1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 8 Budget Workshop 9 Friday, September 3, 2004 10 9:00 a.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 Friday, September 3, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., a budget 2 workshop of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in 3 the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me call to order 8 the Commissioners Court workshop scheduled for this time and 9 date, Friday, September 3rd, 2004, at 9 a.m. The workshop 10 was posted for the consideration of budget matters. 11 Constable Terrill, would you check outside? There may be 12 some folks outside that want to come in. We'd sure like to 13 have them in here if they have an interest. We'd sure 14 appreciate that. Mr. Auditor, what do we have? 15 MR. TERRILL: No one out here, Your Honor. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know of anything. I 17 would like to clarify one thing. We -- we talked about it, 18 and I -- I don't know if I got a clearance. We talked about 19 the Information Technology budget, and we requested a 20 part-time person, and I don't recall if -- what the decision 21 was, or if there was one. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think there was -- my 23 recollection is there was not a change from the requested 24 submission that was made on that budget. Someone else may 25 have a better recollection than I do. 9-3-04 wk 3 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, that includes the 2 part-time? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. The discussion that the 4 Auditor was talking about was possibly a Schreiner student 5 on a part-time basis, as I recall. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- and my only 8 comment on this is that the -- you know, in my mind, that 9 department needs to -- has to run smoother this year. And I 10 think, even with extra people, that if it doesn't, I'm going 11 to look for a major change there next year. It's just -- I 12 mean, because it's kind of -- we're trying -- 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we need one today. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Oh, I know that. 15 But I'm just saying, I hope this solves the problem, but if 16 it doesn't, we're going to have to go back to square one and 17 figure out how to make that department work. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: I think -- I think this will 19 help, Commissioner. We have a situation today -- he had to 20 be -- he had to be out of town, and I have a situation right 21 now that needs to be handled. And it's not an emergency, 22 but it would help to have someone in-house right now. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page is that? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I.T.? It's going to be fairly 25 close to the front, I think. 9-3-04 wk 4 1 MR. TOMLINSON: It was 85 hundred -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: I just want to make sure that 4 I understand that. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Eight. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Four point -- let's see. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Page 8. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We didn't do it. At 10 least I haven't got it marked, if we did. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I remember we discussed it, 12 and I don't recall doing anything different than what you'd 13 requested, I think, is -- 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Well, that's what I 15 thought, but I didn't -- I didn't add it to the recommended, 16 because I wasn't absolutely sure. That's -- that's why. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much time do you 18 see this part-time individual and so forth? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I want somebody that 20 has really flexible time that can -- that could do some work 21 in the afternoons late, and maybe some on Saturdays, or that 22 can come in on days that -- that Shaun's off. And -- either 23 that, or let them do some weekend -- weekend work for -- so 24 he won't have to do the weekend work. One -- one or the 25 other. And I'll just -- I mean, it's just a matter of 9-3-04 wk 5 1 trying to schedule someone at variable times, and we can do 2 it. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, does this 4 person need to be a bonded person? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Well -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember us having 7 those discussions at one time. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I mean, they're not 9 going to handle any money. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: They're not going to handle 12 any money. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, okay, that's 14 cool. What about -- I remember the -- another part of the 15 -- I don't remember money ever being a part of the 16 conversation, but things in the District Clerk's Office, 17 jail information, those kinds of things, that are not for 18 the general public's eyes, or -- help me a little bit. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think you have to 20 be -- I don't think the bond -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- I think where 22 he's going -- where Buster is going is, how do you make sure 23 we get someone who's not going to hack into the system and 24 mess something up? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: I understand that. 9-3-04 wk 6 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, is there -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here, let me tie it, 3 Jon. 4 MS. UECKER: You might be thinking more about 5 an errors and omissions policy on this department or 6 something. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe that's what I 8 was thinking. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or getting into 11 sensitive documents or files. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: As a general rule, that 13 person would not be able to enter the -- the program itself. 14 We only want somebody that can fix a PC or a printer, not 15 someone that has access to the program. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay. 17 MR. ALFORD: More of a hardware man. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm looking for a hardware 19 technician, someone that can -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: -- that can troubleshoot a PC 22 or -- or a printer. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, I don't have access 25 to -- to court records. 9-3-04 wk 7 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I feel better 2 now. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, or the Sheriff's 4 records. I can't -- I mean, they're the ones that have the 5 ability to control who gets into their records. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I just -- we'd 7 had that conversation at one point. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I just wanted to 10 make sure that we didn't miss something. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, no one could get into 12 the financial software unless I give them authority to, and 13 they have to have a user name and password to get past the 14 front door. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Well, I didn't 16 know if you were talking about somebody doing data entry 17 or -- 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, no, no, no, no, no. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- or anything like 20 that. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: We're looking for someone 22 that can -- can do some troubleshooting work or -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You answered my 24 question. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: -- answer some questions 9-3-04 wk 8 1 about Excel or Word, or -- 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Viruses. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: -- how to clear up a virus on 4 a computer, those kinds of issues. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, okay. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: You okay now? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I'm committed. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what are we 10 putting in there? This 83? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: I asked for $8,320. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that what we're 13 putting in? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I assume that's what you've 16 got currently plugged in now, isn't it? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: That's what's in the 18 requested column. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Well, that's been 20 included in the numbers that you've been running heretofore, 21 I guess, isn't it? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: I had not run it. The last 23 run I did, I did not include it, because I was not 24 absolutely positive -- 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9-3-04 wk 9 1 MR. TOMLINSON: -- that that's what happened. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate you bringing that 3 to our attention. Is there anything else? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think so. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other members of 6 the Court have anything? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have -- my list has 8 five unresolved items on it. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are they, Jon? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's use your list. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ag Barn; I'm not sure 12 that I understand what we did there. Road and Bridge 13 organization. Juvenile Detention Facility. City projects, 14 which that we can't do until next week or a later date 15 because of -- we're still waiting on some things. And then 16 the salaries, the number 12 position and trying to eliminate 17 or do something. And we may -- that's what -- I think we 18 kind of resolved we weren't going to do anything this year, 19 from my memory, but I want to make sure that I recall that 20 correctly. Those are the items that I don't -- that I still 21 have a question mark as to what we're doing on. I don't 22 know, and there may be others. Those are the bigger ones 23 that I remember. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why don't you give us 25 the first one again. 9-3-04 wk 10 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ag Barn. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ag Barn, okay. Go to 3 the second one. (Laughter.) 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, the second one 5 is -- is Road and Bridge. And that, to me, is -- we can -- 6 I think we can finish that today. My view is, we need to 7 adjust the salary structure that was requested. We -- I'm 8 not uncomfortable eliminating the County Engineer position 9 completely, but I'm also -- but I would be more comfortable 10 with retaining that by reducing it to probably $3,000 11 salary. And, you know, if the current County Engineer wants 12 to stay on and review our information for $3,000 and 13 renegotiate an arrangement, that's fine. If not, we can try 14 to find somebody else. But, I mean, I would -- rather than 15 rely 100 percent on contract fees, I'd rather hire someone 16 on some sort of a basis that's based on -- this is for "X" 17 hours of work doing very specific jobs. That -- and what 18 the person does would be pretty much decided by the Road 19 Administrator, and when we're doing any kind of plat reviews 20 or other reviews that needs an engineer to look at it, let 21 the County Engineer do it up to that, you know, dollar 22 amount for the year. Then we have to go back, like any 23 other budget item. 24 And the reason that, to me, is a little bit 25 more preferable is that it is a little bit more in the gray 9-3-04 wk 11 1 area as to -- related to the 1995 Attorney General opinion. 2 I still think we need some reason to eliminate the position 3 altogether, the way I read that opinion. And I think if we 4 put a very -- a -- you know, if we put a salary on it and no 5 one wants it, well, then it's thereby eliminated. But if we 6 put a -- I mean, to me, you have to put that step -- that 7 offer out there, and if no one accepts it, well, then you go 8 to the contract basis totally -- you eliminate it totally. 9 On the salaries -- I don't know where that page is. Where 10 is it? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know where 12 that page went either. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's back in this 14 thing. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It seemed like to me 16 it was in the back of something, back two pages of 17 something. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that thing 19 Leonard gave us. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Here it is. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What does it look 22 like? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is the front. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: You got it right there. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's Road and Bridge, 9-3-04 wk 12 1 about the middle of it. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Position schedule. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, got it. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have visited with Len 6 Odom a little bit more about this part of it. In my 7 opinion, the amount requested by Mr. Odom is way too high. 8 I would reduce it, you know, to $10,000. I think that the 9 amount requested for the administrative assistant out there 10 is too high; I think that should be $3,600. And I think the 11 amount listed for the two current supervisors is too low, 12 and I think that should go to $1,500 or $1,800, somewhere in 13 there. $1,500. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll go $1,000. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $1,000? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you on 17 those other two, though. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, you know, I -- and 19 the reason -- the logic that I have, I think that it's a -- 20 I want to see more subdivision oversight than we have had 21 under the current system. I would like to see the -- and 22 this is during the construction phase of subdivisions, and 23 also reviewing and see things that are going, and I think 24 that they're -- the two supervisors that were designated 25 here are very qualified to do those ongoing inspections 9-3-04 wk 13 1 during construction. You know, my conversations with 2 Mr. Odom, you know, to me, something about on a weekly 3 basis, every subdivision that's under construction should 4 have one of our -- someone who is knowledgeable driving 5 through it and just checking on things. Know the 6 contractor, have a relationship with the contractor from -- 7 you know what their scheduling is. And I think they should 8 be compensated for their knowledge that they have, if 9 they're going to be doing this inspection-type work. And, 10 to me, $1,500 is a good number for that. But, you know -- 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree with 12 everything you said, including the strategy on the engineer 13 and the compensation adjustments for the people in Road and 14 Bridge. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I differ just a 16 little bit. I feel like that if you're going to do anything 17 with the engineer's office, it's totally eliminated, and the 18 way I read the law, it says "for any reason." And the 19 County Attorney clearly said that, even though that wasn't 20 written in the latest opinion, it had intentions of carrying 21 that language over. So, to me, the clean-cut way to do it 22 is draw a line through the County Engineer's office, and -- 23 and then your -- the plan here of dispersing the work and 24 money is almost a good plan. I agree with you that 25 Mr. Odom's salary -- or the request was twice as high as it 9-3-04 wk 14 1 should be. And Ms. Hardin's salary should drop back to 2 $3,600. But the two supervisors -- I mean, I'm not going to 3 fight over $500 each, but it just -- in my mind, I have -- I 4 just have that $1,000 in there instead of $1,500. But the 5 rest of it, I'm -- I'm for. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sort of. I think the 7 comment, Commissioner, about gray area, I think we're very 8 much in a gray area. And I think that the Attorney 9 General's opinions and Mr. Motley's review of that suggests 10 that if somebody really wanted to challenge it -- and I 11 don't know that anybody does, but if somebody really wanted 12 to challenge it, we might be hard-pressed to find a 13 justifiable reason the way we're heading. However, having 14 said that, I'll go along with it, but I'd like to suggest, 15 instead of just setting the base of $3,000 that's out 16 there -- I'm not sure what the $3,000 is for. I'd much -- 17 I'd be much more comfortable if we were to allocate, 18 perhaps, five under Professional Services, and negotiate 19 a -- a retainer with a registered engineer who will set his 20 rates to do our work, and when the retainer is used up, he's 21 going to bill us at regular engineer's rates. I just have a 22 gut feeling we're going to find that we will use more, just 23 like we did floodplain, than we think we will use sitting 24 here trying to talk about it. So, that's my -- my take on 25 it. I'd like to see us probably establish a $5,000 retainer 9-3-04 wk 15 1 for a registered engineer, who will take on the 2 responsibility of reviewing the work as we give it to him, 3 and obviously will bill us at a negotiated rate, or whatever 4 rates he charges and so forth. I don't guess I have any 5 problem with the -- with the other changes you're proposing 6 in the position schedule at Road and Bridge, but I wish you 7 would give them to me one more time, please. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I had was Road 9 Administrator would get a $10,000 increase. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would make him 11 70,024? