where feasible. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Since you've exceeded your 15 three minutes, we can't even check the consensus here. 16 MS. NEMEC: Right. I'll just go ahead -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: You used up your time, so we 18 are where we are. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thirteen sounds like 20 a good, round number. 21 MS. NEMEC: Thirteen and a half. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thirteen and a half. 23 MS. NEMEC: Thank you. 24 MS. UECKER: Where's the other half? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The day of the Christmas 9-1-04 wk 82 1 dinner when most offices close. 2 MS. NEMEC: The 23rd. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: But which the child support 4 office is open, and open late to take care of the parents 5 who need to have the ability to come get their child 6 support. 7 MS. UECKER: That is not what I meant. The 8 last couple of years, we haven't had to do that. What I was 9 trying to say is my office has never closed the half a day 10 early just because -- if there was a holiday on the 4th or 11 whatever, we've never closed half a day on the 3rd just 12 because. So there. (Laughter.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: You were using the child 14 support argument last year. 15 MS. UECKER: I have had -- no, not last year. 16 Year before. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, excuse me. My memory's 18 fuzzy, I apologize. 19 MS. UECKER: So, put that in your pipe and 20 smoke it. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, while we're on 22 -- while we're on employees' days off and other things 23 related, I want us to close out the merit pool discussion. 24 And we have a merit pool in the current budget, and I'd like 25 to see us refund that to the tune of 1 percent of salaries 9-1-04 wk 83 1 to be used at the discretion of the department heads -- 2 elected officials and department heads. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's on the table. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say it again? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One percent of 6 payroll in a merit pool to be drawn down by elected 7 officials/department heads. We have to make some special 8 concessions for one-person or two-person departments and how 9 that works, but essentially they'd be limited to 1 percent 10 of their particular departmental payroll. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this 1 percent 12 going into some pot that's sitting way off over here in the 13 corner? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We could allocate it 15 to each department. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or is it going into 17 each individual department? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whichever the Court 19 thinks would be the better way to do it. I'm amenable to 20 that. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why is it we've 22 stopped doing that? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we -- 24 MS. NEMEC: Why did we stop doing that? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know; I asked 9-1-04 wk 84 1 you first. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Never started. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We never did that? We 4 never put money in your budgets to give -- 5 MR. TOMLINSON: One time. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure we did. 7 MS. NEMEC: One time. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Last year we did it 9 in a pool -- no, a pot. This year it ought to go in the 10 department budget. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And why is it we -- 12 was everybody afraid to say, or what's the deal? 13 MS. NEMEC: Okay. The reason we stopped 14 doing that was because we would leave it up to the Court to 15 tell us when we could give merit increases, and y'all have 16 been adjusting salaries for the past year trying to get 17 everybody to where they should be, so that's kind of just 18 been left on the back burner. I think that really is the 19 reason. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like the idea. I 21 like the idea. I don't -- I don't know how you put it in 22 place and make it work, you know, 1 percent. 23 MS. UECKER: It's been done off and on 24 several times. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One percent or what? 9-1-04 wk 85 1 MS. UECKER: It just hasn't been consistent. 2 It just depended on the Court; it depended on the budget. 3 MS. NEMEC: And -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: My -- let me make sure. Are 5 you talking about that for a one-year's allocation? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's all we 7 can do, is allocate one year. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, no, it affects -- 10 you're moving them up one step forever. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I understand 12 that. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or one grade forever. 14 MS. UECKER: That's the way it's always been. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that may be the way it's 16 always been, but if you put 1 percent in and you use that to 17 move somebody one step, that's not a merit for a single 18 year -- for a single year's budget. I mean, you're -- 19 you're plugging somebody in and they're fixed to go. 20 MS. UECKER: Are you saying, then, that those 21 two people that -- let's just take them as an example, 22 'cause they're the only ones I can think of, the last ones I 23 can remember, those two people in Road and Bridge that were 24 given a merit because of the flood. Do they lose that at 25 the -- they're going to lose that at the end of this budget 9-1-04 wk 86 1 year? 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't happen. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it didn't -- it 5 never has happened. The Judge is saying it should happen. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I think it should happen. If 7 you're going to plug in a merit -- a merit line item in an 8 annual budget, it ought to be good for that year. And -- 9 MS. UECKER: That's called a bonus. 10 MS. HENDERSON: You'd have to do that in a 11 lump-sum bonus. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't want to do 13 that. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, that's a bonus. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, is 16 this -- is this 1 percent on top of the 3 percent? Or is it 17 2 plus 1? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One on top. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a 1 percent pool 20 for the department, for example. How many you got in your 21 department, Linda, for example? 22 MS. UECKER: Seven. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, seven 24 employees. Whatever that base salary for that -- those 25 seven people is -- not you, but seven; just the base, not 9-1-04 wk 87 1 the rollups -- 1 percent as a discretionary line item for 2 her to determine where it is given. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, that's 7 percent 4 of her base budget. She could choose to give that -- the 5 whole 7 percent of her base budget to one person. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not 7. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, it's -- there's 8 seven people. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, it's 7 percent 11 of her base payroll. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it's 1 percent. If 13 her base payroll is $140,000, its $1,400. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My premise is still 15 valid. She could choose to give all of that money -- 16 MS. UECKER: Right, to one person. