1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Budget Workshop 10 Wednesday, August 24, 2005 11 9:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 23 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 24 ABSENT: H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 25 2 1 I N D E X August 24, 2005 2 PAGE Review and discuss FY 2005-06 Budgets for various County 3 Departments, including, but not limited to the following departments: 4 District Courts (198th and 216th) ................ 3 5 County Clerk .................................... 26 Treasurer ....................................... 58 6 County Court at Law ............................. 72 County Attorney ................................. 80 7 Extension ....................................... -- Animal Control .................................. 92 8 Constables (1, 2, 3 & 4) ....................... 102 J.P.'s (1, 2, 3 & 4) ........................... 110 9 Environmental Health ........................... 133 Auditor ........................................ 149 10 Collections .................................... 160 DPS ............................................ 166 11 County Judge/County Court....................... 168 Commissioners' Court ........................... 173 12 Nondepartmental................................. 185 Juvenile Detention ............................. 191 13 Juvenile Probation ............................. 242 Volunteer Fire Departments ..................... 247 14 County Sponsored ............................... 251 Permanent Improvements.......................... 263 15 Parks .......................................... 264 City/County .................................... 278 16 Adjourned 286 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Wednesday, August 24, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., a budget 2 workshop meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was 3 held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call to order the Kerr 8 County Commissioners Court workshop scheduled for this date 9 and time, Wednesday, August 24th, 2005, at 9 a.m. it's a bit 10 past that now. We have a number of department budgets to 11 consider. The first one on the list is the 198th and 216th 12 District Courts; that will be under Tab 7 that you're 13 looking at. I would make one comment. In light of the 14 effort to try and reduce our jail population and to have 15 judge or judges available to hear these cases so that they 16 can be disposed of in proper -- in due order and get 17 these -- get the jail population down and the -- the 18 District Judges have indicated to me that by providing, 19 under 415 -- Account Number 415, a Special District Judge, 20 an additional $6,000, that that would permit one full or two 21 half days a month to handle additional pleas. The Sheriff, 22 I think, was -- I don't see him here this morning, but he 23 was in on that, and I think was encouraged by the fact that 24 there might be additional judges available in order to be 25 able to handle those pleas. 8-24-05 bwk 4 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, is that 216th, 2 198th, or both? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: It doesn't -- well, a total of 4 $6,000. It doesn't make any difference whether you split it 5 between the two -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: -- or you put it in one. 8 It -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: It'll -- it will get resolved 11 that way. That's what it'll get you is one full day a month 12 or two half days a month to handle those pleas. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the recommended 14 would be seven instead of the $1,000 we have there now? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, uh-huh. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, it seems to me it 17 would make more sense -- 'cause when it comes to Tommy, to 18 keep from doing budget amendments, to put three and three. 19 Otherwise, we're going to have to shift it, aren't we, 20 Tommy, during the year? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: Depends on what court they go 22 to, but -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But -- 24 MR. TOMLINSON: That would be fine, yeah. I 25 can do that, yeah, put three and three. 8-24-05 bwk 5 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Instead of having $1,000 in 2 each -- each one of them, just put $4,000 in each one of 3 them? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, how much -- what 6 I'm looking at on Special Trials under the 216th was 100,000 7 budgeted, which I presume is kind of a guess for the Seard 8 trial, maybe. But I also am not real confident that's going 9 to happen. And what has happened -- has happened is that 10 Special Trials, for a number of years, is kind of a -- 11 almost like a contingency/slush fund. And I don't mean 12 "slush fund" in a negative way; just that's where we pull a 13 lot of money out when they go over budget. Do the judges 14 have any ability to control some of these other costs? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Frankly, no. Of course, some 16 of the big ones are the -- the special trials, and when -- 17 when those happen and you've got someone in custody that is 18 competent to stand trial, they're entitled to some sort of 19 priority to having their case heard, and you just got to go 20 with the flow and provide whatever resources are necessary 21 in order to hear that case. With the -- with the 22 Court-appointed attorneys, you know, the volume of cases has 23 a lot to do with it, the -- the possible offensive issues, 24 what pretrial matters can be raised. There's all sorts of 25 variables that come into those things, so that it's 8-24-05 bwk 6 1 really -- you can't program one case and have it serve as a 2 model for another one. Every single one of them are 3 different. And it's -- it's really a tough proposition, and 4 I'm sure the Auditor will tell you that it's something that 5 we wrastle with every single year in every single court. It 6 runs from the top to the district down to my juvenile cases. 7 The one thing that's probably a little bit more predictable 8 is my mental health, but we've never really had that much of 9 a problem with those. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: My last conversation -- Becky 11 may have more information about this than I do, but the last 12 conversation I had with one of the District Judges is that, 13 beginning this year, there's -- he said we can look for more 14 Court-appointed attorneys in relation to Child Protective 15 cases. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Because in the past, they'd 18 only been assigned under certain circumstances, and I 19 think -- I think, beginning this year, I think probably most 20 -- each case will probably require one. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We were told in 22 Austin at the Legislative Review that the Legislature now 23 says we have to provide for indigent defense in Child 24 Protective cases. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In all of them, even the 8-24-05 bwk 7 1 -- even the temporary ones, which was not in the past. So, 2 a temporary hearing to do something, we have to provide the 3 legal defense, as opposed to just later. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: What's the effective date of 5 that legislation? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think September 1. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think September 1. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: 'Cause I know heretofore, only 9 in the event that there was a possibility that there would 10 be a termination of parental rights were we obligated to 11 provide counsel to indigents. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As I understand, it was 13 any temporary disposition or temporary, you know, 14 termination of that right, as well as -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Outside placement. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- temporary outside 17 placement, they get it as well now. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The question would 19 be, how many cases a year can we anticipate where that might 20 happen? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I might note that the 22 Legislature did not provide any funding for this. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, that's another 24 unfunded mandate. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: So, my point -- I guess my 8-24-05 bwk 8 1 point is that the $100,000 may be appropriate. I mean, 2 because it -- as the Judge stated, it's a -- how much you 3 need is kind of a roll of the dice, so that's just an 4 additional cost that we may see for sure. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to talk -- 7 MS. HENDERSON: When we did Court-Appointed 8 Attorneys line, at that time when I did this, that was not 9 -- I did not know that, so when we talked about it, that was 10 not included in what we already have for Court-appointed 11 attorneys. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So your numbers don't 13 include that possibility? 14 MS. HENDERSON: No, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to talk about 16 Special Trials some more. We've got 100,000 in 216th and 17 50,000 in 198th. Is that anticipated for a specific trial, 18 or is that just in case there's a -- 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Originally, it was. It -- 20 last year or year before, we set -- we put that amount in 21 there specifically for the Seard case, and it didn't happen 22 last year. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But we've gone from 24 -- in two years, we've gone from $800 in Special Trials to 25 150,000 in Special Trials. And reiterating what 8-24-05 bwk 9 1 Commissioner Letz was saying, that if we use that money for 2 other purposes, that sort of defeats the -- the discipline 3 of the budgeting process. Wouldn't it be better if we -- if 4 we don't have any belief that there's going to be special 5 trial money needed, wouldn't it be better to not budget it, 6 and then take whatever steps are necessary to amend the 7 budget if it becomes necessary? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, one of the 9 issues had to do with that Seard -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seard trial. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Seard trial. And he 12 was sent to -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Vernon. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- mental -- a mental 15 institution and then back. Then he's back in a mental 16 institution. So, the question is, is he going to come back 17 for trial in -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that anyone 19 knows the answer to that. I mean, if that trial does -- if 20 that trial happens, it's going to be a very expensive trial. 21 If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. I mean, it's just 22 something that -- that's out of everyone in this county, at 23 least this Court and District, probably, largely out of 24 their control. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, if there's 8-24-05 bwk 10 1 still some expectation Seard's trial will cost $100,000, 2 that would explain the 216th, but it doesn't explain the 3 $50,000 in the 198th. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Can you enlighten us on that, 5 Becky? 6 MS. HENDERSON: Well, we just don't know what 7 to expect. I mean, we could have a murder tomorrow and they 8 could go to trial -- a capital murder tomorrow and they 9 could go to trial next year. I mean, we don't know, and so 10 it's kind of in there because we don't know. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: At this point, though -- 12 MS. HENDERSON: On Seard -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: -- so far as you know, number 14 one, on the 216th, is there an expectation that the Seard 15 case may have to go to trial this coming fiscal year? 16 MS. HENDERSON: There's no way of knowing. 17 They found him incompetent, and in a few more months they'll 18 do another competency hearing. We just don't know. If they 19 find him competent, then he'll definitely go to trial. If 20 they keep finding him incompetent, then it just keeps 21 lingering on. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: How many times has he been 23 found incompetent since the start of this whole process? 24 MS. HENDERSON: Twice, Tommy? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Twice, I think. 8-24-05 bwk 11 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Twice. 2 MS. HENDERSON: At least twice. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 4 MS. HENDERSON: I mean, probably he'll be 5 incompetent for the next year and a half, but there's no way 6 of knowing that. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to 198th. Is 8 there anything that's pending now in the 198th that gives us 9 reason to believe that there might be an extraordinary case 10 there that might go to trial during the coming fiscal year 11 that is going to be out of the ordinary expensive? 12 MS. HENDERSON: Nothing I can think of right 13 now. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 15 MS. HENDERSON: But same synopsis. We don't 16 know -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. 18 MS. HENDERSON: -- you know, what might 19 happen today or tomorrow. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- and we've 21 used Special Trials as a little bit of a contingency line 22 item. I don't have a real problem -- and I understand that 23 there's no way to budget for some of these items. It's 24 driven by the case load and the individual cases that come 25 about during the year. But I also think that we're probably 8-24-05 bwk 12 1 budgeting too much based on what we think. I mean, if we 2 knew there was going to be a capital murder trial this year, 3 that's one thing, but this year I don't think -- I think the 4 odds are there's not going to be one in either court. And I 5 would recommend that we not reduce them all the way down, 6 but, you know, maybe reduce them to $25,000 in each one, and 7 use it as a contingency type. If we need to declare an 8 emergency during the year, we declare an emergency during 9 the year. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Or we may want to give some 11 consideration -- as Ms. Henderson said, at the time that she 12 put in Court-appointed attorneys, she was not making any 13 allowance for these -- these C.P.S. cases where there's 14 indigent defense available. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I -- you know, 16 that's something -- I have no idea how many cases -- I mean, 17 C.P.S. cases are even done in a year. I have no -- 18 MS. HENDERSON: We've got a lot. They're 19 really -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A lot? 21 MS. HENDERSON: Yes, sir. They're really -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the -- 23 MS. HENDERSON: Just in the past year, we've 24 had a whole lot. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: While it's not in 8-24-05 bwk 13 1 this budget, we still have to adjust the District Clerk's 2 budget to account for the increase in jury pay. It's not in 3 this budget, but it's related. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: You can pull in one more. On 5 these C.P.S. cases, I know in Judge Brown's County Court at 6 Law budget, he has a special item called Master's Fees, I 7 believe, or something to that effect. And Judge Brown would 8 like to get that out of his budget and into a separate 9 C.P.S. type budget, and I tend to agree with him, because he 10 has no direct control over those cases. They're handled by 11 the master, and when it comes to approving those fees, they 12 are, for all practical purposes, approved by the master. 13 Maybe they're confirmed or reviewed and -- and -- by the 14 District Judges, and maybe even Judge Brown, but he's 15 uncomfortable doing that, and I don't blame him. I would be 16 too under those circumstances. So, I mentioned to the 17 Auditor the possibility of creating a separate budget for 18 those C.P.S. cases, and what I'm hearing now about the new 19 legislation coming into effect makes my feeling that much 20 stronger that we need to segregate that so that we can get a 21 better handle on what those things are. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Will those C.P.S. cases 23 go more to District Court or County Court? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: That's a Becky question. 25 MS. HENDERSON: It's evenly -- it's random, 8-24-05 bwk 14 1 A, B, and C, whichever one comes up when they go to file it. 2 So, it -- it's pretty even between the three of them. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about if we reduce 4 216th's $50,000, leave $50,000 in both of them? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd kind of like that 6 approach better than taking them down to 25. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And then, if we 8 have to declare an emergency, we can declare an emergency. 9 MS. HENDERSON: Is that for Special Trials? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 11 MS. HENDERSON: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, both of them are 13 $50,000, both courts. 14 MS. HENDERSON: What about the attorney's 15 fees for C.P.S.? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're going to have 17 to go up on that. Do you have an estimate about how many 18 cases we're talking about? 19 MS. HENDERSON: I can find out for you. I 20 don't right now, no, sir. I mean, it's hard to say. We're 21 averaging -- our C.P.S. associate judge is here probably two 22 to three times a month, and she's averaging anywhere from -- 23 what would you say, Rex? Anywhere from 10 to 12 cases every 24 time she's here? 25 MR. EMERSON: Yeah. 8-24-05 bwk 15 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me ask the County 2 Attorney if -- Rex, do you have any feel for how many -- 3 what kind of attorney fee is related to one case? What the 4 total might be? 5 MR. EMERSON: If this will give you an idea, 6 sure. On a typical C.P.S. case, you'll have anywhere from 7 three to five attorneys, typically. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wow. 9 MR. EMERSON: Depending on how many parents 10 are involved. And the problem you run into is that -- if 11 they reach an agreement early, it's not an issue, but 12 typically they don't. And if it goes all the way to trial, 13 realistically, you're going to pay those attorneys anywhere 14 from $3,000 or $4,000 to $10,000 apiece, depending on what 15 type of case it is. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hmm. 17 MS. HENDERSON: They don't all do that, but 18 that is a typical -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not all indigent. 20 MR. EMERSON: But that's -- well, not all -- 21 not all of them are indigent, but indigency, as I understand 22 it on the new statute, only applies to removal cases. If 23 it's termination, they're still required to appoint counsel. 24 Is that correct, Judge? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't handle those cases. 8-24-05 bwk 16 1 MR. EMERSON: I'm just talking about the 2 statute. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I know under the -- the 5 existing law as it is now, if there is -- one of the grounds 6 for relief that -- that is requested is termination of 7 parental rights. You -- they're entitled to counsel, and 8 most judges I know very liberally construe that. They try 9 and encourage the parent to get his or her own counsel, but 10 even if they feel like they're capable and have the 11 resources to do that, if they continue to assert that they 12 don't have the resources, most judges I know, because of the 13 risk of being reversed on appeal, will go ahead and appoint 14 counsel. So, it's a risky business if you don't insure that 15 they have a lawyer, even if you think they have the 16 resources to do their own. 17 MR. EMERSON: If I may add one more thing, if 18 the issue you're talking about as far as expanding cases is 19 just removal without termination, the attorney's fees will 20 not be that much per case. 'Cause a C.P.S. case typically, 21 on a removal, will be resolved in less than a year, and 22 generally the kids are removed, the parents are required to 23 go through some type of remediation program, educational 24 program, and then once that happens, they're placed back in 25 the home. 8-24-05 bwk 17 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, as I understand it, 2 the -- the statute -- the old statute was for permanent 3 termination, and the new statute is temporary, so it's 4 adding temporary termination or, you know -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Outside placement. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I would think there 7 would be more temporary ones than permanent ones, I would 8 think. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does this -- this 11 change that's driving the costs up, is that legislative or 12 court? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Legislative. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Legislative. Another 15 unfunded mandate. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Part of the -- the C.P.S. 17 explosion that occurred last year that got so much 18 legislative attention, it was part of all that. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sounds like the Bar 20 Association's full employment act to me. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Retirement plan for 22 Bar Association members. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: In looking at Judge Brown's 24 budget, I note that he's got a separate line item for Master 25 Court Appointments for $15,000 in his budget, and that's 8-24-05 bwk 18 1 what I was referring to earlier, is -- and I talked to the 2 Auditor about taking that out of Judge Brown's budget and 3 creating a separate Master's budget for those C.P.S. 4 attorney's fees to be charged against so that we can have a 5 handle on which ones are -- are indigent criminal cases 6 under the Indigent Defense Act and which ones are under the 7 C.P.S. I assume that's still possible, isn't it, Tommy? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: It's possible. I visited 9 with the District Judges about this issue, and they -- their 10 position is that -- is those cases, even though they're 11 heard by an associate judge, are still their cases, and 12 they -- they actually approve those expenditures after the 13 associate judge has reviewed them. So, I thought -- 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The question is, how 15 are we going to estimate a dollar impact of this and get it 16 in the budget? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: And do we do it under separate 18 line items for Court-appointed attorneys and then Master 19 appointments in C.P.S. type cases? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- Becky, do 21 you keep track of what types of cases these Court-appointed 22 attorneys are going to? 23 MS. HENDERSON: You mean for C.P.S. or 24 anything? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just in general. I mean, 8-24-05 bwk 19 1 can you tell me, like -- if I was to ask, could you tell me, 2 well, out of the total expenditures, these are C.P.S.? I 3 mean -- 4 MS. HENDERSON: Oh, I can find out. I don't 5 have that right off the top of my head, but we can go 6 through -- the District Clerk would have a record of it, 7 probably. Tommy, I don't know if your office would. 8 Probably wouldn't know which cases they came to. We could 9 get that information for you. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It just seems that -- I 11 mean, from a -- it would be nice to be able to have a number 12 next year that we can tell Mr. Hilderbran and Mr. Fraser 13 about that, "This is what you did to us last Legislature." 14 I mean, 'cause they're the ones that control it. We have no 15 control over this; we're just mandated to do it. And I 16 think that, you know, that's an important thing for them to 17 know as legislators, and for the public to know as 18 taxpayers. 19 MS. HENDERSON: Sure. We could do that if -- 20 if we had a special line item that had Court-Appointed 21 Attorneys-dash-C.P.S., we could put them all under that line 22 item. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. They're -- they're 25 considered civil cases, so -- 8-24-05 bwk 20 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: -- they're not -- they're not 3 subject to the Fair Defense Act. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: There's no -- there's no 6 chance of any kind of reimbursement on those. Now, the one 7 reason that -- that we do -- there is a reason to keep these 8 special trials separate, in that there is a way to retrieve 9 some of the expense of a capital murder case. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Through -- through the 12 Comptroller's office. They -- they will reimburse counties 13 for -- for capital murder trials for some -- for designated 14 expenditures. So, by keeping those separate, then -- then 15 it makes it easier to -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: -- to apply for that when 18 that time comes. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd almost say to leave 20 it the way it is right now in Special Trials, and then, when 21 we get a better handle on the amount, raise it as an 22 emergency item, which I think this qualifies. We don't 23 know. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think we can 25 quantify it. Nobody seems to know. 8-24-05 bwk 21 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Anybody got any idea 2 of -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: This lady right here's -- 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- the possibilities 5 with -- is it going to double or -- 6 MS. KAHANT: I have a question. I'd like to 7 ask a question. My name's Carolyn Kahant. As far as the 8 Special Trials line item, is it possible to put a 9 restriction on it so that it's only used for special trials 10 and not for other things, in order to keep a handle on the 11 budget? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: It's initially set up that 13 way, but when we get towards the end of the budget year and 14 other line items -- for example, Court-appointed 15 attorneys -- run out of funds, typically what happens is 16 that we look for other funds within that same department 17 budget in order to cover those legitimate expenses of that 18 department, and transfer from one line item to the other. 19 That's how we utilize that. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, we can't 21 really -- I understand what you're saying, but we can't 22 legally -- I guess we could tell the judges to stop hearing 23 cases for a while, but that's just -- that would be worse. 24 I mean, I don't think we could do that, 'cause I think they 25 would probably instruct us otherwise. 8-24-05 bwk 22 1 MS. KAHANT: What happens if the Special 2 Trials fund's all used up, and then we still need more 3 money? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We declare an emergency. 5 MS. KAHANT: And, so, no matter how much it 6 is, we just keep shuffling -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have no choice. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what the court 9 system's all about. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: What you're suggesting, then, 11 if I understand, Mr. Tomlinson, is that we maybe have two 12 Court-Appointed Attorney categories in each of the court's 13 budgets, one criminal and one civil? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: And we can keep up for Fair 16 Defense reporting. And then the other one would necessarily 17 be the C.P.S. type cases. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would we be splitting 21 that amount on the Court-appointed attorneys to satisfy the 22 two line items, or are we going to add something for what's 23 anticipated in the -- on the civil side? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe Becky could look at 25 it and figure out how to split the criminal versus the 8-24-05 bwk 23 1 civil, and look at some kind of a ballpark, maybe, on what 2 this new mandate will cost. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: I would guess that the 4 percentage of the total for C.P.S. cases to-date is between 5 15 and 20 percent. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much, Tommy? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Between 15 and 20 percent. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Of the total? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. I -- I have to keep up 10 with -- with all the criminal in order to get reimbursement 11 from the State for -- for the criminal, and -- but I see 12 all -- each invoice or each voucher for Court-appointed 13 attorneys, so I'm remembering that -- that the total that 14 applies to criminal are around 80 percent or 85 percent of 15 the total. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, with that -- maybe 17 just add 20 percent to the Court-appointed attorneys. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And create a separate 19 line. Take 20 percent of the total. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 20 percent of the total, 21 and add 20 -- maybe add 20 percent; say we're going to 22 double that expenditure, so -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: 22,000. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, 22,000. So, maybe 25 that 42 -- 8-24-05 bwk 24 1 JUDGE TINLEY: 110 -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it will be -- 110 3 will get reduced to 90, and then the other -- the new item 4 which will be criminal, and then the other item would be 40. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: New item will be 6 civil. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Criminal will be 8 90,000; civil will be 40,000. And that's adding 20,000 to 9 that combined -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, you're proposing 11 to cut back the 110 to 90? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if we're going to 13 put the C.P.S. ones out, we're going to put the civil -- if 14 20 percent of those are civil -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we ought to put it in 17 the civil category. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that what I'm hearing? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, instead of 110, 21 we'll have 90 in the criminal and 20 in the civil? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 40. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: 40. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 40. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The 20 percent we're 8-24-05 bwk 25 1 taking out, and 20 percent we're adding because of the new 2 mandate. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Make that a net 5 increase of 20,000. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What about in the 8 198th? Same -- same theory? 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same theory, but the 11 numbers are too hard for me; there's a 5 in there. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: I'll figure it out. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or we can do it with -- I 14 mean, do an 80 and -- 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Looks like -- looks 16 like 80 and -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 30. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 80 and 30. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: 19's going to be 38? You're 20 just going to 30? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah 80-30. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You'll create a new 23 line item? 24 (Mr. Tomlinson nodded.) 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When you're making 8-24-05 bwk 26 1 budget amendments for districts courts, do you have to 2 follow this -- can you move money from one court to the 3 other one? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We do it all the 5 time. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: We do. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. So, it -- you 8 don't have to have an emergency if one's short and the other 9 one's not? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Just got to make sure that 11 Ms. Henderson says it's okay. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: We've already been there this 13 year. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 15 MS. HENDERSON: It's fine. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on the 19 District Courts? Why don't we move to County Clerk, then? 20 That is going to be under Tab 3, I believe. Got several 21 different budgets to work with here. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not abandoning 23 you, Jannett. I'm just going to get a cup of coffee. 24 MS. PIEPER: Well, hurry. Is there any 25 particular budget that y'all want to start with? 8-24-05 bwk 27 1 JUDGE TINLEY: First one we got up is your 2 regular budget. 3 MS. PIEPER: Okay. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I think then we go to 5 elections, and then your records and so forth. 6 MS. PIEPER: Okay. On my general budget, the 7 only additional item that I am requesting on that is for one 8 additional deputy for County Court at Law. Now that we have 9 a new County Attorney on board, he's swamping us with cases. 10 Of course, we were swamped prior. And we've maintained the 11 same amount of deputies that we have had since I first 12 started in that office in '92. And I have some information 13 that I'd like to pass out. There's two different ones, if 14 you'll just take one and pass it around. One of them is a 15 scale of my office on how it's set up with my chief deputy 16 and then my bookkeeper and then my administrators, to show 17 you what each of my deputies do. This is their main duty. 18 So, if you'll look at my County Court at Law, I have one 19 administrator and three deputies there. Probably 90 percent 20 of their duties is to handle the criminal cases. On 21 Tuesdays, when we run 50, 60 people through court, I have to 22 have two in court, and at least two in that section in my 23 office to make -- file-stamping their judgments, make 24 copies, and then it just gets laid on a table until they can 25 start on them the next day of doing the data entry in the 8-24-05 bwk 28 1 computer. And trying to get the Police Department, 2 Sheriff's Department, County Attorney, Probation Department, 3 and the Collections Department a copy of that judgment so 4 they can do their work on that, plus all the reports that we 5 have to do to the State on these, that is a very highly 6 stressful department. And then, when they have a chance, 7 then they'll have to work on their civil and their juvenile. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This sheet is a 9 comparison of our county against another one? 10 MS. PIEPER: Right. The other one is a 11 comparison, because I seem to get compared to Lamar County 12 all the time. And if one of you will give me my copy back, 13 'cause evidently I handed you every one of them. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: We got an extra. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here. 16 MS. PIEPER: I'm sorry. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you want this 18 other one, too? 19 MS. PIEPER: I have that one. I talked to 20 the County Clerk over there at length. Not as much, though, 21 as I still need to to get a complete comparison, because I 22 believe she has eight deputies, and I have 12. Let me 23 rephrase that. I have 12 employees out of this general 24 budget. I have two employees out of Records Management, so 25 you can't count those, because that's all they do is my 8-24-05 bwk 29 1 records management. On this, you'll see that just in the 2 criminal cases alone, I had 301 more cases. Now, this is 3 just a comparison for 2004, so this doesn't include all of 4 the cases that our County Attorney has bumped up. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And Lamar County is a 6 county of equivalent size? 7 MS. PIEPER: Yes. This is the one that the 8 Court seems to keep comparing me to. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. 10 MS. PIEPER: Now, in a -- and you can see in 11 the red all the -- the more cases that our court handles. 12 What this does not tell you is that when it comes to doing 13 the hearing notices, when it comes to issuing warrants, 14 different stuff like that, Lamar County Attorney's office 15 handles most of that. Here in Kerr County, my office 16 handles all of that. However she's getting away with her 17 County Attorney doing it, I don't know. It's great, but -- 18 so she doesn't complain about it. With the criminal cases, 19 when you don't have defendants showing up for court, then 20 that opens up a judgment nisi case, so we generally have 21 anywhere from five to ten of those a court date, give or 22 take some, so then we have to get on that right away. And 23 then I go on down to show you how many birth, death, 24 marriage, beer license. The only thing I failed to ask her 25 was, like, on assumed name certificates where I had -- 8-24-05 bwk 30 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What? 2 MS. PIEPER: Assumed name certificates, where 3 people that are starting new businesses come in, that -- 4 that we have to care of. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What big city's near 6 Lamar? 7 MS. PIEPER: Truthfully, I have no idea. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Lamar's in east Texas? 9 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think east Texas. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Reason I was looking, 12 it's a real odd statistic. I mean, they have a lot more -- 13 there are more marriages, but no births. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I saw that. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they have two births. 16 MS. PIEPER: They don't have many deaths 17 either. They had 13 deaths. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we have our 19 share of those. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I'm assuming it's 21 right next to a big city, and all those deaths are being 22 pushed into the county next door, and births in a hospital. 23 MS. PIEPER: Well, it could be that the 24 hospital may be in the next county. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. What I'm saying 8-24-05 bwk 31 1 is, it must be a bigger community. 2 MS. PIEPER: You know, we have three funeral 3 homes that we have to deal with here. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's Lamar County? 5 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Not close to Liberty County, 6 I can tell you that. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not over there. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: It's north and east -- or 9 west, rather. 10 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Must be north, yeah. Way, 11 far north. I don't know. 12 MS. PIEPER: They must have more farmland, 13 because they have had more marks and brands than what we've 14 had, so I'm assuming by that that they've got more country 15 -- more farming than we do. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't brand goats. 17 MS. PIEPER: And then, of course, for their 18 elections, they only handle the county elections, to where 19 we do the primaries, the Republican and Democrat. I help 20 with the City's. I help with the school, and I do the 21 Headwaters. And that takes all of my staff up front to get 22 elections. This is a side duty that we have. That's not -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My view is probably not 24 what you're going to want to hear. 25 MS. PIEPER: Probably not. 8-24-05 bwk 32 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As you heard my 2 statements about this new computer system, I'm not really 3 going to entertain any new employees with that computer 4 system really as a -- something the people want and think 5 they need. There's going to be a savings. If we're able to 6 figure out how to pay for that new computer system, it's -- 7 every elected official, including yourself, have said it's 8 going to improve efficiency, and I can't see hiring people 9 when we're trying -- when we're ready to do something else 10 that's supposed to help your workload. If, a year from 11 now -- 12 MS. PIEPER: But we still have to do all the 13 data entry. We still have to do all the reporting. You 14 know, we still have to do all the reports. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's just -- we can't 16 do everything. All I can say is that, I mean, we just got 17 hit with a huge EMS bill which we -- was a lot more than we 18 thought it was going to be. I'm not going to raise taxes 19 this year. I think we had a huge -- I think -- I mean, with 20 the amount of increased revenue that this county received 21 from new growth, which we're very fortunate -- you know, I 22 was hoping a year ago to be able to lower taxes because of 23 the growth a little bit. That ain't going to happen. We 24 have a tax anticipation note coming off this year. 25 MS. PIEPER: Well, if it comes down to my -- 8-24-05 bwk 33 1 I would prefer to have my County Court at Law than the -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Prefer what? 3 MS. PIEPER: To have a new County Court at 4 Law, an additional one, rather than the software. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whoa. 6 MS. PIEPER: I mean, it would make our jobs 7 easier. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's really -- 9 that's really contradictory to what we've been hearing from 10 the District Clerk and you and others with respect to the 11 justice -- 12 MS. PIEPER: No, I'm not contradicting it. 13 It would make our office easier, but we're still going to 14 have to put the same information in the computer system. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, from what I'm 16 understanding, however, from all of those proponents of the 17 new computer system, even though the volume of work may be 18 what it is today, in anticipated growth, the system's going 19 to help you manage all that better. Input is input; I 20 understand that. But you're telling us that the system's 21 not going to help you at all? 22 MS. PIEPER: Well -- oh, no, it will. It 23 will, a great deal. Because as far as our report goes, I 24 think it'll be much easier. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 8-24-05 bwk 34 1 JUDGE TINLEY: You had -- I'm sorry. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. Just -- I 3 was going to say the system, as we understand it, could very 4 logically reduce your -- your personnel requirements for 5 handling customers over the counter. Am I correct? 6 MS. PIEPER: No, I don't know about that, 7 because this -- because it's a court package, so the stuff 8 over the counter is basically recordings and of that general 9 nature. So I don't know how this court package would help 10 in the front counter. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It helps in terms of 12 the public asking for documents that they come over the 13 counter to -- 14 MS. PIEPER: Right. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- ask a clerk for 16 and pay money across the counter for. Those that can 17 utilize that interaction through the internet and to your 18 office electronically. 19 MS. PIEPER: Right. Now, that -- yes, that 20 will. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're not 22 anticipating that would reduce your direct -- 23 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- your direct 25 involvement -- personnel involvement with the public? 8-24-05 bwk 35 1 MS. PIEPER: It would. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- I mean, I 3 think that, you know, I'm in favor of providing -- taxing 4 the public for good service, but if there's an option with a 5 new computer system that we can get there off the internet, 6 they may need to start using that service or they're going 7 to have to stand in line. I mean, we -- this county cannot 8 continue just to spend, spend, spend. We have got to start 9 getting a handle on this stuff. And, I mean, I understand 10 what you're saying. I appreciate information like this. 11 But the direction I was leaning was trying to figure out 12 how, if at all possible, to pay for the computer system, and 13 I just don't see adding employees unless there's -- 'cause 14 you -- you're shifting around, if you can get -- 15 MS. PIEPER: Well, after we get the new 16 system, if it still doesn't work out, then I'll come in at 17 that point and request another deputy for County Court at 18 Law. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That, I think, is a 20 better approach. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Pieper, you have mentioned 22 that of your 12 deputies, two of those are dedicated to 23 records management functions? 24 MS. PIEPER: That is correct. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you know the number of -- 8-24-05 bwk 36 1 what portion of the deputies -- the eight deputies in Lamar 2 County are dedicated to that function? 3 MS. PIEPER: Absolutely none, because they 4 outsource government -- to Governmental Records Service. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They outsource it? 7 MS. PIEPER: Their scanning, their filming, 8 their indexing, everything. Their recording. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that an option for 10 you? 11 MS. PIEPER: When they get a document, they 12 file-stamp it and then they bundle their stuff up and send 13 it to Governmental Records Service. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that an option for 15 you? 16 MS. PIEPER: No, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because? Quality? Or -- 18 MS. PIEPER: No, because if I bundle those 19 originals up and they're sent off and that postman has a 20 wreck and his van catches on fire, there goes all my 21 originals that I am liable for. I just -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that liability -- 23 the same liability extends to any other county that 24 outsources? 25 MS. PIEPER: I don't know. I don't know how 8-24-05 bwk 37 1 that works, and I'm not going to take that chance. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I guess I 4 could say this every time we look at a budget. We saw 5 earlier that we're the most expensive county of the 14 our 6 size, and we saw that the reason for that is 'cause we staff 7 more heavily than all the other 14 counties. And I would 8 have expected that -- and -- well, the other thing I see is 9 that nobody's responsible for that. It doesn't happen in 10 any department. I would have expected with that kind of 11 information, we'd be learning how other counties operate 12 more effectively and efficiently than we do. We'd be saying 13 we can get by with fewer people by doing these things 14 differently. But I'm not going to see that; that's clear to 15 me now. 16 MS. PIEPER: Well, you don't hear any 17 complaints about Kerr County. At least I don't think you 18 do. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I hear complaints on a 20 daily basis about our tax rate. 21 MS. PIEPER: Right. But not the efficiency 22 of my office, you don't. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, there may be a 24 trade-off there. 25 MS. PIEPER: Do you want complaints? Is that 8-24-05 bwk 38 1 what you want to -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I'm saying that I 3 think this -- you know, that the taxpayers are telling me 4 they don't want to pay taxes, you know. That's all I'm 5 saying. 6 MS. PIEPER: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The tax rates aren't 8 going up this year. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think I'd rather -- 10 the approach, rather than adding a deputy to your staff, I'd 11 rather us examine the approach of providing you with 12 enhanced tools to do your job. So that -- 13 MS. PIEPER: We'll try that. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So that you can take 15 that pressure off and be prepared to manage the growth 16 that's sure to come. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Put a different way -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's for us to 19 reconcile. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we through with 21 your regular budget? Can we go to your elections? 22 MS. PIEPER: Well, also, I'd like to -- I did 23 not put this in the budget. I wanted to present this to 24 you. We -- I also have deputies that has presented me with 25 their wish list. Some are wanting flat screen monitors. 8-24-05 bwk 39 1 There are several wanting plastic workstation floor mats. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where are we now? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Plastic -- 4 MS. PIEPER: Yes, they are called plastic 5 workstation floor mats. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Floor mats, okay. I 7 thought you said formats. I was trying to figure out what 8 that -- you mean the pads? 9 MS. PIEPER: I believe so. And I think the 10 idea behind that is because it'll keep your chair from 11 rolling as quickly. I did have one deputy that was rushed, 12 and when she went to sit down in her chair, it slid out from 13 under her, and as a result, she was out for several months 14 and had to have surgery. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: If we've got a safety issue, 16 that should have been -- that should have been brought 17 forward and take a look at that. 18 MS. PIEPER: It's not happened yet. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: The computer things, has that 20 gone through the I.T. Department? 21 MS. PIEPER: I did, yes. He -- basically, he 22 has taken care of that, so I'm really not concerned with 23 that. I let him take care of all my computers and -- I'm 24 not a computer person. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8-24-05 bwk 40 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wouldn't those safety 2 type things you're talking about, wouldn't that go through 3 Mr. Holekamp's Facilities and Maintenance? 4 MS. PIEPER: It hasn't yet. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are the -- do you 6 know the cost of those mats? That's something I think is -- 7 MS. PIEPER: I have no idea, because I'm 8 not -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You might ask Glenn to 10 look into what those cost, because I think that's an 11 issue -- 12 MS. PIEPER: I'm not a safety person type 13 thing, so I'm not sure exactly what kind of mats are needed, 14 if they are. I don't know. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You might check with 16 Glenn when he gets back. I think he's gone. 17 MS. PIEPER: And the safety department has 18 only been through my office once that I'm aware of. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, safety items of that 20 nature should not be a budget item. They ought to be a 21 priority item, and we ought to get them tended to so that we 22 don't have injuries. Because one injury can -- can buy a 23 whole carload of -- of those chair mats. 24 MS. PIEPER: True. My County Court at Law 25 section is also wanting some type of a sturdy rolling file 8-24-05 bwk 41 1 cart so that when they carry all of the files over on 2 Tuesdays, they can put them in a cart and roll them over. 3 They have one right now, but it's not very sturdy. And 4 we're getting so many cases that it's not holding them all. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would be a -- that 6 would be under a supply, I would think. 7 MS. PIEPER: Or office equipment. I don't 8 know what you want to put it under. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would think that 10 would qualify under office equipment. That's not a major 11 capital expense. 12 MS. PIEPER: The only money that's in there 13 right now is the money that John said I needed for my I.T. 14 stuff. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that's under 16 hardware, $4,200? 17 MS. PIEPER: No. This is operating equipment 18 and is Line Item 569. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the -- what's 20 in 569 in addition to whatever is in 561? 21 MS. PIEPER: I have no idea; that's John's. 22 That whole page, from 561 all the way down, except for my 23 binder covers, is what John said that I need. I have a memo 24 from him. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see it. 8-24-05 bwk 42 1 MS. PIEPER: And, basically, he just gave me 2 a total figure. I told him I needed to know where to put 3 each amount at, and this is what he told me. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I found the 5 4,200. That's maintenance and peripherals. 6 MS. PIEPER: Now, that Line Item 563, the 7 Software Maintenance, that is strictly the annual 8 maintenance for Software Group. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 10 MS. PIEPER: I believe that 562 is for the 11 license on the Microsoft, but I'm not for sure. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know what the cart 13 you're referring to would cost? 14 MS. PIEPER: Couple of hundred dollars. I 15 don't really know for sure. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, it can go under -- 17 that can -- does that fit under Office Supplies? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. Well -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would think so. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, we need to add -- 21 I mean, it looks like to me there's enough money in there, 22 but if we need to add a couple hundred dollars for that, 23 that's something that's not a big-ticket item. If you need 24 something like that, I think you need to get it. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jannett, in your 8-24-05 bwk 43 1 discussion with John with respect to computers and screens 2 and so forth that are replaced, we're talking about flat 3 screens replacing existing CRT's as needed? Or just because 4 somebody wants a new flat screen? Which? 5 MS. PIEPER: I don't know. The ones he put 6 up front, he did that because of space saving, because of 7 the small amount. Other than that, I don't know. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 9 MS. PIEPER: He is going to have to replace 10 my bookkeeper's computer and three in County Court at Law, 11 because they are running Windows 95 and 98, I believe. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 13 MS. PIEPER: So I believe that's on his list. 14 And then he's going to take a couple of those and run me a 15 computer line downstairs in the lower level where I do 16 elections, and we're going to utilize a couple of those 17 computers for my voters during elections down there, so 18 we'll be able to utilize those computers. We don't have to 19 have an upgraded computer just to look up a voter's name or 20 voter registration. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good use. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I bet -- I mean, I think 23 he probably will, over time, be upgrading the monitors on 24 all the computers to some sort of flat screen, 'cause that 25 seems to be -- 8-24-05 bwk 44 1 MS. PIEPER: We have some of the monitors 2 that the color is off on them; they're purple or green or 3 whatever, that -- because they're getting old, or some of 4 them are shaking, but the girls are dealing with it. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, in that case, 6 they need to be replaced. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- 8 MS. PIEPER: I think those are the ones that 9 he's looking at replacing first. He's trying to go from the 10 oldest, replacing those. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I asked the question 12 because your comment was, some of your folks want flat 13 screens. 14 MS. PIEPER: Well, that's the ones that their 15 screens are shaking and, you know -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. If there's a 17 need to replace them, then that's the way to replace them. 18 There's no question about that. 19 MS. PIEPER: Right. And then he's added a 20 couple of monitors that he has had back in his storage, I 21 guess, that he's been able to replace a couple of them. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we on Election 24 Expenses? Item 370, the voting machines, those are paid for 25 out of a -- there's an offsetting revenue for that amount? 8-24-05 bwk 45 1 MS. PIEPER: There is. The check from the 2 Secretary of State is still sitting over by my desk over 3 there. Hart did send in another quote, and I have made 4 copies. I have the County Attorney looking at the contract. 