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Something like that. 13 Whatever it's currently at. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason for that 16 is oversight of floodplain and oversight of all of the work 17 previously done by the County Engineer. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we going to be 19 plugging in money to train that individual -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- in floodplain, as 22 we did the prior -- the engineer to-date? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have talked to Mr. Odom 24 about that. He does not think it requires as much training 25 as we budgeted last time, but there is some training that 9-3-04 wk 16 1 needs to be budgeted, yes. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He seems to think that 3 it doesn't require a certification at all. Which is -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: For floodplain administration. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. Which 6 is what I have believed for a while. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think we do need to 8 plug in money for training, yes. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Secretary's salary, 10 what would that be? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ms. Hardin. That's -- 12 and we can say the name instead of the position, because it 13 makes it easier. Increase of $3,600. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Plus 36? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I'm not sure how 16 this would work out with Barbara. The reason there is that 17 she's going to take on a lot more responsibility in both 18 floodplain, and kind of -- she will almost be, you know -- 19 and additionally, responsibilities in subdivisions and 20 related work to that, which is going to be almost like a -- 21 in those areas, a deputy-type position, as opposed to a 22 secretarial-type position. Also, in my conversation with 23 Mr. Odom, though it doesn't reflect any salary change, 24 the -- Ms. Guthrie's position would also take on some of 25 Ms. Hardin's current workload, but there'd be no change 9-3-04 wk 17 1 there. It's depending on how that sorts out. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What for the 3 supervisors? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I like $1,500, 5 but I don't -- you know, $1,200 is a good number. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $1,250? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which supervisors are 8 we talking about? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- Doug Koennecke 10 and Joe Biermann are the two that Mr. Odom recommended that 11 would be in that category. They would take on subdivision 12 responsibilities in addition to their other functions. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And how much extra 14 are you talking about? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $1,200 per year. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to say 17 something about them, if I could. They -- I don't know how 18 long they've been here, but a long time, and those two young 19 men are extremely, extremely knowledgeable about every 20 aspect of Road and Bridge functions. They can drive by and 21 see things in a road. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're good guys, 23 both of them. 24 MS. NEMEC: Twenty-eight years. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many? 9-3-04 wk 18 1 MS. NEMEC: Twenty-eight for Koennecke. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God, isn't it time for 3 him to go, then? He's younger than I am. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And as I see -- you know, 5 not counting the training, but including what we spend on 6 floodplain, the savings to that department after these 7 adjustments is about $50,000. Now, we would lose some -- 8 well, I'd say more like $40,000, 'cause if you add training 9 in and you add $5,000 for a new engineer, which -- so about 10 $40,000 savings, which is a pretty significant personnel 11 change in that department. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I understand 13 Commissioner Williams correctly. You're suggesting that, in 14 lieu of a salaried county engineer, we create an item for 15 contract engineering services, and fund it with a $5,000 16 balance; that we then solicit proposals -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: -- from qualified professional 19 engineers? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: For a retainer agreement with 22 a base of that, but to draw upon it on a specified hourly 23 rate, and then to the -- to the extent that it exceeds that 24 $5,000, that he be paid at an hourly rate as specified in 25 that retainer agreement? 9-3-04 wk 19 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my idea, 2 Judge. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: But basically a contract 4 basis? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you -- we'd calculate 7 that, for $5,000, or whatever number we settle on -- we may 8 want it to be $4,000 or $3,000 -- that gives us 30 hours of 9 work. And anything above 30 hours would be at a -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At a negotiated rate. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: At a negotiated rate. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the retainer agreement 13 would be subject to the Court's approval. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But something along that 15 line. I have no problem with that. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's good. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, we'll go along 19 with it. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that works real good. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I think the very 22 next step, before we take another step, is to call Mr. Odom 23 and see if he can agree to these numbers before we go. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is he -- I know he was 25 going on vacation. Has he left? I don't know -- I know he 9-3-04 wk 20 1 had a memo out. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, that's what 3 happens when you start giving people more money; they just 4 get up and leave. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, yeah. I talked to 6 him yesterday. All I can say, based on that conversation, I 7 think he would go along with this, but I certainly don't 8 want to speak for -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I would hate for 10 us to go through this exercise -- let's see if he's there, 11 and then if he says, "No, I'm not going to do it for that 12 kind of money" -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Kathy's going to 14 go and -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- you know, if that's 16 the case, if we can't work the deal out, then -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Come back. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, my opinion is we 19 would go back and put the County Engineer back in, and go on 20 till next year and try it again. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we have a framework for 22 -- to go forward. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Hey, we're 24 close. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I just don't know how badly 9-3-04 wk 21 1 Commissioner Letz was wanting him to bleed orange, as -- as 2 Mr. Odom said. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He'll bleed any color 4 today, after last night's game. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We got hammered. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Stomped. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think this is a -- 8 while we're in a little bit of a -- Kathy went to see if 9 Mr. Odom is around. This is a good example as to how I 10 think the Court would like to have some -- you know, view 11 all departments, look at them, and if we can cut out 12 personnel and reshuffle and use contract, this is what we 13 have in -- at least what I have in mind for all departments 14 to do -- try to do. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Amen. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And increase, you know, 17 those that are remaining to do more work and more 18 responsibility. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And the taxpayers 20 are going to save about $40,000. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hopefully. I think they 22 will. I think, you know, they're -- the one caveat that I 23 would have with this, and I talked to Mr. Odom about this as 24 well, I said, you know, my personal feeling is there may be 25 a need for a part-time clerical person out there at some 9-3-04 wk 22 1 point in the future. He didn't disagree or agree. He 2 said -- but he didn't -- he wanted to try to make it work 3 with current staff. But I think that we are increasing the 4 clerical amount by some out there, and, you know, it depends 5 on -- but that should -- that still would not come close to 6 a full-time salary. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll bet he makes it 8 work. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He very well may. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I suppose we can come back to 11 that item. What's next on your list, Commissioner? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Juvenile Detention 13 Facility. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that suggestion -- 16 I'm unclear as to where we are there, and part of that's 17 because I -- there was a conversation going on when I left 18 on -- when was the last meeting? Wednesday? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I left early, and I don't 21 know what was resolved. And there are some -- I know, some 22 memorandums that we've received related to funding or not 23 funding part of that in our budget, and I kind of wanted to 24 know where we are. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the Juvenile Board 9-3-04 wk 23 1 meets next Tuesday. 2 MS. MITCHELL: He's going to be here in about 3 six minutes. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: And one of the items on that 5 proposed agenda will be that that budget be finalized and 6 approved, and once we have that in-hand, we'll know where 7 we're going on that. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, then we'll -- 9 that will come -- kind of like the City; we're waiting on 10 additional information. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. We'll have to come back 12 to that one. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- well, I 14 can talk to you about it after that board meeting, but I 15 think we need to have some discussion on that as well. On 16 the salaries, the number -- trying to eliminate the position 17 number 12, that was decided we were going to hold off for a 18 year on that, as I recall? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Eliminating the lower 20 12's? Yeah. I think we ought to -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- do a study on it, 23 get it figured out properly. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: You didn't do a run-up on 25 those numbers, did you? 9-3-04 wk 24 1 (Mr. Tomlinson shook his head.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My recollection was we 4 were going to look at that and try to, you know, see if we 5 maybe can redo the whole schedule, try to eliminate the 6 number of slots a little bit, simplify it some, and in doing 7 that, be able to eliminate the low end. But not have to 8 hopefully bump everybody up, though. At least -- maybe bump 9 everybody up some, but not as much as would be required to 10 try to -- under the current setup. And then I have Ag Barn. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me first try and get out 13 of the way -- we don't have any City/County things that we 14 can address here that we haven't already addressed 15 satisfactorily? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's correct. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Back to Ag Barn, I 18 guess. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to ask my 20 colleague to my immediate right if he'd help me put some 21 meat on that strategy skeleton, which would get us down -- 22 you know, which would deal with the nitty-gritty of the 23 strategy. But I think, for these purposes, we got to 24 determine if we're going to go that route, if we're going to 25 allocate money to help formulate a plan and get it ready, as 9-3-04 wk 25 1 opposed to a major capital improvement. So, is that where 2 you are, Commissioner? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not real sure where 4 we are. I mean, I knew we had talked about -- I think -- my 5 recollection was that we were going to get serious about 6 looking at the problem. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I don't know -- I 9 don't -- didn't really recall a budget impact. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, only to this 11 extent. One of the -- one of the topics in that strategy, 12 which I didn't bring with me -- you got it there? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not -- not fund the 15 major improvements, as were being proposed, but use funds 16 that were proposed to design and get us ready to make a 17 final decision on what -- what the new agricultural element 18 would be. So, instead of buying -- for example, instead of 19 buying two air conditioners or whatever, we would put that 20 -- some of that money into Professional Services, and we 21 would get the plan ready to go so it's ready in -- in 22 midyear. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I've 24 been meditating on this, and I've got a couple of questions; 25 help for my understanding, mostly. One's a statement 9-3-04 wk 26 1 question. Are there two issues here? One is the current 2 facility, the Ag Barn, and the traditional uses of it, and 3 then the second issue is the event center. Are those 4 interrelated, or are they discrete? Do we do one without 5 doing the other? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, they're 7 discrete. They're separate and distinct. The facilities 8 corporation creation, however, is part of that, and they 9 will deal with that part of it. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. So, that leads 11 me to my question. They are discrete. So, one way or the 12 other, we're going to have to cure the problem with the 13 current Ag Barn, which is the leaking and tiles and all 14 that. Doesn't that suggest that we should go ahead and deal 15 with that in this budget? That's going to be useful to 16 the -- to go ahead and expend those funds, and not -- it's 17 not going to impact the outcome of how we ultimately remodel 18 or expand or change the Ag Barn? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Except for the -- 20 well, I -- in my mind, I would say no, because of the fact 21 it appears to me that we're looking -- that we're moving 22 for -- we're not moving toward a new roof or new windows. 23 We're looking for a new facility, and which is -- I don't 24 know how long of a term, and I don't know how much money. 25 So, I agree with Bill that we would take the money that we 9-3-04 wk 27 1 were going to fix the new roof, don't fix the new -- put a 2 new roof on there; take that money and use it toward putting 3 together the plan. And I'm assuming that you're hiring some 4 professional architect and planner and all those things that 5 we've done four or five times, and sit down and draw 6 something up. That's -- so I'll -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And get us firm 8 numbers for -- for funding. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was the thrust 11 of the proposal. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I can see us, next 13 year, or -- I mean, I don't know how fast these things move, 14 but I can see us, in the fairly near future, of knowing 15 how -- how we propose to fund it, and move forward. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my other, I 17 guess, concern or question is -- I mean, I think, to me, the 18 first thing we need to explore is what a facilities 19 corporation is and what the benefits are of it, 'cause I 20 just don't know the answer to that. I don't know how they 21 work, and -- you know. Then, I think there -- and these can 22 be done simultaneously -- we need to have another discussion 23 and maybe bring somebody in as to whether we have one 24 building or -- or one facility that does ag and other, or 25 we're going to go with an ag facility and other facility. 9-3-04 wk 28 1 And -- 'cause that's a big -- I mean, that's a big decision. 2 If you go with an events facility and an ag facility, that 3 totally changes what you do with the current exhibit hall. 4 And the reason is, then, to me, you tear it down. You can 5 build a barn -- you can build a pole barn with maybe a 6 concrete floor in it, and that's it. I mean, you don't have 7 any kind of meeting area at all in that facility. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's excellent 9 thinking. That's good, clear thinking. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the right track. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if you're going to go 13 with one facility, one structure or one building, then you 14 may want to rehab and put a new roof on the exhibit hall, 15 use that building, and tear off the barns or the -- the 16 other part behind it. So, I think that there -- you know, 17 you kind of need to get across that hurdle. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I'm across it. 19 Now what? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I am too. Now what? 21 Well, let me make a comment, Jon. Now, I understand what 22 you're talking about, and you and I have had a lot of these 23 types of discussions over the last two years. I think our 24 experience in running that facility shows us that, first of 25 all, we want to take care of the agricultural component. 