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Or spread it out 19 over all of them. 20 MS. NEMEC: As long as it's done within the 21 steps. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Long as what? 24 MS. NEMEC: As long as it's done within the 25 steps of the step -- of the grade schedule. 9-1-04 wk 88 1 MS. UECKER: You can't give half a step. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How is this 3 different than what we did last year? We put $10,000 or 4 $20,000 aside. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nobody used it. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My recollection is 7 we only had one -- one department head come in and ask for 8 some of it. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so. I didn't 10 know we had one. I thought nobody used it. 11 MS. NEMEC: I used it. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Barbara used it. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Safety program. 14 MS. NEMEC: My safety coordinator. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's one difference 16 in there. I wouldn't want to add it into our department 17 anyhow, because officers and jailers and dispatchers have 18 both the longevity and an educational. I would not want 19 that figured in. Now, the -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We just exclude the 21 Sheriff's Department, then. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Except for the five or 23 six clerical that would fit in with the rest, to where if 24 you want to take 1 percent of those five or six, that's 25 fine. But don't put back in one percent of my 96 employees, 9-1-04 wk 89 1 because jailers and deputies and dispatchers are not going 2 to be eligible for that. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Sheriff. 4 Just saved us a ton of money. Thank you very much. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're welcome. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, he's -- he has a good 7 point. He's got another -- another policy in place for the 8 educational. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I agree. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: And that's for the merit 11 portion of it. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right; they earn 13 that. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Educational. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: By their educational. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Good point. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. You're 18 correct. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would 1 percent -- 20 with seven employees, can -- could you spread that around 21 to -- 22 MS. UECKER: No, it would have to be two and 23 a half percent for you to be able to give everybody a 24 one-step raise. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 9-1-04 wk 90 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So you couldn't just 2 give it to all; it would be one person. 3 MS. UECKER: No. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wouldn't make sense 5 to do that. 6 MS. UECKER: You could give them -- 7 MS. RECTOR: Give a step. 8 MS. UECKER: Yeah, probably be one step to 9 one person, is what would it amount to. That's why I would 10 suggest that it be a little more than 1 and a half -- or 11 1 percent. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, let me ask my 13 question -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Give you $1,900. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- please. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: $1,800. $189,929 are your 17 deputies. Be $1,899 with -- 18 MS. UECKER: That would be a little bit over 19 one step for one person, so it would only include probably 20 one person. So, I would -- my suggestion -- or I would ask 21 that it would be a little bit more than 1 percent. 22 MS. RECTOR: I agree. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's your question, 24 Commissioner? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hell, I don't know. 9-1-04 wk 91 1 MS. UECKER: 'Cause, you know, the reason I'm 2 saying that is, right now I've got two people in mind, just 3 to be honest with you, that I would like to give a merit 4 increase. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wouldn't you -- 6 MS. UECKER: Just because you give a merit 7 increase this year, if they fall back next year, you know, 8 there's nothing that says that I can't take it away from 9 them. You know, I'm pretty smart; I can figure that out. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Good. That would allow you, 12 under current classification schedules, to have a one-step 13 increase for at least two of your people. 14 MS. UECKER: What? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: At the high end, one step at 2 16 and a half percent is $754. 17 MS. UECKER: One percent would? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, 1 percent of your total 19 of -- of your deputy payroll. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What are we trying 21 to do with this? What's our objective? Making merit moneys 22 available? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Let the departments -- 24 MS. UECKER: Make it a part of the budget 25 process, and to -- 9-1-04 wk 92 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's not my 2 question. Are we trying to rate better performance? Are we 3 trying to reward significant -- 4 MS. UECKER: Exactly. We're trying to 5 encourage -- 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Motivate and reward? 7 MS. UECKER: Motivate and reward. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I don't have 9 anything against it, but I'm getting a little concerned on 10 our bottom-line budget, because we haven't talked about 11 that. We're already talking about a 1 and a half -- I mean 12 $1.2 million deficit this year. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we still -- we're 15 still talking about things. So, we're giving a pretty 16 healthy COLA. We've done a lot of adjustments in the past 17 two years on getting people's job descriptions and salary 18 level. I'm just -- I'm just afraid we can't afford it right 19 now. Plus, a lot of y'all weren't here at the end of the 20 last budget workshop, where we're faced with a very 21 difficult year next year on anything that's going to be a 22 carryover expenditure item because of the way the rollback 23 rate's established, and we -- because that building will be 24 paid off, and it's going to put us in a real problem 25 potentially next year, along with the 65 and older, that cap 9-1-04 wk 93 1 we put on earlier this year. We're going to start getting 2 that impact next year, so we need to be a little careful 3 about spending money. So, I'm just -- 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you attribute that 5 type of thinking to your background, by any chance? Or -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The water I drink. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- to the -- your head 8 is just getting squarer and squarer. And redder. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Redder. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And redder. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 12 MS. UECKER: That would allow for one step 13 for two people. And I know that you've given -- you've -- 14 or you've tentatively allowed for more than one step for 15 several other people with no questions asked. Did we have 16 the money then, or last week and not today, or what? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably. 18 MS. UECKER: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I think this is 20 one of those things -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: We keep looking over the fence 22 into somebody else's back yard to see how their grass is 23 growing. 