5 He probably hasn't had a chance to yet; I just gave it to 6 him a day or two ago. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Refresh our memory. 8 What was the amount we received from the State for this 9 purpose? Was it 285? 10 MS. PIEPER: 279, I believe. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 294. 12 MS. PIEPER: No, 294. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Almost 295. Okay. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Commissioner, the way I -- 15 what I'm recalling when the Secretary of State was here, 16 they -- they have a provision that they have made 17 arrangements with the vendors -- all five of these vendors, 18 that they don't get their money until -- until we submit an 19 invoice to the Secretary of State's office. And then, when 20 we get our money, then they get -- they get paid. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 22 MS. PIEPER: Right. We have to submit the 23 contract. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: We don't actually get a 25 check. 8-24-05 bwk 46 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we don't pay them -- 3 MR. TOMLINSON: We don't pay them until we 4 get our money from the Secretary of State's office. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, there is an off -- a 6 dollar-for-dollar -- well, that check is -- is that a fixed 7 amount, or is it going to adjust -- that amount adjust to 8 whatever the bill is? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: That's the -- I think it's 10 adjusted, whatever the bill is. But I think that some of 11 it -- some of that money is for training. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was my 13 understanding. So, it's -- there is some flexibility in 14 there, and that's the amount that we're -- that's been given 15 to Kerr County to be used for equipment and training. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. 17 MS. PIEPER: And they do show five days of 18 training on this, on the second page. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I guess my question 20 is that this invoice is 25,000 more than the check, so does 21 that mean the County's picking up that 25,000? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you tell them that 24 they need to reduce their price 25,000? 25 MS. PIEPER: Well, I've called him, and he 8-24-05 bwk 47 1 said, "Well, if you look on Page 2, you'll see a special 2 discount." 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if it was 130, I'd 4 be a lot happier, instead of 106. 5 MS. PIEPER: On the election budget, there's 6 nothing that I'm adding in on it. Actually, I'm decreasing 7 our machine repair, because if we get this new system, I 8 don't think we'll need that machine repair of $2,700. Also, 9 when we get our new equipment, the -- we'll be getting some 10 of the money back, because every time there's a different 11 election from the -- the primaries, the City, whatever, then 12 we can get 10 percent of our purchase price of the equipment 13 that they use from us. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding -- and maybe 15 I was mistaken in this in discussing it with you -- was that 16 this -- while the actual equipment cost was going to be in 17 excess, there was going to be a discount factor plugged in 18 so that we could acquire the equipment and the training 19 within the amount that was allotted by the Secretary of 20 State's office. Is that -- was that not what I understood 21 from talking with you? 22 MS. PIEPER: Well, that's what I had 23 understood from talking with them, but then whenever I get 24 this contract... 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. How many units are 8-24-05 bwk 48 1 we getting? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 22. 3 MS. PIEPER: 22. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason I'm going -- 5 part of the difference may be that bottom box on this refers 6 to "extended warranty," but it goes two units and four 7 units. 8 MS. PIEPER: And I'm not sure what that is. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's 13,000, so it goes 10 up to -- it's -- 306 is actually the price. 11 MS. PIEPER: Well, one of them -- okay, one 12 of them is for the e-Slate and one of them is for the 13 e-Scan. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's -- 15 MS. PIEPER: The e-Slate is the D.R.E. 16 handicapped -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: The actual voting machine. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you going to 19 require 12 days of training? 20 MS. PIEPER: I think -- I think they are here 21 12 days prior to the first -- or 12 days from the first 22 election, just to get us through it. This is the number of 23 days that they came up with. It's not something that me and 24 Hart Intercivic discussed. But we're going to have to use 25 some of these days training election judges and clerks. You 8-24-05 bwk 49 1 know, there used to just be paper ballots, and -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it seems to me -- 3 I mean, I'd ask if you could get back with -- with Hart 4 Graphics (sic) and ask them to explain what this bottom 5 portion is. I'm still not sure what that covers, that two 6 units, four units, and that extended warranty and really 7 what the warranty is that we have on the machines, and what 8 that extended warranty covers. 9 MS. PIEPER: It's possible that in their 10 contract, it -- that may explain it. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other part is, I 12 just really -- I've been under the impression that the 13 amount from the State was going to cover this, and I think 14 that Hart needs to come up with a proposal that does that. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was my 16 understanding when they gave us the money, that this is 17 adequate to cover what you need and your training. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So -- 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So it's another 20 example of an unfunded mandate, in a different kind of way. 21 We didn't -- 22 MS. PIEPER: Well, you know, this check is 23 based on 16 precincts, and we have 20. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But my point is, 25 nationwide, Texas-wide, we -- so far as I know, we didn't 8-24-05 bwk 50 1 need any help voting; we were voting just fine. Now we're 2 probably spending a billion dollars or so on a solution 3 looking for a problem. That's not your problem, Jannett. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jannett, why -- why 5 was the State only talking to us about 16 when we really 6 have more precincts? 7 MS. PIEPER: Because they're basing that on 8 the number of precincts that we had in 1990, I believe. I'm 9 not for sure the exact date. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a 11 possibility of putting in a request to the Secretary of 12 State's office for funding for the additional precincts? 13 MS. PIEPER: No. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do we know that? 15 MS. PIEPER: Because it's going that way all 16 over the state of Texas. They said we're basing it on the 17 amount of precincts that you had in 1990 and that's it. And 18 there's a good majority of the counties in Texas that, 19 because of the census, our population's up; we had to have 20 more election precincts. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Have you made that inquiry? 22 MS. PIEPER: Mm-hmm. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: About increasing the 24 allocation based on the number of current voting precincts, 25 as opposed -- 8-24-05 bwk 51 1 MS. PIEPER: Yes, at our election school, 2 there was a lot of us clerks that questioned them, and they 3 said no, we're going on the census from 1990 and that's it. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- all we can 5 do at this point is, you can get with Hart Graphics and say, 6 "Our understanding is we're getting this much money from the 7 State. That's how much we're going to spend." 8 MS. PIEPER: Okay, I'll tell them. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And tell them that if it 10 means adjusting training a couple days -- and I suspect that 11 bottom portion, that extended warranty part, I can see that 12 not being covered under -- that may be something additional. 13 We just need -- we want to -- what the training and 14 equipment's going to cost, it needs to match what the 15 State's going to pay us. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like a little 17 clearer understanding, if you have it -- if you don't, you 18 can ask them perhaps -- of why we have 12 days of project 19 management in addition to the five days of training. What's 20 that all about, 12 days of project management? 21 MS. PIEPER: That could be programming the 22 ballots, teaching me how to program the ballots. Because I 23 will be programming them. This -- this system will allow me 24 to program them and print them. That way I don't have to 25 outsource all of that. 8-24-05 bwk 52 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will you be 2 programming the ballots by -- by your people henceforth? 3 They're only going to do that the initial time? Or is that 4 an ongoing expense every time we conduct an election? 5 MS. PIEPER: No, there will be no expense for 6 that afterwards, because I will be doing it. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 8 MS. PIEPER: They're going to teach me how to 9 program and print the ballots. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That was my 11 question. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other thing -- and I 13 don't know how -- I'm not sure what the effective date is, 14 but as I recall, the Legislature reduced the number of 15 election dates to two during the year. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Down from the number of 18 four or six that we currently have. And there's now a 19 November date and a -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May -- March. March 21 or May? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: May. And there's a -- 23 primaries come under a different issue. Is that going to 24 reduce the number of elections we have at all? 25 MS. PIEPER: No. 8-24-05 bwk 53 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, previously, the City 2 and the -- yeah, the City and the school districts have done 3 theirs on the same date? 4 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on the 6 elections? Okay. Let's try Records Management, 404. 7 MS. PIEPER: On records management, the only 8 thing that I am requesting is $420 on capital outlay, and 9 that is to replace some plat envelopes that have 10 deteriorated. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I think what we've got 13 included in what you gentlemen have is the 420 under 14 Operating Equipment. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: And it was just moved there, 17 so that'll solve that problem, 'cause you had nothing in 18 Operating Equipment. 19 MS. PIEPER: Right. I'm sorry, you're right. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. That'll move us 21 to the Records Management and Preservation. 22 MS. PIEPER: That one I'm not going to do 23 anything with. I was going to do two part-time employees 24 out of that, but I have changed my mind, and I would like to 25 take that out of the line item -- the 41-634 budget. 8-24-05 bwk 54 1 JUDGE TINLEY: 634? 2 MS. PIEPER: That is that new -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: That's records archival. 4 MS. PIEPER: -- records archival. And, 5 basically, I want to fund two part-time employees. That 6 total is 20,800 plus their FICA of 1,592, and that will 7 allow the two people that I have working part-time to 8 continue working part-time. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This comes out of a 10 designated fund? 11 MS. PIEPER: Yes, it does. So far, there is 12 over $55,000 in that fund that has been collected, and this 13 was as of probably four months ago that I asked about this 14 total, so there's a lot more in there now. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what's your 16 request for part-time? How much? 17 MS. PIEPER: 20,800. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What page are you 19 on? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 108. So, you want to 21 add -- 22 MS. PIEPER: One of those employees has been 23 working on Commissioners Court records strictly. So -- from 24 1856, trying to get us caught up on them. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some of your other -- you 8-24-05 bwk 55 1 mentioned earlier that you had two employees that did 2 records management out of your -- 3 MS. PIEPER: Right. That's out of -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, but my question is, 5 can a portion of their salary come out of this fund? 6 MS. PIEPER: Their portion of the salary is 7 coming out of the Records Management. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's coming out of -- 9 MS. PIEPER: Or their salary is, yes. That 10 -- that is being funded out of Records Management. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I note your 12 part-times are and your deputies are? 13 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Jannett? 16 MS. PIEPER: Yes? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: You're not budgeting anything 18 out of this Fund 28? 19 MS. PIEPER: No. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the difference 21 between 620 -- I can't read it, I'm sorry -- and 635? 634? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: And 404. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And 404. 24 MS. PIEPER: Different records management, 25 records preservation, records archival fees. 8-24-05 bwk 56 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All those are special 2 funds, right? 3 MS. PIEPER: Mm-hmm. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three separate funds? 5 Okay. 6 MS. PIEPER: I believe that Linda uses -- 7 because we have one that we share, and I believe she uses 8 that 28-635. That's what -- that money that was allocated 9 last year is where she'd gotten some of her stuff from. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. That's -- that fee is 11 a county-wide fee. It can be used for any -- any records 12 management for any office. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: The preservation? The 635? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 16 MS. PIEPER: Because we're doing records 17 management and my documents are being backed up on that, can 18 we use that for our mainframe stuff, our software? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Sure. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Auditor said yes. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, it can be used for 22 that. I mean, it's specifically for records management of 23 any -- of any kind. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: For any office. I mean, if I 8-24-05 bwk 57 1 want to hire somebody to come in and fix my records -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: -- legally, you can. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But what -- how much is 5 in that fund annually? How much, I guess, is -- goes in 6 every year, about? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have my -- I'm 8 thinking around 30,000 a year. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's one of those 10 funds that we need to use all of it every year. I mean, 11 'cause we do -- you know, I know Kathy in our office does a 12 lot of records management work. So, I mean, if we have 13 those fees set up and that money's coming in, we ought to 14 make sure we're using it all, we're not just accumulating a 15 balance there. And if it goes to -- you know, not adding to 16 individual salaries, but at least a portion of salaries, or 17 make sure we use the money up no matter where it goes, 18 really. 19 MS. PIEPER: On my Fund 634, that records 20 management, I do want that to get built up for a while. 21 That's why I'm only doing two part-time employees. And one 22 of my visions -- and I haven't thought about it a whole lot; 23 I haven't had time to, but I would like to hire part-time -- 24 additional part-time people out of that fund that can come 25 in and possibly work from, like, 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. of doing 8-24-05 bwk 58 1 nothing but indexing and scanning to help me get caught up. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 3 MS. PIEPER: But I want to wait until I get 4 more money in that line item so we can get it done. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Does that pretty well 7 cover it? Thank you. Let's move to the Treasurer's budget, 8 and that will bring us to -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 13. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: 13. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which tab? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tab 13. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 13. 14 MS. NEMEC: Before we discuss my budget, may 15 we discuss the position schedule a little bit so I can have 16 some direction? I have two copies. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Good. 18 MS. NEMEC: So y'all can just kind of share 19 those. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 21 MS. NEMEC: But I need to explain a few 22 things on there, and get some direction. The position 23 schedule has been updated; however, on the ones that you see 24 marked in red, which is approximately 128 employees are 25 going to receive longevity increases this year. Those 8-24-05 bwk 59 1 particular ones that are marked in red, I have to go back 2 and I have to calculate what their salary would be. Like, 3 for instance, if you'll look at the first one, for instance, 4 under -- well, our court reporter, she will be receiving a 5 longevity increase May of '06 -- 2006. So, what I have to 6 do is I have to calculate from October through April -- 7 through the end of April at her present salary, and then I 8 have to go and I have to calculate 2 and a half percent from 9 May through September, and so I have to go in annually and 10 do that to all 128 that are marked in red. So -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question on that. 12 MS. NEMEC: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why can't the computer do 14 all that? 15 MS. NEMEC: Not -- our system doesn't do 16 that. I have -- I've had to do that every year. I have to 17 go in manually and -- the ones that don't get the longevity 18 increase -- like, for instance, you'll see on the court 19 coordinator, 19-6. I have to go to my step and grade 20 schedule, look up the 19-6, and put that figure in there. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that something 22 that can be corrected with the proposed new system? 23 MS. NEMEC: I really don't know. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We really need to 25 find out. 8-24-05 bwk 60 1 MS. NEMEC: Yeah. 'Cause this -- this takes 2 a lot of -- lot of time. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it seems -- even 4 if the new system does it, this is something Excel can do. 5 MS. NEMEC: Well, this -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- 7 MS. NEMEC: -- this is on Excel, but Excel 8 doesn't know what our grade -- step and grade schedule is. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And there's no way to 10 input the grade? 11 MS. NEMEC: It doesn't put our -- right, our 12 step and grade schedule doesn't tie in with Excel, and 13 there's just no way to do that. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you make an 15 inquiry of that from Mr. Trolinger and/or his good buddy, 16 the software salesman? 17 MS. NEMEC: I will. So, anyway, what -- what 18 my question is -- to the Court is, before I go in and figure 19 in all this longevity at what we are currently in, is 20 there -- is there -- do you know, at this point, is there 21 going to be a cost-of-living increase, and should I figure 22 it at that? Or should I just figure it at the rate that we 23 are now, and then if there is money, then come back and 24 refigure everything again? I just hate to do it twice if 25 you all already know that there is going to be a 8-24-05 bwk 61 1 cost-of-living. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: The -- do you figure the 3 longevity first and then, if there's a COLA, the COLA on top 4 of the longevity? Or do you figure the -- the COLA first 5 and then the longevity, 2 and a half percent including the 6 COLA? 7 MS. NEMEC: What I do is, I change our step 8 and grade schedule to coincide with what our cost-of-living 9 is going to be, and then I take that schedule as it is and I 10 start plugging in from there into this. So, I do that 11 first, which I've already done a schedule just in case at 12 2 and a half percent. And, of course, that can be changed 13 to whatever the Court wishes. But as far as transferring 14 those numbers to here, if I could have an idea of what you 15 all want me to do, that would be -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that probably 17 we'll have a lot -- I'll have a lot more idea next 18 Wednesday, I'm thinking. I wouldn't -- I'd just hold off 19 doing it until we -- I don't see any reason to do it twice, 20 unless we need it for our -- if you have a 2 and a half 21 percent number, or Tommy can give us -- I mean, kind of a 22 relatively firm number to look at, 'cause I think we're 23 going to have a pretty good idea of our budget by next 24 Wednesday. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I hope so. 8-24-05 bwk 62 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we're going to need 2 what the -- what the mandatory longevity and educational 3 increases are, at least a fairly decent ballpark figure on 4 that, about how much that's going to increase from the 5 previous year. I think we really need to know that. I 6 appreciate you bringing this position schedule forward this 7 morning, because I think we need to be locking at it as we 8 go forward -- 9 MS. NEMEC: Okay. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: -- in these discussions, so I 11 really thank you for bringing that this morning. But I 12 think we're going to need to know what -- at least a real 13 decent ballpark figure on the increases that are required by 14 the longevity and educational under our current policy, what 15 those increases are going to be. 16 MS. NEMEC: Okay, I'll just go ahead and 17 figure it. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We do. 19 MS. NEMEC: And I'm working on the holiday 20 schedule too, so I'll be bringing that with this. When I 21 finish this up, then -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 23 MS. NEMEC: Okay, on to my budget. Do you 24 want me just go down the line? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. 8-24-05 bwk 63 1 MS. NEMEC: I have a few corrections on the 2 salaries. My salary I had figured in at the '03/'04, so 3 that should be 44,816. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wondered why you 5 were taking a cut in pay. 6 MS. NEMEC: I think the Judge wanted me to 7 leave it there, but I didn't. And my Deputy line item, last 8 year, because my part-timer is a part-time full-time 9 employee, she really needs to be taken out of the Deputy -- 10 Deputy line item, because she does get retirement, and so 11 that amount should be $48,312. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Deputy line item? 13 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. What that includes is 14 the current salary that's in there now, plus the salary for 15 my part-timer for three days a week, plus an additional 40 16 hours, because she gets vacation. And then, this last year, 17 she's been working more than her three days, so I kind of -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would the Deputy 19 line be now? 20 MS. NEMEC: The -- that total would be 21 $48,312. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what would the 23 part-time line be? 24 MS. NEMEC: 1,000. And that's just in case 25 we need to bring someone in, which has really been the case 8-24-05 bwk 64 1 this year, and we haven't been able to. Actually, I'm going 2 to come back -- I'm going to come with a budget amendment, 3 'cause my part-timer has been working more than her three 4 days a week. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, what you've done 6 is combine your deputy and part-time, less 1,000, and then 7 just put the 1,000 in your part-time? 8 MS. NEMEC: Right. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: So, really, the -- the numbers 10 are the same. You've just -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Changed. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: -- adjusted them there? 13 MS. NEMEC: Well, I -- plus I had put in some 14 merit and all that, and I just took that out. We could -- I 15 didn't think that's what we wanted to do this time around. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 17 MS. NEMEC: So, these are the solid numbers. 18 There's no merit increases in that or anything. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. 20 MS. NEMEC: I am asking also for 1,000 in 21 overtime, due to that my chief deputy has been working 22 overtime quite a bit. And normally what we like to do is 23 have her just take the time off, but the way our policy 24 reads is that if it's on the books for more than three 25 months, then it needs to be paid to her. And I haven't been 8-24-05 bwk 65 1 able to do that, 'cause I don't have money in my overtime, 2 and she hasn't been able to take off the time within the 3 three months. So -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Barbara, on that, the -- 5 John Trolinger's view -- there he is -- was that there is 6 a significant amount of, probably, time savings in your 7 office if we really modernize our whole time/payroll system. 8 MS. NEMEC: There might be. And -- and, you 9 know, that's where that $1,000, we might be able to do away 10 with that. But we're just so behind on, you know, the 11 county growth; there's more bills to pay, more revenues that 12 we've been bringing in, and then with the insurance and 13 everything, it's just a lot of -- lot of growth in the 14 office. So, possibly. I would hope so, because, you know, 15 I don't want my chief deputy to keep working overtime. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I guess you're saying 17 that the chance of eliminating the part-time and staff a 18 little bit is not going to happen? 19 MS. NEMEC: The overtime and maybe the $1,000 20 in the Part-Time line item, yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 22 MR. TROLINGER: Well I do see -- I do see the 23 car out there -- Judy's car. 24 MS. NEMEC: Oh. 25 MR. TROLINGER: As of yesterday, as a matter 8-24-05 bwk 66 1 of fact, she was still here at 6:00, when I left. And I 2 know she does do a lot of extra time, and she's got a lot of 3 paper on her desk. And she's got a lot of people that send 4 her time cards and things on that order that are taking -- 5 she's just taking a lot of time with data entry. 6 MS. NEMEC: Exactly. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My question to you 8 would be, what is in that software package that will enhance 9 her operation? The Treasurer's operation? 10 MR. TROLINGER: The number-one item that I 11 was speaking to are time cards. Right now, those are coming 12 in on paper, on all kinds of formats. And they're basically 13 being entered in by -- by one department onto a computer, 14 then printed out in some cases, and then sent over to the 15 Treasurer's office and then typed into the computer again. 16 Is that about right? 17 MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm. 18 MR. TROLINGER: And the time card piece of 19 this -- it's just one piece -- eliminates that. It puts the 20 burden either at the user that's got a computer to enter 21 their time in, and then have it approved by a department 22 head or a supervisor, and then it's electronically -- it's 23 sitting on the Treasurer's computer ready to approve. 24 MS. NEMEC: So, it would be -- when they -- 25 when they put that information into the computer, they're 8-24-05 bwk 67 1 actually going to be posting it into the payroll system? 