9-3-04 wk 29 1 But mixing the agricultural component, whatever that is, 2 whatever it entails, and people events is not a good 3 mixture, and I think we need to separate them. If the 4 facilities corporation is -- drags up behind what we're 5 doing on the agriculture side, so be it. If they do their 6 job right -- and I'll get all the information on facilities 7 corporations so everybody knows what it's all about. They 8 can do their job and they can take care of an events center 9 under that set of laws, and worry about how to fund that. 10 We take -- we worry about the agriculture component. I 11 firmly and honestly believe we do not want to mix or 12 continue mixing people events and agricultural events, 13 animal events, in the same structure. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- on that 15 point, that may be the right direction to go, but I think 16 this is -- that is much more of a -- a local political issue 17 than a facility issue, really. I mean, I think there's a 18 lot of opposition in this community, as we found at the last 19 bond issue, to mix them, although I think, in reality, you 20 can do it, and you can do it cost-effectively that way. 21 Probably more cost-effectively. But that's -- that 22 political hurdle is real. And if that means -- to get 23 something done means to do -- you know, build a barn and 24 that's it, you know, I'm pretty much there. But I think it 25 just -- you know, I can look at it. 9-3-04 wk 30 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask -- I've got 2 a couple more questions. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The facilities 5 corporation, how is that -- how do you form one of those 6 groups? By appointment? Do you have a lottery? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe it's by 8 appointment by Commissioners Court. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, see, I'm real 10 comfortable with that. If each one of us would choose a 11 person from the community to serve on that corporation, that 12 makes me feel better about that group. Number two, I got 13 just a little bit lost the other day, and that -- that 14 group, the facilities corporation, would go over and build 15 the meeting/dining room, et cetera? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And events center. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Events center. Let me 18 write that down, "events center." And then this 19 Commissioners Court would be responsible for the Ag Barn -- 20 pole barn, goat barn, whatever, that part of it. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the rehab of the 22 existing arena. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. Then, when 24 we get both of those things built, and we want to start 25 talking about who's going to manage the whole thing, 9-3-04 wk 31 1 including the event center and the hog barn, then is the -- 2 the facilities corporation then is out of the picture? They 3 won't have anything to do with management of the facility? 4 We go and find another group, then, to manage the facility? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The ag facility or 6 the -- or the other, or both? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Both. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's a 9 discussion the Court would have to have. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought we had that 11 the other day. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It could be that the 13 facilities corp. could run them both. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It could be that the 15 facilities corp. could run them? Build it and run it? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, just to follow up on 19 that, it could run one or both, so we -- the County could 20 run the ag, and the facilities corporation could run the 21 other, and -- or the Court could decide that we don't like 22 the facilities corporation, and we're going to hire a 23 manager. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or the other way 9-3-04 wk 32 1 around. We could decide we don't want to manage it, and let 2 them manage the whole thing. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the first 5 subject of the subsequent discussion, but those are options 6 that are ours. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, but I think 8 that's a part of this political hurdle that he's -- that 9 he's talking about. There's a check in here somewhere that 10 we need -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- to kind of take a 13 look at. But I wanted to bring up something on your -- your 14 list here. "Cancel all bookings for facility." I don't see 15 how you -- we can do that. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have contracts with 18 people. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We may not be able to 20 do that. I think that speaks to something the Judge 21 mentioned the other day. We have 4-H events; we have a lot 22 of -- we have some paying events that are scheduled. I've 23 already had some phone calls, and probably you have too -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I sure have. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- as to what 9-3-04 wk 33 1 we're -- our intention is. If that's not a practical way to 2 go, then we won't do it. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think there's any 4 need to do it at this time. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cancel? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, cancel. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, not at all. I 8 don't either. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You know, that's -- 10 I'm cool with that. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If the ceiling falls 12 in on somebody's pet poodle, then -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the Judge's fault. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- it's the Judge's 15 fault. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My thought only was 17 if we scaled back the operation, there might be some savings 18 in Mr. Holekamp's budget. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- so I guess the 21 only thing that I have a little bit of a -- I don't know -- 22 I hate to use the word "problem," but a hurdle to get across 23 still, is the current budget impact of this proposal is 24 budgeting money to hire a consulting firm. You know, we've 25 done -- we've done this twice. We have a bunch of data on 9-3-04 wk 34 1 what can be built out there. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, we do. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just don't think we're 4 going to get anything different by hiring another one. I 5 mean, I think that this Court knows the options. We can 6 build a pole barn, or we can build what we had in the bond 7 issue, or we can build what was -- the grandiose plan we had 8 last time. I mean, we know there's various options. The 9 components would be, you know, whether you put it in one 10 location or we split them into two, but we know the square 11 footage, what we need. We know -- we know all -- all of the 12 data is available, so I certainly don't want to get another 13 consultant on board again. I just don't see the point at 14 this point with that. Now, I think we do need possibly to 15 hire somebody, more from a construction standpoint, as to 16 come up with costs as to what the square footage cost is, 17 and I'm talking, you know, a couple thousand dollars to hire 18 someone to say, okay, you know, we can get -- cut all these 19 little things out, move them around on paper. Someone to 20 say, okay, what's it going to cost to build this within 21 10 percent variance? And maybe it's $10,000; I don't know 22 what that amount is, but I just don't want to hire another 23 consultant. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm not looking 25 to fatten some consultant's pocket. There are things we're 9-3-04 wk 35 1 going to need to know. And, I agree, we've been down this 2 exercise on at least two occasions I can remember, maybe 3 three, and I've got a stack of stuff from the old one 2 feet 4 high sitting in my office right now. So, I want to sort 5 through that. I can probably find a lot of what you're 6 talking about. But I think we're going to need some 7 professional help to get us to the point where we know what 8 we're building, ironclad, know what we're building on the 9 agricultural side, and what the costs are going to be, so we 10 know how to fund it. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think there's -- 12 we need cost information, but you can call any of the larger 13 contractors in Kerrville, and they can tell you a metal pole 14 barn's going to cost you "X" dollars a square foot. A 15 finished kitchen-type area is going to be "X" dollars a 16 square foot. An open -- you know, I mean, it's all done per 17 square foot, so we need to figure out the size, and then 18 it's just a matter of a pretty simple exercise to come up 19 with a -- and I'm talking about a -- you know, a very 20 general number. At that point, once you get serious into 21 it, once we -- if we can get beyond the facilities 22 corporation and a basic plan and some costs that we're 23 relatively comfortable with, at that point, if we go out and 24 say, okay, now we need to figure out how to fund this, at 25 that point you need an architect. But I don't think we need 9-3-04 wk 36 1 a consultant or someone at the front end. I think once we 2 know what we want to do, then you hire the architect. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think I'm -- 4 I think you and I are on the same page, and -- and to do 5 that. And all we need to do today, instead of funding major 6 improvements, is determine what amount we'd like to put in 7 Professional Services once again, and leave it in there for 8 that purpose, and move on. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't have to pay 10 architects -- once you hire them, you're going to build it. 11 They -- all that's gratis at that point from them. Just 12 hope it comes through on the bond issue, or you figure out a 13 realistic way to fund it. Of course, considering we haven't 14 had a real good success rate on getting from -- from Step B 15 to Step C, we may have a harder time finding one that's 16 willing to do it again, but I think that the -- you know, 17 that's the approach we should take. So, I think maybe 18 $5,000 in Professional Services is sufficient. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fine. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In my mind. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, let me weigh in here. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Weigh in, Judge. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, good. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we've got some given 25 facts. Number one is, we've had a facility out there that 9-3-04 wk 37 1 we've deferred maintenance on for many years. Funds were 2 budgeted; they weren't spent, and it's continued to 3 deteriorate, so we have a facility that needs some serious 4 rehabilitation, primarily a new roof. I'm concerned about 5 the safety factors. By virtue of the continued use of that 6 facility, we've got an obligation to permit the continued 7 use of that facility. What I'm hearing is that we're going 8 to push this off into the future again some more. Now, in 9 the meantime, the facility will continue to deteriorate some 10 more. That facility will, therefore, continue to be used 11 for an additional period of time, and we have people that 12 have vested rights to use that facility, and we need to make 13 sure that it's adequate and it's safe. We have the 14 opportunity to try and get that facility where it's usable 15 for, you know, several years into the future. Granted, it 16 won't be the Taj Mahal, but it's adequate. 17 They use it, even in its deteriorated state, 18 and have been reasonably satisfied, and we can do that for 19 about $100,000 to $125,000. I rolled it up some to include 20 a little insulation and things of that nature. We can 21 recoup a lot of those savings -- or those costs by the 22 savings realized from energy efficiency, and not having to 23 do continued maintenance on those 20-some-year-old air 24 conditioners. Over a period of three to five years, you may 25 save as much as half of that cost. Think back. How many 9-3-04 wk 38 1 years have you thought about this problem, and have you 2 thought about, well, what are we going to do about it? And 3 how many of those years have you done nothing about it? It 4 was proposed to the voters to do a comprehensive rehab. The 5 voters said no. 6 That may be the answer for the next go-round; 7 I don't know. But the bottom line is, we've got a facility 8 that is bordering on being terribly unsafe. We have a use 9 that's required, that we're obligated to provide for the ag 10 and the 4-H people, and I hope it doesn't take a serious 11 accident out there, because of our failure to see that 12 proper rehabilitation of that facility is done, before we do 13 something about it. We're not talking about a big-tab item, 14 relative to a lot of the other things that we do. If we 15 were to roll up those maintenance numbers that have not been 16 utilized in past years, we'd probably be there. It's more 17 than a bandaid, but it's something that's feasible. If we 18 want to look forward, then, to an event center separate and 19 apart, that's fine, but I think the people we're committed 20 to to have a usable facility out there, this will satisfy 21 their needs for many years to come at a very reasonable 22 cost. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I mean, I think 24 your point's well taken, but I disagree totally with your 25 last statement -- last part of your statement. This does 9-3-04 wk 39 1 not fix the ag problem. A new roof gives a -- a quasi event 2 facility. It does nothing to address the horrendous 3 situation of all the barns and lack of barn space that we 4 have. So, I think that this is a -- I mean, it could be 5 done, and I don't think it's wasted money, 'cause I think it 6 would -- I think the first part of what you said is 7 accurate, that the utilities would recoup a lot of it. And 8 it would kind of make that, for a long -- that -- you know, 9 the exhibit hall usable for ag functions for a time to come. 10 But I think there is a lot of other work on the electrical 11 side that needs to be rehabbed in that building and in the 12 arena. The arena still needs a major renovation, which 13 is -- you know, on the insulation side, lots of other 14 things, ventilation and other things that were discussed 15 last time, and then it needs -- the whole barn issue still 16 needs to be addressed. So, I think that it's -- I could go 17 along with your proposal, but it's just a -- it's not much 18 more than a bandaid to the ag side. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just -- all due 20 respect, Judge, I appreciate your point of view. You're 21 concerned about safety issues, and you have to extend that 22 concern into the arena. If you're fearful of an event that 23 would really get to an extent that would get our attention, 24 I direct your attention to the arena. The electrical system 25 is in bad shape, and it's very noticeable every time there 9-3-04 wk 40 1 is a stock show in there and we blow out the panels because 2 of all the extra use. So, if we're going to extend our 3 concern for safety, then let's extend our concern for safety 4 over the entire facility. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: If there's -- if there are 6 unsafe conditions in there, they need to be resolved too. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, it's 8 unsafe. And, I mean, I think you -- and this -- during the 9 bond issue, this became an issue. What's unsafe? Well, is 10 it up to any kind of code? No. Nothing out there is. Is 11 it -- is someone going to likely get seriously hurt? 12 Probably not. So, does that mean it's safe or unsafe? You 13 know, in my opinion, it's unsafe, but during the bond issue, 14 a lot of people said it's safe. No one's gotten hurt. No 15 one's going to get hurt, likely. But, you know, I'm just 16 saying that there is -- there's a whole lot that needs to be 17 done out there. But, you know, I don't have a problem with 18 spending the $100,000 this year to fix the roof, because 19 that does need to be done. I mean, even if you use it as an 20 ag facility, I can see that is something that -- it's not 21 wasted. Does it fix the safety problem? Does it fix the ag 22 problem? No. It's not much more than a bandaid to it, but 23 it is -- you know, spend some money now, as opposed -- and 24 making an improvement to the facility. So, I -- I mean, I 25 can go either way. I think that it's -- you know, if -- and 9-3-04 wk 41 1 I almost go back to something Commissioner Baldwin said one 2 time. If it's that unsafe, we need to shut it down. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it's that 5 unsafe. I think that we -- you know, so, like I said, I can 6 either do that repair this year; I don't think it's wasted, 7 or I could defer it. It would be nice, probably, to get 8 something going out there. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I'll weigh 10 in, and in sort of a devil's advocate way. I'll tell you 11 what my constituents would be saying if they were listening 12 to this conversation; what they have said to me time and 13 time again last year, and again this year. They would say, 14 "Maybe you all have more vision and wisdom than we do, but 15 you talk about these things every year and nothing gets 16 done, and that thing continues to deteriorate." Some of 17 them would say, "We could probably fix it up over a couple 18 of weekends with volunteer labor." And they can't, but I'm 19 telling you the way my constituents think. They would say, 20 "Put a new roof on it, patch it up, make it more usable, and 21 let's get on with it." 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: It was a lot of your 24 constituents that spent weekends building that facility, 25 spending money out of their pockets, signing notes at the 9-3-04 wk 42 1 bank. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir, they 3 remind me. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: They're very vested in that 5 project. They should be. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They remind me real 7 regularly. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: And they should. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A lot of -- all citizens. 10 I don't think it was only western people working on that 11 facility. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, no, it's all over the 14 county. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have -- I 16 have -- you preached my sermon. I've been exactly where you 17 are for many years, and was the only member of this Court 18 that voted against the -- having a bond issue, and went 19 actively to defeat the bond issue because of some other 20 factors in the picture. You know, but I'm -- I have now 21 shifted -- had a paradigm shift. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Spell that, please. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I will not, but 24 there's a "g" in there. Over to trying to do -- to really 25 fix the facility. Now, again, I'm -- part -- part of me is 9-3-04 wk 43 1 still back where I was two years ago. I'm not real 2 interested in Bill's event center. Fine, I'll be happy to 3 help him get one, but I don't have the interest in that. 4 It's just not my thing. But I am interested in the 5 agricultural youth of our county, very much so. So, I see 6 this thing as -- as three different options. We can put a 7 roof on it, or we can put a roof on it and fix the health 8 and safety issues, which are many, or we can go the whole 9 package. I don't -- I can't imagine this redneck voting for 10 a $100,000 dollar improvement right now, and then turn 11 around in March and voting for two more million to tear down 12 that 100,000 I just put in it to build something new. 13 So, to me, it's -- you have three options. 14 You either -- you spend a couple of million dollars out 15 there and fix the thing, and get something that our 16 community's proud of, or you put a roof on it, fix the 17 electrical issues, fix all those little issues, or you put a 18 roof on it and don't worry about who gets shocked and who 19 doesn't get shocked. And I -- you know, the -- I wish you 20 wouldn't use this language of -- you know, this fear of 21 people getting killed or injured and all that kind of thing, 22 unless that's a reality. If that -- if that's a real thing, 23 we need to fix it. And if we're not going to fix it, again, 24 we need to nail a board across the door and close it. If 25 it's -- if it's a safety -- I mean, if somebody's going to 9-3-04 wk 44 1 get hurt out there, we don't need that at all. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: My concern is that we may be 3 fast approaching that by deferring doing something out 4 there. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I agree. I agree, 6 and I've been there for years. So, I -- you know, and I'm 7 -- I'm willing to go with the roof. I'm willing to go with 8 the roof and the electrical work, and I'm willing to go 9 here. My preference is here. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me just throw in 11 behind Commissioner Baldwin. I think he and I have finally 12 got ourselves worked around it so we're on the same playing 13 field -- 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're friends. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- on this issue. 16 Same playing field on this issue. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Don't get used 18 to this. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We agree on more than 20 people think we do. See, I think -- I think what the 21 Commissioner says is correct. If we hitch up our britches 22 and make a decision to move forward and take care of our 23 agricultural requirements -- obligations, as the Judge said, 24 provide that community with a -- with an events -- with a 25 center that takes care of all their needs, agricultural, 9-3-04 wk 45 1 going forth for many years to come, we can get that done to 2 the point of going to construction by the end of this next 3 budget year. And I see no reason to delay it any further. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about -- here's a -- 5 a little compromise. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about we budget 8 $125,000 for major repairs, but we're -- but we're not going 9 to authorize spending it until February, at the earliest. 10 If we can -- you know, if we can get this big plan worked 11 out and have a real plan and we're moving forward, we won't 12 spend that money; we'll put it into the bigger picture. But 13 if we get -- hit a roadblock somewhere, which is a real 14 possibility, considering the history out there, we turn it 15 loose and we get that -- we -- at least we get the roof and 16 air conditioners fixed this year. But we don't spend that 17 money unless we hit a roadblock. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if the 19 end of February's a good date. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, end of March. 21 Sometime during the year. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, I'd like it 23 before that, to have something, because our concern here is 24 the roof leaking on our stock show or other activities. And 25 the stock show's when? 9-3-04 wk 46 1 MR. ALFORD: January. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: January. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, I agree with you. 4 I just am in a little disagreement with you on the date 5 thing, because we're -- we're really not doing anything if 6 we wait till March. So, that puts the pressure on this guy 7 to get all the ducks in a row. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, how -- does anyone, 9 in any of the quotes -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: November 30? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just -- did any of 12 these have any kind of a time estimate on that new roof? 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Short time. Matter 14 of weeks, not months. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Won't take long. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Matters of weeks to 17 get it done? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I suppose so. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think y'all are a 21 little bit more optimistic than I am when it comes to 22 construction. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know if we 24 can get that done by November or not. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, what I -- what I'm 9-3-04 wk 47 1 more concerned about, I don't want to have the roof off in 2 January. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 4 MR. ALFORD: That makes two of us. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: You don't have to take the 6 roof off. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, that's right. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say it again? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: You won't take the roof off. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They won't take what's on 12 there off. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Cover it and 14 insulate it. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I think yours is a reasonable 17 approach, Commissioner. I would suggest that we bump it to 18 150 because of the electrical issues that I think we're 19 going to get into. And I think that'll be the feasible time 20 to go forward on the electrical. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does that 150 22 include repairing the sound system? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, there was 7,700 24 or something like that in there. We had agreed to that. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to do that, 9-3-04 wk 48 1 and I'd like to do it in a way that it's done before the -- 2 the -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have it done by 4 January 1st? 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, now, if that's 7 your goal, to get it done by January 1st, then just give 8 Mr. Holekamp the authority to get it done by January 1st. I 9 don't believe we can have the alternative plan and the 10 numbers together by January 1st in time to make a decision 11 as to whether it's a go or no-go. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we can get pretty 13 far along. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we can get 15 pretty far along, yeah. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's have this 17 discussion on November 1st. And tell Mr. Holekamp, you 18 know, to line somebody up, but we're not going to order the 19 materials until, you know, November 1st. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 150? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 150. With sound system. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. Question. 23 Does that include relocating and buying new air 24 conditioners? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 9-3-04 wk 49 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about concession 3 stand and restrooms? I'm just joking. I'm joking. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A/C, sound. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Roof insulation, heat and air, 6 electrical corrections, and sound. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Talking about 8 electrical corrections in just the exhibit hall, or are we 9 talking about the arena? What are we talking about? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we could 11 even move into the arena for $150,000. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either. 13 That's why I asked the question. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I think that 15 what the Judge is talking about, when you start moving air 16 conditioning and stuff like that, you're going to have to do 17 some electrical work. And when you're -- when you are going 18 to rerun a -- a pole, we might as well redo the whole pole 19 almost, and patch it in somewhere. I think they know where 20 the service is to all that stuff. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that it for that 22 item for now? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom? 25 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir? 9-3-04 wk 50 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you need a transfusion this 2 morning? 3 MR. ODOM: No. No. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Didn't know what -- 5 what blood you lost or what color it was. 6 MR. ODOM: Well, I had the -- he squeezed 7 orange, but I still always have maroon. So -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You didn't bleed it 10 all dry last night? 11 MR. ODOM: He tried, though. I got a 12 transfusion. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Len wins either way. 14 Either the Aggies win or the Mormons win, so he's all right. 15 MR. ODOM: Doesn't make me any difference. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Hadn't thought of it that way. 17 MR. ODOM: I was going to be a winner either 18 way. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Len, what we talked 20 about, since I was the last one -- I don't know if I was the 21 last one that talked to you, but you and I talked about a 22 lot of this. 23 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We moved the salary for 25 you to $10,000. 9-3-04 wk 51 1 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you need this, Len? 3 MR. ODOM: No, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We put your two 5 supervisors, Doug Koennecke and Joe Biermann, at a $1,200 6 increase. 7 MR. ODOM: $1,800. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, but they -- we went 9 to 12 -- for a 12. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Each. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Twelve each. And 12 Ms. Hardin, $3,600. That's what the -- the Court agreed on. 13 We would put -- the County Engineer position is eliminated. 14 We're going to put $5,000 in Professional Services, and 15 we're going to negotiate a retainer for a certain amount of 16 work with a local engineer. 17 MR. ODOM: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That sums up the -- and 19 your -- and, basically, the responsibilities are adjusted as 20 you presented. 21 MR. ODOM: Yes. And that is -- I heard the 22 comment the other day that -- you know, and there may be 23 some ways to do it. We just pulled from our memory what we 24 were doing. There may be some other ways that you -- we 25 want to interact with the Commissioner so we have no 9-3-04 wk 52 1 problems there. So, I -- that's just a guideline that's 2 there. So there may be some steps in there that you wish to 3 do, which has always been, you know, an open door where you 4 can come in. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I've got some 6 discussions on mine. That's the one that I -- 7 MR. ODOM: I haven't seen them yet. You have 8 a better idea. I'm not an expert in it. I haven't been 9 involved in it that much. So -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What y'all -- your 11 visit there confused me a little bit about the salaries on 12 the supervisors. You said $1,200; you said $1,800. Where 13 did $1,800 come from? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it started out at 15 15 to 18, and that quickly went to 15. Then it quickly went 16 to 1,000; then it went to 12. So it was -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was requested, 18 $943. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Len and I had 20 talked $1,800. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then it came down -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- to $1,200. 25 MR. ODOM: I would ask the Court that we 9-3-04 wk 53 1 would look -- I don't see a whole lot there, but I -- 2 particularly with the supervisors, if there's more to it, 3 then I would certainly ask that -- next year we'll have a 4 better idea, after a year, what's there, and if the Court is 5 receptive to look at things there. I don't think it would 6 be, but for them, I would -- you know, let's just see where 7 this works out. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's an 9 opportunity for you to give more of your workload to them, 10 and then reduce your salary a little bit. 11 MR. ODOM: Well, there's some opportunity 12 there -- you saw right there to -- to do that. I didn't 13 catch that. I'm hard of hearing, so I -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I said -- the last 15 part -- 16 MR. ODOM: You got a smile on your face; I 17 didn't catch what you said. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I said is there's an 19 opportunity to organize -- reorganize a little more; you can 20 give your supervisors a little more responsibility and 21 reduce your salary a little bit. 22 MR. ODOM: That sounds about like somebody I 23 know. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: That's a bit more challenging 25 than you want -- than you want to engage? 9-3-04 wk 54 1 MR. ODOM: At this time for my commitment, I 2 assure you, that would be more than I would want to commit 3 to. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Leonard? 5 MR. ODOM: I think it's feasible, and we'll 6 take a look at it. And I don't see a -- I see it working 7 like it always has. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a good plan. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I do too. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: That's something that, at 11 least for now, that you -- 12 MR. ODOM: I feel comfortable. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: -- you feel comfortable with? 14 MR. ODOM: I feel very comfortable with it. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 16 MR. ODOM: Like I say, I have reservations 17 about those guys, but -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That can be adjusted if 19 it needs to be. 20 MR. ODOM: That can be adjusted if we see 21 more, but we'll just see. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: We're working off of unknown 23 facts. As a fact is known, we may have to make appropriate 24 adjustments. That's always true in every case. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The one item that we -- 9-3-04 wk 55 1 number we haven't plugged in is training. Based on your 2 research, is there additional training needed for you or 3 Truby in floodplain? 4 MR. ODOM: There may be some. There is not a 5 requirement for an engineer to do floodplain, but if -- when 6 I look at things, I look at State-supported type schooling 7 instead of this private thing. I'm not quite sure where I 8 need to be. If there is -- there's not much fees. When I 9 went to Waco, it was just staying somewhere and being 10 frugal. I stayed in a Motel 8, I think it was, so I didn't 11 pay a whole lot, but I ate some McDonald's. So, you know, 12 there will be some additional other than the $300. We cut 13 it back from $500 to $300, and so I just don't have -- at 14 this time, Truby's going to try to find some. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we should put maybe 16 -- would Truby possibly need some as well? 17 MR. ODOM: I want to go myself, and I sort of 18 think -- I think that would be a good idea. But I would 19 rather go through it, and I could say a little bit more 20 where we need to be. I thought we had it. I had some in 21 Waco, and I was going to take the test, but they didn't give 22 us a test. They wouldn't give us a test, so -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, $2,000 in training; 24 we'll add that. That ought to be covered. 25 MR. ODOM: Well, I think that's more than 9-3-04 wk 56 1 enough. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think there's 4 that many of those kind of workshops or schools, is there? 5 MR. ODOM: No, should be just one. And then 6 you go three or four days, something like that, and then you 7 take a test. But -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you always want to 9 go to the State-sanctioned one. 10 MR. ODOM: I want to go to the 11 State-sanctioned. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 'Cause they bring 13 along their rules and regulations. 14 MR. ODOM: That's right. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're not into some 16 private -- private group that's -- 17 MR. ODOM: Trying to create -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- trying to put 19 across their issues and hopes and all that. 20 MR. ODOM: Those sort of things. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 22 MR. ODOM: Where things are trying to go. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What did we spend to 24 train the County Engineer to do floodplain? 25 MR. ODOM: Well over $2,000. $4,000? 9-3-04 wk 57 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we had $4,000 in the 2 last budget. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why did we spend 4 $4,000? 5 MR. ODOM: Sir, you'd have to ask that 6 gentleman. I don't know. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to make 8 sure that we're not cutting ourselves short; that the proper 9 training is there. Now, if -- if there was some training in 10 the past that was unnecessary, then fine. We don't -- we 11 don't duplicate that mistake, but I want to make certain 12 that whatever training is required to get you or whomever 13 the proper credentials or certificates so that you can do 14 floodplain, which is pretty darned important in this 15 county -- 16 MR. ODOM: Mm-hmm. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- that we do it 18 right. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's what 20 he's saying. 21 MR. ODOM: You know, for 13 years, I've 22 had -- I know that that particular line item was greater 23 than my 600, 611 all together, and I've been -- we've been 24 very frugal in where we go as far as training. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that. 9-3-04 wk 58 1 I'm talking about other training. This past year, Leonard, 2 we funded a significant amount of training on floodplain, 3 period. 4 MR. ODOM: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And my only question 6 is, did we overfund last time, or are we underfunding now? 7 MR. ODOM: I feel $2,000 would cover it. I 8 feel comfortable, and I'll probably have money left in it. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the question was, 10 is that -- the County Engineer felt that it was important to 11 be certified. Mr. Odom does not think that is necessary, 12 and doesn't -- does not think -- or it is not a requirement, 13 and does not think it is necessary, and has been to some 14 training already, I believe. So, I think that the -- that's 15 a part of the difference. You know, I think that there -- 16 you know, you have to rely on the discretion of the 17 individual who's getting the training in these areas, and 18 Mr. Odom doesn't think he needs more training. 19 MR. ODOM: But if do I, they have a line item 20 called Engineering. So, you know, I -- we'll look at that. 21 But I -- the same person that taught that seminar taught me 22 several hours in the afternoon. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 24 MR. ODOM: And I personally talked to him, 25 and it's not required. 9-3-04 wk 59 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 2 MR. ODOM: At this point. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very good. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Certification? 5 MR. ODOM: Certification. It may be in the 6 future, but we will address that as we go, as I learn a 7 little bit more. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You were going to 9 tell me something, Judge? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You were going to 12 tell me something? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I was? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. That's 15 a question. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I guess not. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, where's 18 floodplain? Isn't that on a separate budget? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 20 MR. ODOM: 15-something. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: It's right after the 22 administrative section of Road and Bridge. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I can tell you; just a 24 second. It's 8 -- 25 MR. ODOM: After 600. 9-3-04 wk 60 1 JUDGE TINLEY: 84, looks like. Yeah. Is 2 that where you are? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It says Road Districts. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I saw floodplain, but it 6 was -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the old one. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's around 74 9 somewhere. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably -- yeah, it's going 11 to be on 75. 75, yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There it is, okay. 75. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: We need to reduce that. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Training is $2,000? We 15 had $3,500 in training. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: That needs to be reduced to 17 $2,000, then. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $2,000. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $2,000. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: And we -- what -- while we're 23 at it, while we're here, the capital outlay item, are you 24 going to need a new computer for that? 25 MR. ODOM: We have -- we're going to pick it 9-3-04 wk 61 1 up out of that O.R.C.A. funds out of this budget. That 2 eliminates $5,025, or whatever he had down for his. So, 3 that -- that's savings right there. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: We left the capital outlay on 5 the Road and Bridge for that -- that new computer; we never 6 did take any final action on that, if I recall. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leonard, what 8 computer is being used now for floodplain? 9 MR. ODOM: The one on his desk that he's got 10 right now is being used for that. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that have 12 special software for floodplain? 13 MR. ODOM: He's got -- he's got some on 14 there. I'm not quite sure exactly what he has on it. We're 15 going to go through it, but he was trying to upgrade or 16 whatever -- he puts a lot of data in there, and I don't know 17 what all that data is, but it seems like he's probably used 18 a little -- he probably wants it faster or something. I'm 19 not sure what all the data is on it, but it seems to be 20 somewhat excessive. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 22 MR. ODOM: We don't need the computer. If we 23 get the one that we asked for, we're in good shame. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's an extra 25 computer out there, though, now. 9-3-04 wk 62 1 MR. ODOM: There's one there now. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm? Did you have a question, 3 Tommy? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: I have numbers questions. Do 5 we want to make -- continue to separate the cost for 6 floodplain -- floodplain administration? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: As a separate budget, you're 8 talking about? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. Or combine it with -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Administration, Road and 11 Bridge? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: -- Road and Bridge? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think combine them. 14 MR. ODOM: Combine them? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the only reason is 16 that I don't see how you can separate it, hardly. I think 17 it's just going to be a bunch of arbitrary numbers. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: That is the reason -- 19 MR. ODOM: I already have two budgets; it's 20 bad enough. Three budgets -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there may be some 22 things, you know -- 23 MR. ODOM: I don't see a whole lot of -- 24 we're going to absorb the cost into this year, and we're 25 going to see where we're at into our regular 611 and 600, 9-3-04 wk 63 1 and -- you know. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: One more. I don't -- I did 3 not hear a definitive amount for the contract. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: $5,000. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: For the engineering contract 7 services? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Professional Services? 10 $5,000. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that in Road and 12 Bridge budget or our budget? Should be in Road and Bridge 13 budget. 14 MR. ODOM: I was thinking there was -- y'all 15 added an item, I thought, in there. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There probably should 17 be. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: There's a line item there for 19 that. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is in Road and 21 Bridge. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, Professional 23 Services under the Administration, Road and Bridge. 24 MR. ODOM: And if there's any certification 25 needs to be done, I'll find out what needs to be done, 9-3-04 wk 64 1 Commissioner Williams, and I'll take care of it. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, very good. 3 MR. ODOM: Within the next year, we'll find 4 out. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very good. 6 MR. ODOM: Right now, I'm trying to finish 7 sealcoat and finish this budget year. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are you doing 9 here, then? 10 MR. ODOM: Sir? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are you doing 12 here? 13 MR. ODOM: Some nice voice asked me to come, 14 and I thought that might behoove me -- since Commissioner 15 Letz was talking for me, I thought I might better come here. 16 So -- 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are you in Greenwood 18 Forest? 19 MR. ODOM: We're finishing up Greenwood 20 Forest on the -- we'll be through today, sir. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're nice to Len 22 Odom and you get Greenwood Forest fixed. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There you go. 24 MR. ODOM: And we haven't been tarred and 25 feathered yet, so I think we're doing all right. 9-3-04 wk 65 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Must be doing a good 2 job. I haven't heard from Charlie Eller. 3 MR. ODOM: That's a good sign right there. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: You had a question, Ms. Nemec? 5 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. We need to come to 6 some agreement on the step and grade for these three 7 employees. On the two employees for the $1,200, looking at 8 the step and grade schedule, we can move them to a 23.9, and 9 that would be $1,214, if that's okay. And, of course, with 10 this move, then we'll need a new job description for them. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- 12 MS. NEMEC: Then, with the administrative 13 assistant, the $3,600 increase, it's either going to have to 14 be -- 15 MR. ODOM: 22? 16 MS. NEMEC: -- a 21.7 or a 21.8. If it's 17 21.7, the increase is $3,226. If it's a 21.8, the increase 18 is $4,083. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tell me those numbers 20 again, please? I'm sorry. 21 MS. NEMEC: Okay. A 21.7 is a $3,226 22 increase. The next step would be a 21.8, which would be a 23 $4,083 increase. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like the first one. 25 MS. NEMEC: First one? 9-3-04 wk 66 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 21.7. 2 MS. NEMEC: And then we would also need a new 3 job description for that. 4 (Discussion off the record.) 5 MS. NEMEC: And I guess, when you look at 6 this -- moving these step and grades to the 21 and the other 7 employees to a 23, what we really need to look at is the 8 step -- the Step 1 to see if they do vacate that position, 9 and entry level would be a certain amount. And I think 10 that's pretty much in line with that. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you give me those -- 12 well, it'll be in the new schedule. 13 MS. NEMEC: It's -- are we in agreement with 14 that? 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 16 MS. NEMEC: Is that okay? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That all right, Len? 18 MS. NEMEC: Not quite. 19 MR. ODOM: Well, that's not what we agreed 20 to, but -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but -- it's a 22 little bit more for two, but it's a little bit less for one. 23 MR. ODOM: Let's make -- we will -- we'll try 24 it and see. And if it comes back that it feels like it's a 25 burden, I won't do it unless I feel it's unfair to all of 9-3-04 wk 67 1 us, but particularly to the personnel that are going to be 2 doing a little bit more. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What would a 21 -- what's 4 21.8? 5 MS. NEMEC: A 21.8 is an increase of $4,083, 6 which is $34,667. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And a 21.7 is how much of 8 an increase? 9 MS. NEMEC: It's an increase of $3,226. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems like a lot of 11 difference between those -- between one step. 12 MS. NEMEC: Of course, I'm just calculating 13 back here by listening to all of you. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 21.7. 15 MS. NEMEC: This is according to the new step 16 and grade schedule that I'm looking at. This is with a 17 3 percent cost-of-living increase, so you got to figure that 18 in there. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, if you figure that 20 part in -- 21 MR. ODOM: She's back at -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- she's back up there. 23 Okay, 21.7 is good, in my mind. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Leonard's 25 responsible to rewrite the -- 9-3-04 wk 68 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Job description. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- job descriptions. 3 MR. ODOM: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: For all four of you, 5 yourself included. 6 MR. ODOM: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or all three of you. 8 Three job descriptions. 9 MR. ODOM: Do I have a timeframe in which 10 to -- sometime after the 1st? I mean, does it -- do we have 11 to have it 1st of October? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's going on vacation 13 for a while. 14 MR. ODOM: Two weeks. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two weeks? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you could 17 just -- 18 JUDGE TINLEY: What was that you said, 19 Buster? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You could just write 21 it while you're on vacation, sitting out under the trees 22 and -- 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fax it in to us. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- sipping a little 25 pina colada. 9-3-04 wk 69 1 MR. ODOM: I don't even know if -- we're 2 still back in the 1800's, I think, where I'm going. So -- 3 MS. NEMEC: Another thing is that she's 4 classified as an administrative assistant, and an 5 administrative assistant in the Nash study, it was the same 6 as a chief deputy, and so they put them as a 19. So, if -- 7 we either have to do that one of two ways; change her job 8 title to merit a 21 grade, or move everybody else to a 21. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How about if we 10 change her title to Assistant Road Administrator and take 11 her off the schedule? 12 MR. ODOM: Make her exempt? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: That way you can do the 3,600 14 and just be done with it. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's one way of 16 doing it. 17 MR. ODOM: She's going to be actually the 18 Assistant Floodplain Manager as well as my administrative 19 assistant, which is really that. I think it's -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let me ask 21 Barbara -- 22 MR. ODOM: I came to the Court last year as 23 far as supervisor, and we didn't do that, but -- because I 24 was changing things and putting more on her. But I think 25 that I will ask Barbara that question. 9-3-04 wk 70 1 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Barbara, if we follow 3 that suggestion to make the position an exempt position, 4 does that require having supervisory firing -- supervisory 5 responsibilities over hiring and firing? 6 MS. NEMEC: Not necessarily over hiring and 7 firing. There is certain things that -- that a position has 8 to be able to have authority to do in order to be exempt. 9 So, when rewriting the job description, there are some 10 guidelines to who can be exempt and who can't, you know, and 11 there's just a variety of things. So, we just need to make 12 sure that when that is being done, that that is, in fact, an 13 exempt position. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- what are those 15 things? 16 MS. NEMEC: I don't know offhand, but -- 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think it would 18 qualify for administrative professional exemption. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably would. 20 MS. NEMEC: I would think, just knowing what 21 that employee does and -- and the authority she has over 22 that department, I would think it would be able to be 23 exempt, just off the top of my head. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't make any 25 difference to me. 9-3-04 wk 71 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's the way to go. 2 And you don't get into these other cross-classifications, 3 and you can come right in at the 3,600. 4 MS. NEMEC: Of course, we do have exempt 5 employees now that are on a step and grade schedule. We 6 have the Information Technology. He's exempt, but he's -- 7 he has a step and grade. And then I believe the employee 8 out at the -- not the Ag Barn. Environ -- Laurinda Boyd. 9 She's exempt, but she's on a step and grade. The only ones 10 that are exempt that are not on step and grade are the 11 professionals, which are the County Attorney, Assistant 12 County Attorney, and I believe Mr. Holekamp. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Court reporter. 14 MS. NEMEC: The court reporters here are 15 exempt. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's the 17 right way to go. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 20 MS. NEMEC: Animal Control, he's exempt. But 21 he's -- well, he's not on a step and grade. We have both. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That gets her back to 23 36. 24 MR. ODOM: Thank you. I think that's fair. 25 And hiring and firing, that's my job description. 9-3-04 wk 72 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, that's you. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Odom, I think 4 you've done a good job of trying to find a way to get work 5 done better and help out the taxpayers. 6 MR. ODOM: We'll make it work. We'll make it 7 work, and we'll work with the Court like we always have. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Has that solved everything 9 with respect to the Road and Bridge issue? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One issue -- just one 11 little minor thing here. Who's going to craft the Request 12 for Proposal for engineering services for retainer? It 13 needs to be crafted properly, Judge. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The County Attorney. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, whoever. Just 16 want to know who's going to do it. 17 MR. ODOM: Normally, under Professional 18 Services, there's not a bid. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Request for Proposal. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just more of a notice as 21 to what we want, so everyone bids on the -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Request for Qualifications and 23 Proposals. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: RFQ, that's correct. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Is that it? 9-3-04 wk 73 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we going to take a 3 short -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if we're not through, 5 we're going to be taking a break here. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a couple 7 things left on my list. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Why don't we take a 9 break? We'll recess for about 15 minutes or so. 10 (Recess taken from 10:24 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.) 11 - - - - - - - - - - 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to 13 order on our workshop. Budget matters. Commissioner Letz, 14 does that exhaust your list? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My list is temporarily 16 exhausted. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have 18 something. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: It's not your turn. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I thought it was. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Go to 4. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1 comes after 3. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: 4 comes after 3. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm glad y'all recognize 25 all of y'all come after 3. (Laughter.) 9-3-04 wk 74 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll defer for now 2 to Number 1, because I know he's had a paradigm shift. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. That's kind of you, 4 Commissioner. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that like an 6 earthquake? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's been something 8 that's been nagging at the back of my mind. It's been 9 bothering me. And we were having discussions with the 10 Treasurer a few days ago, and I asked a question, if she 11 would remind us of what we did last year with salaries and 12 the $1,000 deal and all that stuff. We gave $1,000 to the 13 elected officials, and Commissioners Court was excluded. 14 Well, along in that conversation last year, when we gave the 15 $1,000 -- this is what's been bothering me -- we gave $1,000 16 to the elected officials, and we said, "Here's a salary 17 increase for the elected officials. Next year we will look 18 and do the department heads." Now, I don't -- I don't think 19 that we wrote that in stone, and there wasn't a lot of 20 lightning and thunder and gnashing of teeth, but we did say 21 that, that we'd take care of the elected officials this year 22 and we'll do the department heads next year. 23 "Next year" is now, and we're not addressing 24 that at all. We're coming back and giving the elected 25 officials another raise, and not doing anything for the 9-3-04 wk 75 1 department heads. I just wanted to bring that up. That's 2 been bothering me, because I knew we had said that. And it 3 just came to my mind a while ago, and I had a visit with the 4 County Treasurer, and I think there's four department heads 5 that you -- that are considered department heads in the 6 system. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we addressed one -- 8 we're lucky -- in Road and Bridge. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, there was five. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four left. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're down to four. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who are those four? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would be Animal 14 Shelter. That would be -- 15 MS. NEMEC: Environmental Health, 16 Maintenance. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- Environmental 18 Health, Maintenance, and Court Collections. At least we 19 need to have a discussion. I would -- I don't know that we 20 actually made a commitment. Of course, we couldn't, but I 21 don't know -- I think we need to talk about that before 22 we -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, we -- we made an 24 adjustment in Environmental Health based on the -- I mean, 25 some money that we had budgeted in another area for training 9-3-04 wk 76 1 last year. We added -- rolled that amount in his salary, so 2 he got an adjustment in his. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're down to three 4 now. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We -- oh, Animal Control, 7 yeah. We have three. Those three, we have not done 8 anything with, you're correct. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Those are exempt employees? 10 MS. NEMEC: Some of them are. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Barbara, how long has it 12 been since we've done a salary adjustment on those? 13 MS. NEMEC: I'd have to go back and look, but 14 I want to say three years. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three years? 16 MS. NEMEC: And I'd like to offer a 17 suggestion on those employees. It's easy to skip over those 18 employees, 'cause we usually just do employees that are on 19 step and grade and elected officials. But, really, I think 20 that those employees are employees of the Commissioners 21 Court. They're under Commissioners Court, and whenever 22 elected officials or department heads want to give 23 increases, we need to provide an evaluation on the employee 24 to get them a merit increase. And I think that, probably 25 with these employees that are under the Commissioners Court, 9-3-04 wk 77 1 evaluations should be done on them for recommendations on 2 increases, just like you do your other two employees. And 3 that way, all the employees, whether they're exempt, step 4 and grade or whatever, they're all treated equally, and the 5 only ones that you address year-to-year is the elected 6 officials, which are separate from them. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, does that mean we're 10 going to do evaluations this year? Or we're doing an 11 increase this year? Or both? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we're going to -- I 13 think we need to do both. We don't -- we don't take care of 14 the evaluation issue like we should. Never have. And -- 15 but we should. Now, we've already evaluated our 16 administrative assistant within six months of employment 17 here, which is a good thing. I mean, I'm glad -- we should 18 be doing that. But the other departments -- and she's 19 right; those departments do come directly under 20 Commissioners Court. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we should do 22 the evaluations. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't take care of 24 that like we should. That may be a good duty of the 25 administrative assistant to trigger our remembrance. 9-3-04 wk 78 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And provide us with 2 the review forms. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Review forms and that 4 kind of thing. But, in my mind, I think those people need 5 to be addressed before elected officials this time, because 6 we said we would. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I seem to recall -- 8 you're right, we did mention it. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or say it. I'm all 11 right with it. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, want to hit 13 Maintenance first? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It appears to me, based 16 on overall other salaries, that the Maintenance Supervisor 17 is quite a bit lower than it should be. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: I would agree. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The current salary is 20 $26,337. That job -- I mean, look at the responsibility and 21 things of that nature, and I think that the -- there's a lot 22 of responsibility. A lot of dollars are affected by the 23 decisions of that position. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Isn't his salary 25 split with two different budgets? 9-3-04 wk 79 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm looking under 2 Maintenance. 3 MS. NEMEC: Under Maintenance, the salary 4 there is $26,337, and under the Extension Office -- well, 5 I'm sorry, the Ag Barn, it's $13,795. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I 7 thought. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, okay. I was in shock 9 when I saw it here. So, it's -- his total is at -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: 39-something. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a lot better. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 13 MS. NEMEC: And that is an exempt, so you 14 could add just a flat amount, whatever you wanted to. 15 (Discussion off the record.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Did you have a specific 17 proposal in mind, -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: -- Commissioner Baldwin? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I propose that we give 21 $1,000 to each department head, and $1,000 to the 22 Commissioners Court. And then -- I don't know what that 23 does to the overall budget. I don't know if we can afford 24 to go on and include all the other elected officials or not. 25 I just don't know. 9-3-04 wk 80 1 JUDGE TINLEY: An across-the-board raise -- 2 increase to all elected officials over and above that is 3 what you're talking about? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I just 5 don't -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where we are today is, 8 all elected officials get $1,000. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And do -- would the -- 11 what, we're down to three? Did we say? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three department 13 heads. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Three department 15 heads, $3,000. I spill that much on a Saturday night. But 16 -- or used to. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would say, based on the 18 salaries and the -- a little bit of equality, I'd probably 19 say $1,500 for Maintenance and $1,000 for the other two. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if we 21 ought to get into -- I don't know. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or $1,000 apiece is fine. 24 $1,000 for each is fine. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we ought to 9-3-04 wk 81 1 keep it uniform. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uniform and fair. And 3 that's my proposal. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we have the 5 numbers on Animal Control and Court Collections? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where are we? 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: $29,082. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one? 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Marc Allen is 11 $29,082. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Court Collections is 13 $32,228. Those are last -- just with the cost-of-living. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I'm cool with 15 keeping it uniform. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: But your initial proposal is 17 essentially catch-up, to include the folks that were omitted 18 last year? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about the -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Those three named individuals, 23 plus the Court. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I had a baby 25 paradigm here. Just add those three to what we originally 9-3-04 wk 82 1 agreed to. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't take away the 4 $1,000 from the elected officials. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just add the three to 7 what we had originally agreed to do over and above. That's 8 my proposal. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any problem. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, and the 12 reason -- 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I like those 14 increases, but I need to say again that I'm opposed to 15 the -- to both the $1,000 for elected officials, as well as 16 to the 1 percent merit increase. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: What do we have presently in 18 the budget for the merit increase pool that we established? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought we put in 20 $10,000 last year. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I know we put in 10 last year, 22 but what do we got recommended for this year, I think is my 23 question. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The only proposal out 25 there, Judge, was the one I floated, which was a 1 percent 9-3-04 wk 83 1 of base pay -- you know, of the base payroll, which Tommy 2 submitted; I asked him. Somewhere -- which would put us 3 somewhere around $50,000 system-wide. Is that still 4 correct, Tommy? Correct estimate? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: That -- that's very -- that's 6 a guess. That's not an estimate. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: That's a guess. That's not 9 really an estimate. And I don't know -- I don't know how 10 many -- I don't know how many dollars we're talking about. 11 I mean, I can't make that assumption without -- we have so 12 many people on our payroll that aren't Kerr County employees 13 that it's hard to make a good estimate without knowing. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe the better approach 15 would be to fund the merit increase pool under the 16 Nondepartmental again this year like we did last year, and 17 utilize that. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would -- my preference 19 is to figure out -- I mean, to give it to the department 20 head or elected officials, at their discretion. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that approach 22 better. And I don't know why it would be difficult to -- to 23 plug in a merit line. We know what the base is for the 24 employees. It's -- a line item's already there; 1 percent 25 of that. Any departments that don't -- are not eligible, as 9-3-04 wk 84 1 Tommy points out there's some we would not include in that, 2 then we should not include them. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you'd -- you look 4 at -- I mean, you go through and identify those departments 5 to -- you know, might be easier than doing them all. But, I 6 mean -- I mean, it's the County Clerk, District Clerk, 7 Treasurer's office, Maintenance, Extension. The Sheriff's 8 and all that would be excluded, except for his -- 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only employees I'm 10 really concerned -- I got four 12's there that need to be 11 brought up. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: County Attorney's office. 13 You know, I mean, some of them are -- you know, not trying 14 to bypass it, but they're real small offices. There's 15 really hardly -- it's not enough to do anything with it. 16 MR. ALFORD: That's what I started to say. 17 What about when you got one employee? It's $23,000; you're 18 talking about $230. It's pretty cut-and-dried. Either you 19 do or you don't. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd -- I think I'd rather 21 see some kind of -- you know, do what we did last year. All 22 departments with more than five employees get 1 percent this 23 year they can use, and next year we'll look at all the 24 smaller departments and just do a case-by-case, 'cause 25 otherwise you'll miss the small departments. I think you -- 9-3-04 wk 85 1 you know, and -- or we can try to do it all this year. 2 Either way. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you can do 4 both. You could -- you could fund the departments at a 5 percent we agree upon as a line item in each individual 6 elected official or department head's budget, based on the 7 base salaries paid, excluding the department head, excluding 8 the elected official. And you could also put a few of those 9 dollars in -- in the pool -- discretionary pool, and the 10 smaller departments can justify their request. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That may work. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, something I 13 don't understand is, what -- why wouldn't -- why would you 14 want to put, using your example, 1 percent of the base in 15 there? Why wouldn't you just put two steps, whatever that 16 amount -- just put the -- put that number in there, and let 17 them figure out how to -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The one answer that 19 pops in my head is because the discretion of the department 20 head, they may not choose to give a merit to all of the 21 people in their -- in their department. And they may choose 22 not to do that for their reasons, and their reasons are 23 valid. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a -- that -- that 25 argument supports Number 1's idea better, because Barbara 9-3-04 wk 86 1 would have to go to the departments and look at what the 2 step -- what two steps is for each of those departments, and 3 just add that as a -- as a number to each of their budgets, 4 or Tommy would add it to the budgets. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're talking about 6 just converting -- just converting two steps across into a 7 dollar figure? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and give that 9 increase. That would -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's okay. 11 MS. NEMEC: I'd like to make a suggestion. I 12 think y'all are doing it very hard. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Barbara, come up a 14 little bit. The air and the fan's going, and it's hard to 15 hear you back there. 16 MS. NEMEC: I would like to see us go back to 17 the way we used to do merit increases, and I think it would 18 solve a lot of the problems that we're having in trying to 19 determine how to do it. During the budget process, which 20 we're in now, the elected official comes in with evaluations 21 and says, "I've got three employees that I need merit 22 increases for. I want to give one merit -- one step here, 23 two steps here." And listen to all the merits that all the 24 elected officials or department heads are recommending, and 25 then go from there; see what that dollar figure is, and see 9-3-04 wk 87 1 if we can afford to do that this year. If not, go back to 2 the elected officials and department heads and say, "Okay, 3 there's not enough money to do that. Can you -- the ones 4 that you're giving a one merit to, can you -- or two, can 5 you just give them one?" Or something like that. That way, 6 we can plug it into the budget, and it's a set figure, and 7 we know what it's going to be. We don't have to go through 8 the year wondering if the $10,000 is going to be used, or if 9 one department gets here before the other one, it's all 10 going to be taken up already, and then the others aren't -- 11 so I'd like to see it go back to discussing it through the 12 budget process and approving it, and plugging in those 13 numbers at this time. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can you -- could you 15 foreseeably accomplish that between now and the time we have 16 to finalize this budget? 17 MS. NEMEC: Well, I'll tell you what, if the 18 elected officials want their employees to get merit 19 increases, then you're going to have to give them a cutoff 20 date. And I'm sure they'll -- if they don't make it in by 21 that date, then they'll have to wait till next year. But 22 I'm sure it can be accomplished. I've got the step and 23 grade schedules all run already. I mean -- yeah, the step 24 and grade schedules all run with a 3 percent. I can get 25 with whoever wants to recommend merits and help them, let 9-3-04 wk 88 1 them know what those figures are going to be. So, I'll -- 2 I'm available for that if -- if that's what it takes. I 3 just think it's much easier. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the change would 5 be -- the change would be that the elected official comes in 6 up front with a plan? 7 MS. NEMEC: With an evaluation. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Evaluation and a 9 plan -- 10 MS. NEMEC: And recommendation. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- for the future, as 12 opposed to us just kind of picking a number out of the air 13 and throwing it out there. I think she's right. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I think the only 15 thing I would add to that -- I don't -- I think that's 16 probably a good plan -- is that you have to -- well, I need 17 to -- I will look at kind of what's going on in departments 18 as well as individual, you know, performance in that 19 department. I think they're related. Just -- you know, so 20 if -- you know, someone who has -- you know, who's had no 21 change in employment in a number of years, or a number of 22 employees in a number of years, to me, and is, you know, 23 working and not asking for more is more inclined to get a 24 merit increase for their employees than someone who's added 25 a bunch of personnel -- I know we haven't added that much 9-3-04 wk 89 1 personnel in the past few years, so it may not be an issue, 2 but I'd like to try to focus this in our overall direction, 3 and try to improve productivity at the same time. Not just 4 keeping status-quo. But that's just -- I mean, that's just 5 how I'm going to look at it. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Me too. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I think that's -- 8 I mean, that's -- it makes a lot more sense to have a plan 9 and justification than it is all of a sudden giving a pool 10 of money away. 11 MS. NEMEC: We used to do that years -- years 12 ago; that's the way we did it. And that way, come budget 13 time, we know what the figure is. You don't budget too 14 much; you don't budget too little. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you think you can 17 accomplish it in time to give us a bottom-line number, fine 18 and dandy. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll need to have those 20 numbers by our next workshop, which is going to be the end 21 of next week, I think. Isn't that about -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you call a 23 workshop? I did not. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. 25 MS. NEMEC: Would you all like me to contact 9-3-04 wk 90 1 each department and let them know that if they have any 2 merit increases, that they'll have to have an evaluation to 3 this Court on a certain day? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's do part of it 5 this way. There are, oh, three elected officials sitting 6 here right now. What do they think? What -- 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Ladies first. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Linda, what do you 11 think? 12 MS. UECKER: Wow. Well, I think that's what 13 I've said all along, and I think that's what Commissioner 14 Williams was saying. You know, that's -- there's a little 15 bit of variation where this would be more of a concrete 16 amount, rather than, you know, giving 1 percent to each 17 elected official, which would still be my preference, but 18 I'm -- I'm okay with the other. As far as bringing 19 evaluations in here and giving them to the Court, there 20 again, I don't think you -- y'all don't want to do that. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I do not want to 22 do that. I thought we were talking about what you evaluate, 23 give it to her so she knows what dollar figure we're talking 24 about. 25 MS. UECKER: Maybe what she's saying, then, 9-3-04 wk 91 1 is get your evaluations done, make your decision, and come 2 in here and say, you know, this is what you've decided. Is 3 that -- 4 MS. NEMEC: Yeah, that's good. Sure. And if 5 -- and if, then, the Court has questions on, "Well, why do 6 you feel this employee deserves two steps?" Then she has 7 the evaluation to share that information with you at that 8 time, if it comes down to that. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about you? 12 MS. PIEPER: Well, the thought that's running 13 through my mind is, I come in here and present it, and then 14 my employee may or may not get it. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Correct. 16 MS. PIEPER: It's one of those that falls 17 back on whoever has the gift for gab again. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again? 19 MS. PIEPER: The way I'm -- I'm hearing it is 20 that I come in here with my employee evaluation and I 21 present it to y'all, and it's basically whoever has the gift 22 for gab. Either I get my employee's merit increase or I 23 don't. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't want to see 25 your evaluations. I don't want to make that judgment call. 9-3-04 wk 92 1 But, by the same token, I don't want you to come in, and/or 2 go to Barbara and represent that every employee in your 3 department is eligible for a merit increase. 4 MS. PIEPER: Right. I understand that. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, somewhere in 6 between there is where we ought to be. All I hear Barbara 7 saying is, let's handle it in an orderly fashion, with a 8 recommendation supported by an evaluation and the department 9 head's recommendation, and she -- she will convert that to a 10 dollar figure by reason of the steps involved and tell us 11 the dollar figure. Am I hearing you correctly? 12 MS. NEMEC: That's correct. That's correct. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I 14 don't want to see those evaluations either, because they 15 don't tell me what I need to know to make a decision. 16 They're arbitrary and -- and subjective. What I would want 17 to know is, what has the employee done to improve service or 18 increase revenue or cut costs or improve work environment? 19 Those kind of things. Not a checklist of traits that 20 doesn't -- that doesn't provide me any information to make a 21 decision with. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we improve the 23 evaluation form to include those things that you -- 24 MS. UECKER: I don't think that you can 25 compare every department, Commissioner Nicholson, directly 9-3-04 wk 93 1 related to the budget process itself. You know, I think you 2 have to look within the functions of the duties of that 3 office. You know, just because a performance may not save a 4 County dollar doesn't mean that it does not merit an 5 increase. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what he said, 7 though -- he said improve service. He said one of the 8 criteria was dollars, but he also said that, you know, if 9 you have someone -- 10 MS. UECKER: Well, that's -- that's what the 11 evaluation does. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't want -- I mean, 13 I think we're getting -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the Commissioner's 15 comments boiled down, bottom line -- and he can correct me 16 if I misstate him -- rather than saying, "This employee does 17 a good job of doing this employee's job, and therefore ought 18 to be entitled to a merit increase," that shouldn't be the 19 criteria, because the employee's hired to do that job, and 20 should be doing a good job. However, we're looking for 21 something above and beyond. Increased service to the 22 public, cost-saving measures, productivity increases by 23 virtue of their activities, things that fall outside of 24 their normal routine job function requirements. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me -- but there's 9-3-04 wk 94 1 another side of that, in my -- and I -- and I agree 100 2 percent. But -- but you can see -- I can see where Rusty's 3 department or Road and Bridge Department -- Rusty's 4 department, let's say that he has a guy that goes into a 5 house fire and saves some lives. You know, that's above and 6 beyond. Or Road and Bridge, you know, puts a plan in to 7 stop and help all little blue-haired ladies fix flats, 8 whatever the issue might be. But Linda's office may not 9 have that ability. I mean, they do a certain job, and 10 how -- what would they do that would be above and beyond the 11 call of duty? 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll give you an 13 example. There's only been one merit increase granted that 14 I can recall since I've been on the Court, and that was in 15 the Treasurer's office. And the Treasurer came in and said, 16 "Here's this employee that helped us organize this training 17 program -- administration program to -- to improve our 18 worker's comp experience, and here's the evidence of what 19 that produced for us." She also said, "Here's the 20 checklist, the appraisal form." I don't need the appraisal 21 form. She's told me all -- all I need to know to know that 22 that employee deserves a merit increase for the 23 extraordinary effort she went to, to -- to improve 24 government. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 9-3-04 wk 95 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think another way 2 is, like, in Linda's office -- or Jannett's would be equal, 3 or Paula's, probably. You know, someone who's, in their 4 mind, gone out of their way to learn other -- additional 5 jobs -- I mean, you know, know everyone's job, always 6 willing to help, you know, always polite to the public, 7 someone who just really, you know, is exceptional in the 8 way -- 9 MS. UECKER: As compared to maybe another 10 employee. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As compared to the rest 12 of your staff. I mean, if -- you know, numbers tell us that 13 everyone is not going to be exceptional. And we don't -- 14 you know, but if there's someone who is exceptional, we'd 15 like to try to reward that person. Which -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Linda, just out of 17 curiosity, is -- well, without revealing any names or 18 anything, what is your criteria for making that judgment 19 call? 20 MS. UECKER: What is my criteria? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, for -- in terms 22 of evaluating an employee to get you to the point of 23 recommending a merit. 24 MS. UECKER: Well, basically what Jonathan 25 said, is you know you're going to have employees that are 9-3-04 wk 96 1 more helpful to the public, which, again, reflects on not 2 only me as the elected official, but county government as a 3 whole. And then you're going to have those that are going 4 to -- you know, when someone comes in, they may look down 5 and act like they didn't see them, or where somebody else is 6 always going to be the first one up there to help. Or if 7 the court needs something, or if the deputy -- or if the 8 Sheriff's Department needs something, that person is always 9 going to be eager to volunteer and eager to do what needs to 10 be done, because we're all working for the same result, as 11 far as law enforcement. The Sheriff isn't the only person 12 in law enforcement. I'm -- I'm a branch of law enforcement 13 too, as is the court. So, we're all trying to work 14 together, and to make the end result a conviction and a fine 15 and court cost paid. You know, there's going to be 16 employees that make that happen much easier than others. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 18 MS. UECKER: I don't know if that makes a lot 19 of sense, but -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But that sounds like, 22 to me, that's just part of their job, though. 23 MS. UECKER: It is. It is, but there's going 24 to be some that try a little bit harder. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 9-3-04 wk 97 1 MS. PIEPER: You know, some that will pick -- 2 try to pick up the phone on the second ring rather than the 3 third or fourth. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: First ring. 5 MS. UECKER: Like, I've got a couple -- the 6 two that I've got in mind will go -- 7 MS. PIEPER: They have to have time to reach 8 it. 9 MS. UECKER: -- will go to a person who's 10 maybe a little bit far behind and say, you know, "I've got 11 some time right now. Can I help you do this?" 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That makes sense to 13 me. 14 MS. PIEPER: Right. 15 MS. UECKER: That's the one example -- that's 16 the one issue that I'm going to use this year to make that 17 decision. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That one makes sense 19 to me. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like Barbara's 21 plan. 22 MR. ALFORD: Can I say something real quick 23 on this? Under the old deal, we used to have -- y'all keep 24 talking about evaluations. We used to call them 25 justification. That way, it kind of -- why we are 9-3-04 wk 98 1 justifying asking for a raise. I asked for one raise this 2 year for my employee, simply because we're taking on J.P. 3 stuff. Our percentage this year -- remember, y'all, we're 4 getting a bigger piece of a smaller pie, which means we're 5 having to work harder to get the money. So, that's what I'm 6 talking about. He's gone above and beyond; more duties, 7 going out and trying to get more of what we have. And I 8 classify that as a justification. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Rather than a change in job 10 description, because he's, in essence, assumed additional 11 duties. Because it's the same work; it's just -- 12 MR. ALFORD: Broader. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Wasn't there before. 14 MR. ALFORD: Right. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty didn't get his 17 turn. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right, I didn't. 19 It was my turn. Personally, I think most of y'all know I 20 don't believe in merit raises for law enforcement. Our job 21 descriptions and everything say, "and any other duties 22 assigned." Okay? And I think that takes care of it. We 23 evaluate them every six months; we counsel them, and if they 24 aren't doing their job, they're going to go somewhere else 25 and work, is the way I look at it. The only thing I have in 9-3-04 wk 99 1 this budget -- and I misstated a while ago. I just looked 2 at it. I've got three positions that are 12's, and those 3 are the three that I would like to see at least get a 4 one-step or however Barbara can work it out. But the 5 problem I have right now in contemplating that as a merit 6 increase, two of those three positions are open right now, 7 because one transferred to another department in the county 8 where they went up to a 14, and I have that. It's -- I 9 can't go in and evaluate to start them out above that 12.1. 10 That's where I have a -- I have a problem. I'd like to see 11 those lowest-paid ones, those 12's -- that position get 12 moved up a little bit to where we can do something. 