24 MS. UECKER: Well, you try not to, but right 25 is right. 9-1-04 wk 94 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is one of those 2 things that I think -- I mean, nobody up here is jumping for 3 joy over this thing, so it would be one of those things that 4 we put off to the very end. Run -- run all the other 5 numbers first, the things that everyone is excited about, 6 and then if there's extra bucks when we come back, we add 7 that in at the end. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: The Auditor has mentioned that 9 we need to make a specific approval or allocation of the 10 Alternate Dispute Resolution moneys. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. We -- we've agreed 12 to -- I think, tentatively, to fund that -- that process 13 with -- with the revenues that we collect for the previous 14 year. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: What account number are you on 16 there? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: It's -- I'm -- I'm estimating 18 revenue collection about $10,000, and we have a balance of 19 17,6, so we need to budget at least the total of that, which 20 is around $28,000. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And -- 22 MR. TOMLINSON: So, when we know what that 23 amount is, we can remit that to -- to that organization. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: What number have you got 25 plugged in, and what account is that, now? 9-1-04 wk 95 1 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have anything plugged 2 in. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: For the expenditure side. 4 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have anything plugged 5 in for expenditures at this point. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Where is it? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Let's see. Let me find it. 8 It's -- well, I have a different printout than you do. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What fund is it? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: It's 41 -- no, I'm sorry, 11 it's 40. It's on Page 105. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: And it's your recommendation 13 we need to budget approximately $28,000 there? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. That -- that would 15 expend the fund balance, plus the estimate for '04-'05. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page are you on, 17 Judge? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: 105. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $28,000? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there a requirement that we 21 expend that as we get it? Or -- 22 MR. TOMLINSON: No. No, we -- this is the 23 only thing we can use this fund for. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: And -- 9-1-04 wk 96 1 JUDGE TINLEY: And they need those funds? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, and they need them. 3 So, there's no reason to keep them in the fund balance. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come to the 5 Ingram Lake Estates Road District. You were just talking 6 about the tax rate there, weren't you? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I just want to remind 8 the Court before someone forgets that we do have to 9 establish a rate for -- for that road district. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we need to be sure and 11 plug that into the agenda item, the establishment -- the 12 setting the Lake Ingram Estates road tax rate. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: I have -- I have calculated 14 what the -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. But that's something 16 that -- that Ms. Mitchell needs to be sure that we get 17 included on our agenda. Notice how I shifted that from me 18 to her? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, I did. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I noticed it, Judge. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I knew you did. I 22 wasn't going to ask you. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Another item that I got on 25 here is the KARFA. There was some communication from 9-1-1 9-1-04 wk 97 1 relative to KARFA. I'm not sure how that relates to -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it was 3 related to this -- well, directly related to it, anyway, 4 unless they were going to -- that was more about their 5 pagers and that type thing. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think 9-1-1 is 7 reminding KARFA that they don't have any obligation to 8 provide them financial support for their communications 9 equipment. It went on to say this doesn't mean we're going 10 to stop giving you some help, but we don't have any 11 obligation to. They're going to deal with that tonight in 12 the KARFA meeting. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me fill you in a 15 little bit, let the -- fill the Court in a little bit about 16 my visit to Elm Pass Volunteer Fire Department last night, 17 and -- and my conversation with Danny Smith of Center Point 18 with respect to the KARFA proposal for the grant moneys for 19 communications. My Elm Pass people didn't know anything 20 about it, and so my purpose in visiting with them was to 21 find that out, and to elicit their support for it or 22 concerns about it, whichever. The bottom line was, I ended 23 up giving them a bunch of questions that they needed to 24 satisfy themselves about. What's it all about? What's it 25 going to cost? Who's going to own it? Who's going to 9-1-04 wk 98 1 maintain it? What are the ongoing costs every year 2 hereafter? None of which they'd ever talked about. 3 Center Point Chief thought he remembered a -- 4 some kind of discussion in a KARFA meeting a couple months 5 ago, but he couldn't seem to recall exactly what that was 6 all about. Which, I guess, brings me to the bottom line 7 with that. I don't have any feelings that it's not good, 8 but I'm wondering, in light of my experience with Elm Pass 9 and Center Point -- and I don't know what your experiences 10 are with your fire guys -- I'm wondering if, rather than our 11 funding a line item of that for a grant match, if we just 12 spread the money across our fire departments and give them 13 the benefit of using those funds, or the other $1,000 or so 14 for that purpose. If they choose to participate and support 15 it, let that be their decision, instead of making a decision 16 for them. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I -- my 18 recollection was that for us to expend -- to not distribute 19 those funds, every volunteer fire department had to sign on 20 that they wanted -- or, you know, a majority or something 21 like that, that they -- that's what they all wanted. If 22 they don't want it, I don't think we should do it. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, hopefully we'll 25 be able to increase the volunteers' budget by $1,000 or 9-1-04 wk 99 1 $1,500, something like that, which we try to do every year. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And go ahead and do 4 that. Go ahead and add on $1,500 to each department, and 5 then let them decide if they want to take that $1,500 and 6 apply it towards the KARFA program. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's really what 9 I'm saying. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Procedurally, will 11 that work if they all got together to say, "Yeah, let's put 12 up this 10 percent matching"? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. I'm 14 just trying -- I'm explaining what Bill's saying, is all I 15 was doing. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My question is, is 17 that a bona fide matching? Can they do it, or do we have to 18 do it, to put the matching funds up? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: The Auditor has some thoughts 20 here. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: There -- sometimes those 22 matching grants require a funding from the governmental 23 entity. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: That's -- 9-1-04 wk 100 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: "I don't know" is 2 the answer. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: That's sponsoring the grant 4 application. So, if those individual departments have the 5 money to match with, that might not -- that might not do 6 what they want to do. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Question. If it was their 8 desire to use, say, $1,500 apiece, could we transfer that 9 over to a grant match line item in their budget from each of 10 their respective -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: -- line item accounts, and 13 then Kerr County be the -- 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: -- sponsoring entity? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: That's fine. If the -- but 17 we would have to know at -- at what point we couldn't -- we 18 couldn't fund their -- their invoices up until this $1,500. 19 In other words, we don't want to -- if somebody comes in 20 with insurance bills and -- and expenses that exceed their 21 $11,000 now, plus the extra $1,500, we don't want to spend 22 into that $1,500 until we know that -- that they don't want 23 to use the $1,500. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: You can just flag each one of 25 their budget accounts at $1,500. 9-1-04 wk 101 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Most of them submit -- I 2 mean, one bill knocks out the whole -- whole thing. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: So, you know, I just don't 4 want to overspend those individual line items before I know 5 that they are going to use it. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can put it in the 7 individual accounts, and not fund any of them till 8 December 1st. And then they have until December 1st to let 9 us know if they want us to put it in a separate account and 10 do the matching. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It may be a moot 12 point. They may not be able to meet this hurdle of majority 13 or most of them saying that they -- they prefer to buy the 14 equipment rather than have the funds. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: KARFA has a meeting tonight, 16 though. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They may talk about 18 it. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know who's 21 affected by it. They tell me that there are some in the 22 south and east part of the county that have the same 23 problem. Ingram is not -- they don't have these blind 24 spots. Hunt and Mountain Home certainly are, and it's 25 recent anecdotal data that supports it. Not long ago -- a 9-1-04 wk 102 1 few weeks ago, there was a serious injury near Camp Stewart 2 on 1340, and Lifeflight was called out. And Lifeflight was 3 lost over on the South Fork, and the First Responder could 4 not make contact to tell them that their helicopter wasn't 5 there; that they heard it a while ago, but can't get in 6 contact with him. So, that was a mess. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there's 8 definitely areas in my precinct that don't get good 9 coverage, but I don't know where you'd put a new tower or 10 anything that's going to help much. I mean -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I had an interesting 12 discussion with David -- Marrs, is it? -- over here at 13 Advantage Communications yesterday. I called him, 'cause I 14 wanted to know more about what he's working with them on and 15 how he sees it. And he's still working on it, and he didn't 16 have his numbers and all that together, but he was -- he was 17 indicating that there would be repeaters put on -- for the 18 most part, he thought there would be repeaters put on 19 existing towers, and maybe in the western half via tower, 20 but no sites have been chosen. No towers have been 21 selected. No costs have been assembled and all that kind of 22 stuff, so it's still kind of in a nebular form. So, when I 23 went out to Elm Pass last night, they admitted to knowledge 24 of -- most of you say there are some dead spots, and they've 25 experienced some too. A thought just occurred to me. Maybe 9-1-04 wk 103 1 it's better for us to give it to them in their budgets, and 2 if they sign off and they're satisfied, then they can use it 3 that way. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's defer this and 5 see if we hear anything from KARFA tomorrow. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably a good idea. Health 8 Insurance Consultant. We don't have a handle on that yet, 9 and I think we got in our first proposal earlier today. 10 MS. MITCHELL: It was e-mailed. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: On the -- on the solicitations 12 that we made. So, you know, we're really not in a position 13 to do anything meaningful there. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Victim's Rights Coordinator. 16 The District Attorney of the 216th furnished a letter in 17 support of the Victim's Rights Coordinator, and also gave us 18 an explanation about his inability to fund out of -- out of 19 seizure funds, because by contract he's committed to give 20 those proceeds to the Narcotics Task Force. But the letter 21 that each of you received a copy of is in support. There 22 was also a letter of support furnished by the City of Ingram 23 Marshal's office, as I recall. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: And were there any others, 9-1-04 wk 104 1 Mr. Motley, that you're aware of? 2 MR. MOTLEY: No, sir. I talked to the 3 Sheriff. I think the Sheriff's in support of it. I have 4 not talked to police; as a matter of fact, I've not met the 5 new police chief, but the one from Ingram -- from the 6 marshal -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 8 MR. MOTLEY: -- I think Roland's in favor of 9 it. By the way, I came today really for the purpose of 10 being here because I was unable to be here at the last 11 meeting when you considered this -- what I'm calling a 12 modified supplemental budget request. I just wanted to -- I 13 had to be out, and I wanted to be here to, I guess, be a 14 resource if you had any questions about what I submitted the 15 last time. Somebody told me that one of the Commissioners 16 observed that it didn't add up, and I added it up on my 17 trusty calculator, so I think it added up. But this was 18 just to try to do this thing in the halftime deal for the 19 first nine months of the fiscal year. I think we can find 20 $5,000 in the current budget if we transfer it. I don't 21 know if we can do this -- I haven't talked to Tommy -- from 22 this budget year to next budget year, so-to-speak, to fund 23 it, but we're going to have $5,000 at least surplus in one 24 line item, and we -- we can do that, I think, pretty easy. 25 You know, I'd say certainly we can do that. 9-1-04 wk 105 1 JUDGE TINLEY: The way that it operates, if I 2 understand it correctly, is at the end of this budget year, 3 whatever's not used in any budgets comes back into the 4 common till, and then you just start over from -- from 5 baseline with the new budget. Correct? 6 MR. MOTLEY: I think that's correct. I don't 7 know how much y'all get back in at the end of the year. I 8 figure it's a pretty small amount. I'm saying I know I at 9 least have $5,000 to put into the General Fund next year. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 MR. MOTLEY: But we -- you know, we'd be -- 12 we're still interested in doing this, and I think it's a 13 good thing. And, you know, I have more data and such if 14 y'all need it, but I can explain this. If -- if it requires 15 explanation, I can do that. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It sounds like the -- the 18 victims rights -- most are in favor of it. And, as I 19 understand it, this is a partial funding for the year, with 20 the idea that a grant will come in the third quarter of the 21 year. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There seems to be 23 some strong sense that there -- there's AACOG money out 24 there; is that correct, Sheriff? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, what the deal 9-1-04 wk 106 1 is -- and we've pushed for this for several years. The 2 grant stuff just never got in on time. There is some AACOG 3 money specifically for a victims coordinator, and all the 4 prosecutors and myself, and even the new police chief have 5 talked about this. Everybody agrees it's needed, because we 6 all have to have somebody individually, you know, in our 7 departments right now doing it, which has worked for years, 8 but there's just a great need for one person to do it. But 9 that grant time period is coming up. You know, I think 10 there are some people in this county that are definitely 11 pushing to apply for that grant to fund the whole program, 12 just like it's done in Kendall County year after year. And, 13 until that time, you know, we're making it with what we have 14 to do, but it is a needed position. I hope this Court 15 supports it when we go to applying for the grant. But I 16 think it can be funded totally by the grant. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: The proposition, as I 18 understand it now, is a proposal to -- for the Court to fund 19 the Kerr County Crime Victims Coordinator on a part-time 20 basis for three-fourths of a year. Three-quarters, until a 21 grant would be available through AACOG. And, obviously, at 22 that point, the County would be the sponsoring agency for 23 the grant. 24 MR. MOTLEY: That would be a 90 -- I mean an 25 80/20 split. 9-1-04 wk 107 1 JUDGE TINLEY: 80/20. 2 MR. MOTLEY: You've got it right. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A lot of that 20, I 4 think, can be an in-kind type deal, like office space. What 5 else? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: And equipment and things of 7 that nature, yeah. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But my only thing -- and 9 I'm not trying to -- to knock the program; I support it 10 1,000 percent, you know. We've needed it for years. But I 11 would like to personally see what happens to the grant, 12 'cause if the grant doesn't come through, is the County 13 going to be able to -- to at that point fund that entire 14 department year after year after year? You know. That -- I 15 don't know what the State's going to do with a lot of their 16 grant money. Everything's up in the air, as Commissioner 17 Williams can say, over a lot of the AACOG grants in getting 18 shuffled around of moneys. And -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's been a 20 reduction in state -- in funding. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But it's one of our -- 22 in our Community Plan, which was just rewritten, it's been 23 now put as a number one priority for Kerr County to get a 24 Crime Victims Coordinator, one person that handles it all 25 the time. And I think we stand a real good chance of 9-1-04 wk 108 1 getting that grant through AACOG. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems to me that we're 3 probably at a point to fund it. If we get the grant, it'll 4 continue. If it doesn't, there's going to have to be a real 5 good, close analysis to see if it's worth it, or to go back 6 to the way it was done before. I mean, that -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Your sense is to get it 8 started on -- on a halftime -- part-time basis, and 9 hopefully it can be picked up on a full-time basis in June 10 or July? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And whoever this 12 part-time person is -- I guess Mr. Motley's the one that 13 hires that person -- needs to be real aware that this is 14 a -- you know, if it's not -- we don't get the grant, it'll 15 probably start being phased out. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My sense is that 18 it's one of these things that would be desirable to have, 19 nice to have, but it's not broke and doesn't require a fix. 20 And it does put another body on the -- on the local 21 government payroll, and I think we've already got too many 22 bodies on the local government payroll. So, while I'd like 23 to have it and wish we could afford it, I don't support it. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I support it. I think 25 it's one of those things that is not only needed, but when 9-1-04 wk 109 1 you start evaluating what government does, and particularly 2 local county government, what they do is -- you're dealing 3 with people. And this is one of those areas where you're 4 not only dealing with people; you're dealing with hurting 5 people. And if -- if we have -- if this Commissioners Court 6 or the City Council has a function at all, it's to take care 7 of this kind of issue. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I think that we 10 ought to go for a grant and see if we can't get some new 11 ambulances. Go ahead. I just thought I'd throw that in. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think there's value 13 in the position, and I think that we have a good opportunity 14 of getting grant money to fund it. So, what we're really 15 talking about is, if this funding part-time -- I'm not sure 16 we can figure that out. Right, Sheriff? 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, that's what you'd 18 be talking about if you fund it. Be a part-time person. 19 Most of that first year is probably going to be spent going 20 through training. There's a lot of state training and all 21 that for several months. And, like I said, right now, every 22 department has a person that is a Crime Victim's 23 Coordinator. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "Every department" 25 meaning? 9-1-04 wk 110 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Every prosecutor's -- 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Every prosecutor, 3 sheriff's Office, police department. We all have to have a 4 Crime Victim Coordinator liaison in our department, and I 5 have a female investigator that works directly with crime 6 victims. Now, when it was a real serious one and trying to 7 get some of the funding, we have the forms we give them to 8 help and get back their costs of medical, and we try and 9 talk. We don't deal with them as much as a victim would 10 probably like to be dealt with, you know, keeping them 11 informed of everything, but we do help them get all their 12 forms filled out, sent in to Austin, which is one of the 13 major components of that. Now, when we had one -- the big 14 capital murder case in Mr. Letz' precinct, the Crime 15 Victim's Coordinator that is full-time that knew the victims 16 from Kendall County stepped in and took care of that, and 17 has helped with those victims. It's kind of like we did 18 with the S.A.N.E. program, went out for a grant to keep it 19 going, because it's definitely needed. Whether the Court 20 wants to fund it for part of a year, or we just wait until 21 grant time and see if we can kick it off that way, you can 22 look at it two different ways. If it's already in 23 existence, being partially funded, that could help get the 24 grant even a little bit more secure. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 9-1-04 wk 111 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If it's not, we're just 2 going after the grant and seeing what happens. It's a 3 position that is seriously needed in this county to take 4 care of this county. I think you have one prosecutor that 5 says -- and the judges that we've talked to; we've talked 6 about trying it in Kerr County. So, you probably have a 7 prosecutor in the 198th that's not too worried about 8 committing to it, because it's not going to affect Kimball 9 and -- and Mason and Menard counties. It's going to be for 10 Kerr County, okay. They still do it the way we currently it 11 in those other counties, so he may not want to donate to it 12 out of his account. Bruce, I can understand his explanation 13 for it; it's something that the State will help us do, and 14 just kind of wait and see. I don't know what the Court 15 wants to do on it. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the -- the initiation 17 of it on -- on a part-time basis indicates a commitment to 18 that type of program. I think that, plus our Community Plan 19 prioritization of victims' rights as being a number-one 20 priority, I think all of those will -- will be pluses in 21 getting the appropriate grant funding. But, by the same 22 token, I -- I think if we -- if we do it on a -- on a 23 part-time, phase-in basis, whoever's involved in that 24 process needs to be made aware that -- that the pendency of 25 the future of the program is tied to the grant funding. 9-1-04 wk 112 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, the one thing it 2 would -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: At least for the first year or 4 so. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One thing it also would 6 help on having a part-time basis right now is then you would 7 have one person, you know, already that can start getting 8 that grant ready to prepare and permit -- or submit a grant 9 to AACOG shortly, where -- where the way it is currently is, 10 who's going to submit the grant? Who's going to -- we don't 11 have anybody that can really spend all the time gathering up 12 all these stats. So, you're -- you're doing a lot more than 13 just the victim's deal right off the bat. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who's going to 15 prepare the grant? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The person -- the 17 part-time person, if they want to keep their job. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The part-time person. 19 That, or Motley's office. 20 MR. MOTLEY: I think I'm ultimately 21 responsible for that. Whether I get some help or not -- I 22 might have done it before, but -- you know, so I think I'm 23 going to be responsible. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have two questions. 25 One, do we have any idea how many years this grant's going 9-1-04 wk 113 1 to go? Is it one of those three-year deals, and then -- and 2 then we're on our own? 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's a year-to-year 4 grant. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, it's renewal 6 each year. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it could run 10 8 years or 15? 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It could run -- yeah, 10 till eternity. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I got a feeling 12 this is one of those long-range deals, too. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because people like it 15 so much. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think if you get it 17 established, it's renewable. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Then my other question 19 is, the comments that Bruce made on there about his money's 20 going to 216th Drug Task Force, it's my understanding that 21 their funding is drastically being cut by the State. Is 22 that going to affect us? Are we -- is there something that 23 we need to -- we need to address in this budget? If not in 24 this budget, I don't want to talk about it any more. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We had a Board of 9-1-04 wk 114 1 Governors meeting this morning. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it going to be 3 addressed in this budget? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I hope not. Okay? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me too. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It shouldn't be. 7 There's -- it's before the House and in Washington right 8 now. There is a possibility of cutting the funding for all 9 the task forces statewide or to Texas by 36 percent, which, 10 if this happens, it could end up being -- cutting the 11 Narcotics Task Force by up to 50 percent. The State's going 12 to look at -- and there's some other plans in there to look 13 at making that money up. But the bad part of that is, it 14 could come back on local entities to fund 100 percent of 15 their officers' salaries, or -- or entities doing their own 16 Narcotics Task Force there. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's going to -- it's 19 going to change. It's going to cost somewhere. The biggest 20 problem you have with that is their grant period runs June 21 to June, so we don't know what's going to happen. We could 22 come back at June and say, "Commissioners, we got a 23 problem." If we want to keep working our guys, you know, 24 somebody's going to have to fund these -- these positions. 25 Or the County's going to have to start their own, or City 9-1-04 wk 115 1 and County go jointly or apply for other grants somewhere. 2 I just -- nobody knows at this point. And that was as of 3 this morning in our meeting. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Apparently nothing we 5 can see on the horizon. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Rusty, very 7 much. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're welcome. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the part-time 10 amount we need to put in, if any? 11 MR. MOTLEY: What -- how much to fund it? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 13 MR. MOTLEY: Well, this is -- again, this is 14 an estimate. I think it's better than the first one. I 15 came up with $12,418 for the County. That would be funding 16 100 percent, a halftime position for nine months. And those 17 are estimates. I understand that the -- the 216th D.A. has 18 some office space that we possibly could use. Not really 19 sure where we are on furniture, office space, file cabinets, 20 that sort of stuff. I think we'd have some surplus stuff -- 21 MS. UECKER: I've got file cabinets. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I could probably 23 provide some. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: $12,000? 25 MR. MOTLEY: $12,418 is what I came up with, 9-1-04 wk 116 1 if we take $5,000. If $5,000 of my surplus this year goes 2 into next year's General Fund, $5,000 out of that. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: No, we can't do that. No. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, are we at $12,000 or 5 are we at $17,000? 6 MR. MOTLEY: No -- okay. Right, then 17. 7 17,4. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: That's going to cover nine 9 months of operation? 10 MR. MOTLEY: Hmm? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: That'll cover nine months of 12 operation? 13 MR. MOTLEY: That's the way I calculated it, 14 part-time, half salary with no -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Benefits. 16 MR. MOTLEY: -- retirement and no insurance. 17 A laptop, a cell phone with pager, travel, office supplies, 18 training education. That's $17,418, is the way I figured 19 it. I don't know of anything else I left out. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Also on there, on the 21 training, I do send my officers still. I always send a 22 couple of them, and if it would help, we could probably help 23 with the training issues. I don't know what funds he's got 24 in there. Because -- because I can send two a lot of times. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: $18,000? 9-1-04 wk 117 1 MR. MOTLEY: $17,418, 17,5. Whatever -- 2 that's what I would calculate to do it for nine months, a 3 part-time deal. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: $18,000? 5 MR. MOTLEY: Well, y'all are big on rounding, 6 but that's about right. 7 (Discussion off the record.) 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm curious why -- 9 this really doesn't mean anything, I guess, but I'm just 10 curious. Do we want to house that person at the D.A.'s 11 office? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Put them out next to the 13 County Attorney, but that's -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Downstairs. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Does that handle it on 16 the crime victims -- okay. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm with you. I 18 don't understand that either. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Unless somebody has something 20 on City/County projects, I'm at the end of my list. 21 Commissioner Letz, have you got anything now -- between now 22 and 4:15 that you'd like to talk about on City/County 23 projects? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't believe so. I 25 think -- I mean, airport. We'll talk about that at our next 9-1-04 wk 118 1 meeting. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there some differential in 3 the funding issues? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, nothing different, 5 but it's -- it'll go to the Airport Board between now and 6 then. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I do have -- I 9 do want to have a conversation about something. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As far as City/County 12 relationships are concerned, what I would like to do -- I 13 mean, this -- in my mind, this thing has gotten way out of 14 hand. Whatever this thing is. I mean, I'd like to -- I'd 15 like to identify what that thing is, and I don't know how to 16 do that. By me going to the coffee shop and listening to 17 the group of doctors talk about it, and Bill and I going and 18 playing golf and talking about it, you never get to it. The 19 only way to get to the -- figure out what that thing is, is 20 to sit down with those men, look them in the eye and have a 21 visit. I don't know of any other way. So, what I -- what 22 I'm going to propose is -- is I would like to put together a 23 dinner here in the courthouse, in our -- one of the new jury 24 rooms over in the new courthouse, like we did a few years 25 ago -- couple of years ago. Get a restaurant to come in and 9-1-04 wk 119 1 cater dinner, and invite the policymakers from the City of 2 Kerrville to come over and have dinner with us. 3 Now, they can -- if they want to charter 4 buses and bring staff over here, I don't care. That -- 5 that's fine; we'll feed them too. But my thing is, I'd like 6 to see us sit down at the table and look eye-to-eye with the 7 policymakers of the City and find out what this thing is, 8 what this problem is. And, again, if -- if I'm the problem, 9 I want that pointed out, and I want to apologize and get it 10 out there on the table and get it dealt with. If Bill's the 11 problem, I want him to confess that up and get it out there 12 on the table, and let's deal with it. If they're the 13 problem, I want them to cough it up and get it out there. 14 We need to get through this thing. This is not hurting me 15 and it's not hurting you. It's not hurting whatever his 16 name is that runs the City; it's not hurting him in any way. 17 It's hurting the taxpayers of this county, and that is a 18 bad, bad thing. We're not being -- we're not being good 19 leaders by letting this thing go, I'm telling you. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't think it's 21 going -- I don't think it's been let go. I think there's 22 been ample -- you know, certainly, through the press up to 23 now. But I have a call in to one of the City Councilmen 24 basically saying, you know, we want to talk. And, so, 25 that's what we've been saying for the last three months. 9-1-04 wk 120 1 But I think your -- your proposal is great, and we need to 2 do it, because they haven't responded to any of these 3 individual requests. They've -- 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe if we break 5 bread with the brethren type thing. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a great 7 idea. And I think the last time -- I think they paid the 8 last time, so we ought to pay this time. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Only 40 percent. 10 (Laughter.) 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the -- I 12 think Commissioner Baldwin's point is valid, and I think the 13 suggestion that he makes with respect to our having 14 one-on-ones with the -- with our brethren on the other end 15 of Main Street, I think, should be limited to the 16 policymakers. We're the policymakers of the County, and 17 they're the policymakers, and I think that's where it begins 18 and that's where it stops. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree with that. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And see where it 21 takes us. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I agree, but I 23 also -- we're different than the City. They are 24 policymakers only. We are policymakers, and we're also 25 implementers. 9-1-04 wk 121 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that is -- that is 3 part of it, I think. And I've talked to the City Manager 4 about this. They look at us as -- he looks at the City 5 Council. Well, I look at myself as City Council and City 6 Manager combined. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that, 8 Jon. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think that the City 10 Manager -- if they want him to be present, I have no problem 11 with him being present. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have a problem 13 with that either. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather not have the 15 whole staff from the City here. Costs too much. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's their deal. 17 But the people that are elected officials, that the name is 18 on the line, where the rubber meets the road -- is that how 19 you said it? -- is the people I want to deal with. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so do y'all want 22 to have supper or not? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay with me. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, do you have any 9-1-04 wk 122 1 thoughts? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to ask the first 3 question my son always asks me when I invite him for dinner. 4 What's for dinner? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably fajitas. 6 It'd just be my guess, just right off the top of my head. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know why he does that. 8 I think he's rude for doing it, but he does that to me. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I think he's 10 pretty smart. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We had fajitas last time. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm all for issuing 14 an invitation. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you going to put it 16 on the agenda for us to formally do it, or just going to go 17 ahead and do it? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me -- let me 19 remind the Court, there's going to be a joint meeting of 20 Council and the Court under the -- at the invitation of KEDF 21 on September 9th. We can -- we can extend an invitation for 22 what you're talking about at that time. Or we can do it 23 differently, but we're going to -- we're going to be 24 together, if we choose to attend, as posted for September 9. 25 Am I right, Judge? Or will be posted. 9-1-04 wk 123 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I believe that's correct. 2 We've got -- both the Council and the Court's invited to 3 both executive committee and -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The full board. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: The full board meeting. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When is this? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: September 9. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Today's September 1. 9 When are we getting an invitation? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Week from tomorrow. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I hadn't heard of this 12 before. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I hadn't either. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think that's a 15 totally different thing. It's not at all what we need to 16 discuss -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- for joint projects. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, we wouldn't be 20 discussing those other things there, I understand that. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what I'm going -- 22 I guess the best way to handle this thing is let me snoop 23 around over there and find out when's a good date for them, 24 and I'll poll you guys as well, and then I'll bring it back 25 and we'll make an agenda item and do an official deal from 9-1-04 wk 124 1 that point from the whole Court. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we can leave it in 3 your capable hands -- 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I believe so. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: -- for now, Mr. Baldwin. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I believe so. I've 7 got another question. Judge, I've got some paperwork here 8 that I'm not -- that I don't understand what it is, and I 9 just have one simple question. It's dealing with the 10 juvenile system issue. Let's see. This letter from Bob 11 Henderson, which he's the financial guru -- I take that 12 back. It's from Tom Spurgeon. He's the attorney, if my 13 memory serves me. It says here, in -- in the alternative 14 ways to -- for -- to get the funding out to the Juvenile 15 Detention Facility, this one sentence in here, it says a 16 notice of nonappropriation. Notice of nonappropriation. 17 That's in his notes. And then we get -- I assume this 18 letter from you -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- is to us? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it is. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And is this that 23 notice -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: No. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that he refers to? 9-1-04 wk 125 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's two different 2 notices. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: There's two different. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can I broaden my 6 question to two notices? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Define what those are. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: They deal with the provisions 10 under the lease arrangement on the Juvenile Detention 11 Facility, and the technical requirements each year under 12 that lease as to the appropriation or nonappropriation of 13 funds by, first, the Juvenile Board -- which, of course, the 14 Juvenile Board, other than being in existence, doesn't have 15 a big, fat budget, as you well know. And then the County -- 16 Secretary, under its lease with the -- with the facility, 17 that corporation. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is that? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: That's from the Juvenile Board 20 to the County. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, I mean, is it -- 22 is it one of the requirements of -- of an agreement? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Okay, that's 25 what you're telling me. 9-1-04 wk 126 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it's not what he's 5 referring to as a notice of nonappropriation. I mean, 6 that's what it appears to me. I'm just trying to -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: There are two different ones. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: If -- if he's referring to two 10 of them, that's one of them. But there are two of them. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Obviously, one. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's because there is 13 only one. But there are a total of two that fall under the 14 technical requirements of the legal documents concerning 15 that facility and the lease to Kerr County. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all, thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've got to leave. 20 MS. UECKER: Can I -- just one quick -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we going to meet 22 Friday? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I've got it posted for Friday 24 morning. It's up to you guys. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I'll see y'all 9-1-04 wk 127 1 Friday morning. Thank you. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nine something. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll be here. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: 9 o'clock. 5 MS. UECKER: Judge, I have just have one 6 little thing I need to talk about, two minutes -- two and a 7 half. Jack Furman and I were renewing my errors and 8 omissions and our theft policies -- now, wait a minute -- 9 and I realize that, by statute, I was -- I had -- I've been 10 underinsured for counties of our population size. I'm 11 supposed to be insured for theft to 20 percent of the annual 12 money that you handle, but not to exceed $100,000, and that 13 20 percent comes to much more than $100,000, so we've had to 14 increase ours to the limit of $100,000. So, I think that's 15 going to increase the line item for Bonds and Insurance, and 16 we don't know for sure. We're looking for some -- the best 17 price from some insurance companies, but I think we probably 18 need to raise that to about $3,700. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: But you don't know at this 20 point? Is that -- isn't that what you're saying? 21 MS. UECKER: No, I don't. I know it's going 22 to be higher; I just don't know how much. And, based on 23 what the policies -- the other policies cost, you know, I 24 think we can cover it with 37 rather than 32 -- or 3,261. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We surely want you to 9-1-04 wk 128 1 be bonded. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do we do about 4 that right there? Did Tommy automatically write the numbers 5 down? Or -- 6 MR. TOMLINSON: That's what I did. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: He did. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You wrote it down? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly what he did. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, gentlemen? 12 We'll stand adjourned. 13 (Budget Workshop adjourned at 4:26 p.m.) 14 - - - - - - - - - - 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9-1-04 wk 129 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 6th day of October, 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 9-1-04 wk