2 MR. TROLINGER: Not until you all approve it. 3 There's an approval process, you know. They -- say I type 4 my time in; I type in 40 hours. I approve it for myself, 5 and it gets sent over to your console. That's in your box 6 sitting there ready. You have to approve that before it 7 actually moves into -- before it would move into -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But isn't -- the time 9 system, I would think you can put in some checks, like if 10 someone keys in over 40 hours, a red flag can go up so those 11 can be, I mean, looked at. Or if it's -- 12 MR. TOMLINSON: I think the way it works, 13 Commissioner, is that it goes into batch somewhat. And the 14 supervisor -- like, if it's at the jail, for instance, 15 they -- there's a place for the supervisor of a department 16 to -- to verify that all of the time cards are correct. And 17 they're not transmitted until -- until that -- that person 18 with that password okays all those times. Then -- then -- 19 MS. NEMEC: Right, 'cause I couldn't really 20 approve it. I don't know. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: Then, after that approval, 22 they're transmitted to the accounting system, and -- and 23 then there's another process of approval with the 24 Treasurer's office. Once that's done, then -- then the -- 25 all the payments are automatically calculated. 8-24-05 bwk 68 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It just seems that the -- 2 that the technology can probably help your office more than 3 probably any other office from where we are today to where, 4 you know, you should go and it seems that we should be. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: There's still another savings 6 in -- in this accounting package, in that -- for the 7 Treasurer's office especially, in that we will be able to 8 print our own checks, I mean, with the routing numbers, 9 anything we want on the checks, with a color laser printer. 10 I mean, once -- once that is -- we'll never have to buy 11 another check. And the -- the checks that we purchase today 12 through the banks are very, very expensive. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess what I'm looking 14 at is, I mean, it's -- Barbara mentioned savings, and 15 Barbara mentioned a couple of thousand, you know. I'm 16 trying to -- hope to get to your part-time employee. I 17 mean, I'm trying to look at a real staff reduction, because, 18 I mean, as I've told -- I don't know if you've been in here. 19 I'll say the same thing again as I've said at probably every 20 workshop we've had. This software package is so expensive, 21 I just don't see how we can do it unless we have personnel 22 savings to justify the expenditure. And the reason we're 23 doing the software package and upgrading is just to make 24 everything more efficient, and it just seems that if -- you 25 know, and I know that it's hard, going in, to know that, 8-24-05 bwk 69 1 but -- you know, to commit to cutting staff prior to getting 2 the system. But I think next year, it's going to be -- I'm 3 going to be really pushing hard to reduce staff, because we 4 should have all these efficiencies in place. 5 MS. NEMEC: Right. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And either -- someone's 7 going to have to be accountable for what we're being told by 8 Mr. Trolinger, all the other departments, how this is going 9 to save time and make everything more efficient. That has 10 to equate to less staff. 11 MS. NEMEC: Well, if this new computer system 12 does what Mr. Trolinger is saying, then definitely, then I 13 wouldn't need the overtime, because that would free up my 14 employee from having to work overtime. As far as my 15 part-time employee, all she does is accounts payable and 16 accounts receivable, and I don't know what -- how this 17 system would help her. But, you know. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 19 MS. NEMEC: We'd certainly like to look at it 20 and see. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 22 MS. NEMEC: Okay. So, then, that increases 23 -- doing that would increase my FICA to 7,278 and retirement 24 to 7,700. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Everything else is 8-24-05 bwk 70 1 basically no change, correct? 2 MS. NEMEC: Right. Anything else? Unless 3 y'all have any questions. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was the Capital 5 Outlay item? 6 MS. NEMEC: Capital Outlay was for a PC 7 and -- let's see. A flat screen. And that was -- I got 8 with Mr. Trolinger, and he gave me those amounts. And -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: That was per his 10 recommendation? 11 MS. NEMEC: Right. We're lucky if my 12 computer holds up till October. Correct? 13 MR. TROLINGER: Correct. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I think his indication was you 15 have one of the oldest in the courthouse. 16 MS. NEMEC: Right. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Some payroll systems 18 use an exception-only process. That is to say, everybody 19 gets put in the system at their base salary, and for that 20 payroll period, if there are no exceptions like overtime or 21 time off without pay, you don't have to enter anything. 22 MS. NEMEC: That's how ours is. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's good. Thank 24 you. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8-24-05 bwk 71 1 MR. TOMLINSON: I have a question. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else for Ms. Nemec? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Does the group insurance -- 4 is that three people? 5 MS. NEMEC: Okay, my insurance -- yes, my 6 part-timer has requested to be put on insurance due to her 7 working three days a week, and finding out that we have 8 someone on insurance that works less than that amount. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again? 10 MS. NEMEC: She has requested to be put on 11 our insurance, due to -- she works three days a week, and -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The last part of your 13 statement is what I was curious about. 14 MS. NEMEC: We have someone that I believe, 15 and she believes -- I don't know -- works less than three 16 days a week and is on insurance. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, wasn't there some 18 kind of change in the law or something that we have to 19 provide part-time people with retirement and -- 20 MR. TOMLINSON: That's retirement. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Retirement, not 22 insurance? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: There may be some eligibility 24 requirements on -- on the insurance of, I think, 30 hours a 25 week or more. 8-24-05 bwk 72 1 MS. NEMEC: It does say 30 hours; however, 2 there is a question on -- on that. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, I think the 4 -- the correct solution is if someone's getting it that 5 shouldn't, they come off. We don't add everybody else on. 6 So, if you can get with -- 7 MS. NEMEC: I didn't really want to go into 8 that, but yeah, that is the reason. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the way it should 10 be handled. I mean -- 11 MS. NEMEC: Okay. Anything else? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. 13 MS. NEMEC: Thank you. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. We'll take 15 a break for our reporter, and we'll be in recess for about 16 15 minutes, and hopefully we can get these others moving 17 along pretty quickly after we get back. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I hope so. 19 (Recess taken from 10:34 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.) 20 - - - - - - - - - - 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to 22 order, if we might. Let's go to the County Court at Law. 23 And I understand we have only one minor item there to look 24 at. And, Judge Brown, what do you have for us? 25 JUDGE BROWN: Okay. My court reporter has to 8-24-05 bwk 73 1 have her machine cleaned and serviced every year, and we've 2 got a $150 budget, and there's what it's actually going to 3 cost us. Three -- it's actually -- we told them to send us 4 an invoice so we can show you every year. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you want -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: 325. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 325 in there? 8 JUDGE BROWN: Yeah, that's all we want. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're so easy. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Tab 5. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tab 5. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Under -- under 456. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got it. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: You want how much? 15 JUDGE BROWN: I want 325. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On top of what was 17 there? 18 JUDGE BROWN: No. No, just in place of 150. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 325. 20 JUDGE BROWN: 325, yeah. That will be fine. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: The only thing I would 22 mention, Judge Brown, is that in an earlier discussion 23 concerning the district court budgets, we were making 24 allocations between the criminal cases and the C.P.S. cases, 25 and there was a considerable discussion then. What we did 8-24-05 bwk 74 1 was we segregated the criminal and the civil, and under that 2 rationale, your Court-Appointed Attorney line item will be 3 criminal, and your Master Court Appointments would be civil. 4 JUDGE BROWN: All right. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Now, the other thing that we 6 did was to increase the -- the C.P.S. portion of the budget 7 by some amount, as I recall. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We doubled it. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: We doubled it? 10 JUDGE BROWN: That's on the Master Court 11 Appointments? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 13 JUDGE BROWN: I see that. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Because of the legislative 15 requirements that were passed this year. 16 JUDGE BROWN: Right. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: For -- so, under that 18 rationale, we'd be looking at raising that from 15 to 30, it 19 appears. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What line is that? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: That would be 403. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 403. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Masters. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Up to what? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: 30. 8-24-05 bwk 75 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 30. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ouch. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't know; it's just 4 a guess. 5 JUDGE BROWN: Yeah. You know, I couldn't -- 6 I can't predict how that's going to come out. I really 7 don't know, 'cause I don't have any control of it, so -- 8 Tommy can probably tell you as much about that line item as 9 anybody. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: It's running 12 -- 12,000 11 through -- year-to-date. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go to 25,000. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: So -- well, actually, no. 14 It's been almost 10,000 year-to-date, so it seems to me like 15 25 would be -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 25. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: 25? 18 JUDGE BROWN: All right. Thank you, sir. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One question, Judge. 21 JUDGE BROWN: Sure. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We got -- counting 23 the two J.P. courts, we've got five courts in this building. 24 JUDGE BROWN: Mm-hmm. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In your thinking, is 8-24-05 bwk 76 1 there -- are there any obvious ways that we could combine 2 administrative functions or anything else and get some 3 synergy that would reduce costs? 4 JUDGE BROWN: I haven't ever thought about 5 that, but I don't think so, because I -- you know, I used to 6 be the J.P., and it's a whole different world than what I 7 do. They handle different type cases, mainly traffic 8 tickets, forcible retainers. So, I -- I can't -- I can't 9 imagine one person coordinating all of the courts at one 10 time. I can't see it. It would be a -- it would be -- just 11 the traffic tickets that are filed in J.P. courts is 12 astronomical. Kind of like municipal court; there's lots of 13 stuff that comes in there. I used to be the city judge, 14 too. It's a different world. I don't think any one person 15 could do all that. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 17 JUDGE BROWN: Thank you. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: There is -- there is a bill 19 before the governor that -- that could affect his budget. 20 And -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to hang around for 22 this, Judge Brown? 23 JUDGE BROWN: Well, I got no control over it, 24 so it doesn't matter to me one way or the other. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: But the Legislature did pass 8-24-05 bwk 77 1 a bill that increased the district judges' salaries. His 2 salary is tied to that, so I -- I think it's, like, 30,000 3 more. 4 JUDGE WRIGHT: Doesn't that come from money 5 that we collect on traffic tickets? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, that's not necessarily 7 true. 8 JUDGE BROWN: I was going to say it's part of 9 it. 10 JUDGE ELLIOTT: It's well deserved, by golly, 11 if Judge Brown's going to get it. (Laughter.) 12 MR. TOMLINSON: But -- but it -- I mean, it 13 -- there may be enough funds to offset it, but not always. 14 JUDGE BROWN: So, you're saying you ought to 15 anticipate it, or not? I don't know. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know either, but I 17 just wanted the Court to know that it's -- that's out there. 18 JUDGE BROWN: Well, y'all could budget a 19 little anticipated amount, but not give it to me. Just say 20 if it happens, if they do pass that bill, something has to 21 be done, an amendment we'd have to the budget. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we not, and 23 just not pay the additional money? 