13 MS. UECKER: That's what they talked about 14 doing next year. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Next year, but what do 16 we do right here now? 17 MS. NEMEC: What you do right now is, if you 18 have an employee that has the experience that that job 19 requires, you come in -- 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Come in and ask for a 21 12.2? 22 MS. NEMEC: You ask for them to be moved up. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have no problem with 24 that at all. And move the one I've got, you know, to a 25 one-step. I'd just like to see that come up a little bit on 9-3-04 wk 100 1 those 12's. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is -- 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Otherwise -- 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're having the 5 same conversation we've dealt with a little bit last year, 6 about the problem of the working poor, people who are on the 7 County payroll that -- that make -- whose salary is so 8 little that they may qualify for public support. Probably 9 -- and the 12.1's, the 12.2's, those kinds of salary levels 10 are probably all in that category. Probably there needs to 11 be a -- a structural change. We may need to, you know, 12 establish minimum salaries, and -- and call them 12.1's and 13 12.2's, but move them up to getting paid a respectable pay 14 raise. That's not something we can solve between now and 15 October 1, but it's probably something that deserves more 16 attention. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does. Barbara's 18 plan. How quick can you give us a number? 19 MS. NEMEC: As quickly as the officials get 20 with me. When do we need to come back to court? We'll just 21 make sure it's done at that date. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It will be, at the 23 earliest, end of next week, and likely the following week. 24 MS. UECKER: Give us a deadline, Barbara. 25 MS. NEMEC: Y'all are saying the end of next 9-3-04 wk 101 1 week or the following week. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: End of next week, we'll 3 have -- 4 MS. NEMEC: If we can have -- I'd like to 5 have everything by Wednesday, myself. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next Wednesday? 7 MS. NEMEC: For them to have it to me, so 8 that I can present it to y'all by -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Monday's a holiday, and 10 today's Friday. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's all right. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That gives them one day. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: That's enough. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They know what we're 15 talking about; that's okay. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd say Thursday. And 17 the reason is, we're going to have to meet -- when do we 18 have the airport meeting? Tuesday or Wednesday? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have to look in my 20 book. I don't know. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Either Tuesday or 22 Wednesday, so we're not going to probably come back in -- 23 our next workshop will be, at the earliest, next Thursday or 24 Friday. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me go get it; 9-3-04 wk 102 1 that's important. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know it will be either 3 Tuesday or Wednesday, so it will be Thursday or Friday, next 4 workshop. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm gone noon Thursday. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it'll probably be -- 7 and then Monday's Commissioners Court. I would recommend 8 we -- we do a workshop in the afternoon of -- our final 9 workshop the afternoon of our Commissioners Court meeting, 10 and get this -- get them in to you by Thursday. And that 11 afternoon, we'll hash out these final couple of items, and 12 that way, we can turn it loose to the Auditor and the Tax 13 Assessor a week from Monday. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And when we review 15 those proposed merit increases, I think it would be 16 extraordinarily helpful if that department head or elected 17 official was here to justify them. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they have to be 19 here to justify it. I don't think -- I wouldn't consider 20 one if they don't come. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, the 22 next Airport Board meeting is Tuesday afternoon, 23 September 7th, 3 o'clock. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, we may 25 schedule a workshop for Monday. 9-3-04 wk 103 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Monday afternoon, 1:30? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A week from Monday 3 afternoon at 1:30. And then -- 4 MS. NEMEC: If they give them to me Thursday, 5 that will give me Friday to get them together. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get them to you, and 7 we'll finish it the afternoon of -- whatever that Monday is. 8 Not next Monday, a week from Monday. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 13th. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 13th. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the day of the 12 regular Commissioners Court meeting, I think. 13 MS. MITCHELL: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you suggesting we 15 don't need a meeting next Friday? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I think -- I don't 17 see any reason to have two more workshops. I think one. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you think that's 19 our last meeting? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Workshop, yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it has to be. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well yeah. Yeah, it 23 does. That's why I asked if you're sure we don't need to 24 have one on the 10th. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I really don't think -- I 9-3-04 wk 104 1 mean, we're -- we have a little bit to do; Extension 2 facility, and we have a little bit with the City. 3 Everything else is done. 4 MR. TOMLINSON: I have an issue. It's back 5 to the Ag Barn. The hundred -- $150,000 is -- is more than 6 your repair, and it does increase the value of the property, 7 so I would like to see this go into -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Capital Outlay? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: -- Capital Improvements in 10 the Fund 70 budget. So -- it's a permanent improvement. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree, yes. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excellent. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For the reasons we 14 talked about earlier. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: So, I -- I won't put it in 17 the -- in the Ag Barn budget, itself. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excellent. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, that's good. I 20 think we have one other issue -- I'm sorry. Go ahead, Dave. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, go ahead. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The fire issue, 23 volunteer fire departments. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's it. KARFA 25 had their meeting Tuesday night or Wednesday night -- 9-3-04 wk 105 1 Wednesday night, I think. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, today's 4 Friday. And we had wanted to hear from them, if they had a 5 choice between getting $15,000 matching for communications 6 equipment or getting a raise this year, which would you opt 7 for? And they talked about it and unanimously opted for 8 improved communication equipment, so I'm proposing that we 9 leave that $15,000 matching money in. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Grant match item, rather than 11 an increase in each of their allocations? 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. The only -- 13 the only other possible fly in that ointment is that 9-1-1 14 -- emergency 9-1-1 served notice that they can't expect -- 15 may not be able to expect to receive funding for other 16 communications costs in future, but I think they did get 17 some commitment that they would get it for the remainder of 18 the next budget year. That's funding for the cost of pager 19 service and some pagers. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Was -- was the KARFA 21 meeting unanimously attended from all the fire departments? 22 Do you know? 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I didn't ask that 24 question. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I have no idea 9-3-04 wk 106 1 how -- how strongly attended those meetings are, if they get 2 a real good attendance at all of them or not. That, to me, 3 is -- as long as it was a majority of them. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: The ones that I attended 5 sometime back had pretty good attendance. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they usually do. 7 I just want to make sure we don't just have "unanimous" 8 meaning two. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I agree. I 10 think it's important that they all buy into it in the plan. 11 I don't have any problem with what you're suggesting, but -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have a problem 13 with it either, except, I agree, I want to make sure that 14 everybody's there. But we put -- what is it, 13? How much? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $15,000. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $15,000. Put $15,000 17 in the budget. Now, what if they -- something real weird 18 happens, that they don't get the application in on time, or 19 even the State says, "No, you don't get the money." Then, I 20 mean, we need to agree here of what we do at that point. Do 21 we -- are we going to give them -- then give them $1,500 out 22 of that, and then turn the rest of it back in? Or how is 23 that going to be handled? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good point. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course it's a good 9-3-04 wk 107 1 point. I brought it up. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And another point 3 connected to that good point is looking ahead after they get 4 the grant. Is that going to be something they're going 5 to -- the maintenance and all that stuff that goes with it 6 on an ongoing basis, is that something they're going to come 7 back to Commissioners Court for, or are they going to look 8 to their own budgets to take care of those items? If 9 they're going to look to their own budget to do it, which 10 I -- I think they have to, then I favor putting it in their 11 budget now. They can expend it. They could make it -- and 12 that makes it their commitment, once they take it out of 13 their budget and give it for this grant thing, unless 14 there's some kind of grant requirement that says the County 15 has to do it. That way, then they're committed to it, and 16 they know that those dollars in the future are going to be 17 committed to it as well. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we've -- 19 I've talked with Danny Feller, the president of KARFA, about 20 that, and he doesn't know the answer either. He believes 21 that the -- well, they won't know till they select a 22 contractor, but he believes it'll come with a -- the price 23 will include a maintenance agreement for some period of 24 time. And I would agree with you that, when that time 25 expires, that it'll be up to the individual fire 9-3-04 wk 108 1 departments, probably through KARFA, to fund any maintenance 2 or extraordinary costs. They can come back to us if they 3 want to, but -- but I don't want to buy this thing forever. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who owns this? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's another 7 question. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We do. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: County does? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County does? Do we 11 own the current equipment? 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We will own the new 14 equipment? 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The best thinking 16 they have so far from -- advice from -- is it Advantage 17 Communications? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that they can 20 solve the problem with two new towers, and by putting new 21 repeaters on two current towers. And that's -- that's not 22 exact, but that's the concept that they would follow. And 23 that the -- the two new towers will be purchased with grant 24 money, and that the County would own them. We might want to 25 go back to KARFA and say, "We don't want to own them; KARFA 9-3-04 wk 109 1 has to own them," but I don't know if they have the kind of 2 organization status to own assets. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: May have to be the 4 individual fire department. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: May have to be. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, then again, you 7 know, the reason I was concerned about the time frame thing, 8 because he made the statement in here the other day that 9 they had -- a site had not been chosen. That may be the 10 biggest hurdle of all. I tell you, people -- I hear -- I 11 get a lot of complaints, and I hear a lot of people talk 12 negative about how many towers are going in and how many 13 towers are around here. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I hear you, Buster. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That may be a 16 difficult thing to do. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: After -- after my -- 18 our discussion in here, I was driving home and I started 19 noticing towers for the first time. You know how you don't 20 notice your surroundings? Must be 15 of them between here 21 and my house. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Popping up like 24 mushrooms. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Drive to Junction with 9-3-04 wk 110 1 that in mind; they are everywhere. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One thing they may keep 3 in mind if they own them -- that's why we opted in the 4 Sheriff's Office radio system not to -- is the maintenance 5 of owning a tower. It's got to be painted every year or 6 two. It's got -- the lights have -- it's unbelievable. And 7 then, if they don't own them, then you've got to do what the 8 Sheriff's Office had to do, which is lease space on them, 9 which then you're going to have a -- like we have, a yearly 10 rental fee from the landowner and from the owner of the 11 tower itself, and it can get into pretty substantial dollars 12 year-to-year just to maintain, before you get into 13 equipment. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's exactly why I 15 brought it up the other day along that line, because the 16 ongoing expenses can be significant. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we leave it 18 like this; that we're budgeting the grant, but we're not 19 agreeing to own or maintain any equipment. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that statement 22 need to be made firmer? Does that need to be in writing 23 somewhere? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if we agree to the 25 $15,000, if we're signing off on the grant, it's going to be 9-3-04 wk 111 1 real clear in the grant. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's right. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we'll be looking at the 4 particulars of whatever that proposal is at the time when we 5 authorize the expenditure of that money, and we can hang 6 whatever attachments we want to on it. That would be one of 7 them. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just -- I'm kind 9 of unclear about what volunteer fire departments can own and 10 lease. Do they have power to lease a piece of property, put 11 a tower on it, all those kinds of things? 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The volunteer fire 13 departments do have that ability. I don't think KARFA has 14 any ability. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably not. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You know, you used 17 to be an attorney for KARFA. Can they own assets? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. Nonprofit, sure. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: KARFA's a nonprofit? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, sure. I formed it. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'd better 23 doublecheck it, then. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Check it out. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. That's it? 9-3-04 wk 112 1 You're done? I'm done. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We done? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're done. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Now we'll come back to you. 5 Have you got anything else for this trip? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Could we 7 get that light bulb fixed right up there, please? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll put that -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the next two weeks? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: -- in the next workshop. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two weeks. 12 (Discussion off the record.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think so, 15 Judge. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nothing today. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Four? You through? We'll 18 stand adjourned. 19 (Budget Workshop adjourned at 11:26 a.m.) 20 - - - - - - - - - - 21 22 23 24 25 9-3-04 wk 113 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 23rd day of September, 8 2004. 9 10 11 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 12 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 13 Certified Shorthand Reporter 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9-3-04 wk