24 JUDGE BROWN: Well, I guess I ain't going to 25 say nothing about it if you don't. 8-24-05 bwk 78 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The bill's already 2 passed; it's sitting on the governor's desk. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it's on the 4 governor's desk. 5 JUDGE BROWN: That will just be for y'all. I 6 don't have any input on that one way or the other. Whatever 7 you want to do is fine with me. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Tommy, do you know whether or 9 not the additional -- that increase was to be covered by the 10 state supplement, or whether it comes from local funds or 11 what? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you know? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: -- the way it works is that 15 -- the original bill is House Bill 66, and in the bill, the 16 courts collect a fee that goes to the Comptroller, and then 17 there's a formula that each county gets it back based on 18 some criteria, and I can't tell you what that is, because 19 it's never the same. And, actually, one year, the -- the 20 Legislature didn't -- did not appropriate the funds, so we 21 didn't get a dime that year. I don't -- so I -- I mean, I 22 can't tell you. That's why I'm so vague about whether or 23 not we can actually get enough money back to offset whatever 24 the increase is, because I just don't know what formula -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The formula is 8-24-05 bwk 79 1 designed so the State keeps the majority and sends the 2 minority, a little bit back to the county. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I actually think that 4 the lion's share of the money goes to the -- to Harris 5 County. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably true. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: That's what I actually think 8 happens. 9 JUDGE BROWN: Probably based on population. 10 It really is -- I think it's based on the formula. Thank 11 you. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That doesn't mean, 13 Tommy, that we underbudgeted on the district judges, does 14 it? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: No, we don't pay their 16 salaries, so that's not an issue with them. 17 JUDGE BROWN: That's something we maybe just 18 need to sit down and talk to Hilderbran or somebody, find 19 out what -- 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The governor's going 21 to sign it, so we can -- we can predict, you know, that 22 we're -- 23 MR. TOMLINSON: He may be so mad at the 24 Legislature that he won't sign it, because I think their 25 salary's tied to this bill also. 8-24-05 bwk 80 1 JUDGE BROWN: Yeah. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The salary or the 3 pension? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Retirement. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, retirement, yeah. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I think if we wait a 8 week and we have to do it, we have to do it. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we don't want to 11 budget money, we don't have to. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Check's in the mail. 13 JUDGE BROWN: Right. Okay, thank you. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to the County 15 Attorney. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tab which? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 11. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: 11. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm right there. 20 MR. EMERSON: If y'all are there, I think it 21 would be appropriate to start out with -- on July 25th, I 22 made a proposal to the Court to incorporate the Hot Check 23 fund, and basically turn over the balance to the County. On 24 the 27th, the Judge sent me a memo based on the statute 25 questioning whether that was statutorily possible. I've 8-24-05 bwk 81 1 reviewed the A.G. opinions; I've reviewed the statute, and 2 what the statute states in 102.007, Code of Criminal 3 Procedure, is that the fees collected shall be deposited in 4 the county treasury in a special fund to be administered by 5 the County Attorney, and it's primarily to be used to defray 6 the salaries and expenses of the County Attorney's office. 7 Now, in reviewing the A.G. opinions, what it states 8 essentially is that it has to remain in a sub account, which 9 wouldn't be a problem; Tommy already has the money in a sub 10 account. But all the expenditures can be re -- can be used 11 to defray the cost of the County Attorney's office. So, I 12 guess the short answer of what I'm telling you is that, 13 based on the legislative history of the purpose, being to 14 defray the cost of the office, and I don't think there's any 15 statutory prohibition to, you know, me turning over the 16 balance of the fund to the County to defray the cost of my 17 office. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be run like the 19 records management fund, basically. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: We just have to have two 24 budgets. 25 MR. EMERSON: I'm not sure what -- 8-24-05 bwk 82 1 JUDGE TINLEY: One out of regular county 2 funds, is what you're saying? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. One -- one will be a 4 special revenue fund, because it's solely for that purpose. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can't use the Hot 6 Check fund to -- for -- I was going to say Mr. Trolinger's 7 salary. 8 JUDGE ELLIOTT: For a new vehicle for a 9 commissioner. You couldn't use it for that. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couldn't use it for a new 11 commissioner vehicle. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or for the J.P. 13 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Yeah, or for the J.P. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, Rex, what's -- 15 Item 565 is going from 4,500 to zero. What happened there? 16 MR. EMERSON: The Victims Rights Coordinator 17 position is a grant-funded position. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 19 MR. EMERSON: And it's my understanding that 20 that position has been moved into its own budget category, 21 with a budget to match the grant. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you cut -- from last 23 year's budget, you've cut one position? 24 MR. EMERSON: Correct. I eliminated one 25 assistant attorney position. 8-24-05 bwk 83 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: First time we've 3 heard that. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, is it going to be 5 easier to try to budget the Hot Check fund the way County 6 Attorney has, you know, outlined now? Or we redo the 7 budget, or -- 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't think we can 9 commingle the funds with the General Fund, so we can -- but 10 we could budget the expenditures, but we would have to do -- 11 seems like we would have to do some journal entries to 12 credit the expenditures with -- with Hot Check's share of 13 whatever expenditure we wanted to use it for. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the -- 15 MR. TOMLINSON: See, and it seems to me like 16 it would be more straightforward just to have another 17 department. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Another budget? Okay. 19 But just to make it simple, how much revenue comes into the 20 Hot Check fund a year? 21 MR. EMERSON: I'll tell you what the 22 three-year average is. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 24 MR. EMERSON: Over the last three years, the 25 average has been $5,157.96 a month. 8-24-05 bwk 84 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was that number? 2 MR. EMERSON: $5,157.96 a month, is the -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A month? 4 MR. EMERSON: -- is the three-year average. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, if we were to -- so 6 say this -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: 62,000. 8 MR. EMERSON: 60,000. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 60,000. So, if we were 10 -- you know, so we could say that 50,000 of your salary is 11 coming out of that fund, and then just -- that way, it comes 12 off this budget onto the other budget. 13 MR. EMERSON: Well, the only problem is, I 14 don't think the statute and the A.G. opinions allow you to 15 take the County Attorney's budget and reduce it by the 16 amount of the Hot Check fund. What you can do is take the 17 budget as a whole and leave it there, and then have that 18 money come in to defray all the costs, if that makes sense. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 20 MR. EMERSON: I think it's the same thing 21 you're saying, but it's -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 23 MR. EMERSON: -- procedurally a little bit 24 different. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, then, could 8-24-05 bwk 85 1 we -- can you figure out a way, Tommy, to have $50,000 come 2 into his budget this year and give us a $50,000 balance at 3 the end of the year or something? Or -- or, you know, 4 basically assuming he uses all of his budgeted items. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the Hot Check money, 6 then, is in addition to expenditures that the County would 7 ordinarily expend? Is that what I'm hearing? I mean, you 8 can't supplant the -- 9 MR. EMERSON: You can't take that money and 10 put it into the county budget, but you can take that money 11 and use it to defray the cost of the office as budgeted by 12 the county. I realize that's a play on words, but that's -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's semantics. 14 MR. EMERSON: But that's what you're doing. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we -- rather than roll 16 that in and include it as part of the general budget, I 17 think we need to keep it separate, you know, because if it 18 ever -- if we ever make those allocations as part of the 19 general budget, then if we try to use it to offset part of 20 that, we're into the offset issue and we've got us a 21 problem. So, I think we need to leave the general budget 22 the same, and then supplement out of this second budget, is 23 what I'm seeing. 24 MR. EMERSON: The -- and I may be wrong; 25 Tommy would have to correct me, but I think probably the 8-24-05 bwk 86 1 easiest way to do it would be to let the budget run as a 2 budget, and then once a month, Tommy can tell me how much 3 money's in the account and we can just flip it over. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And -- but can it come 5 from the Hot Check fund into the General Fund? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. I mean, we can -- we 7 can use that -- those funds to -- to offset, by journal 8 entry or by check or however we want to do it, to -- to 9 credit against expenditures out of this budget. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. So why don't we 11 plan on doing, you know, 4,000 or 5,000 a month. I mean, 12 it's easier to do a flat amount, it seems, rather than try 13 to recalculate the total amount each month. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: We'll figure out a way. I 15 have to think about this. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Depends on the analyzer's 18 personality. I can't give you an answer right now. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: What else do we need to look 21 at, Mr. Emerson? 22 MR. EMERSON: That's really it, as far as I 23 know. The budget as presented to the Court, as I outlined 24 in my attached addendums, combines the three-year average of 25 numbers that were accumulated from the audit for actual 8-24-05 bwk 87 1 expenditures of the County Attorney's office. The way it 2 was run before was the county budget, and then kind of a 3 ghost budget that ran out of that Hot Check fund, which 4 didn't -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So these are the 6 numbers you'd like plugged in? 7 MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Basically the same, okay. 9 MR. EMERSON: That's in addition to the 10 supplements that are already on there, what I've already 11 submitted. Because the equipment and postage and so forth 12 are -- are already added into the initial budget that I 13 proposed. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wasn't there some 15 recommendation by Mr. Trolinger for some IT improvements in 16 your department? 17 MR. EMERSON: I don't think there's anything 18 short-term. On his -- way back in February, when he 19 analyzed the department, his existing system evaluation said 20 that seven laptop computers, one server, group printer, you 21 know, and his goal was to integrate it with the County, 22 which we did in, I think, March, if I'm not mistaken. 23 Long-term outlook, he wanted a hardware upgrade after 2008, 24 and then there's a potential primary printer replacement in 25 2006. But the last -- the last time -- the printer that's 8-24-05 bwk 88 1 in there was purchased used from 5K Laser, and there's been 2 a few minor maintenance issues, but the last time those guys 3 were in the office, they said we had an estimated 4 4 million-plus prints on it. So -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The only item -- 6 line item that I really see a big -- or relatively large 7 change is conferences. Is there -- it's going from a budget 8 this year of 3,500 to 5,347. Are there -- is -- are there 9 more conferences that you need to go to or your people need 10 to go to, or just that's the cost? 11 MR. EMERSON: That's the cost. And if you 12 look at the actual -- the actual '03/'04 actual, it was 13 4,654. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 15 MR. EMERSON: On the budget. And then I took 16 the three-year average from the Hot Check funds that was in 17 there. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are these for 19 continuing education? 20 MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- okay. 22 MR. EMERSON: And the ones I've outlined in 23 there are really the ones that we -- we really need to go 24 to. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8-24-05 bwk 89 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rex -- 2 MR. EMERSON: Now, if you want to budget -- 3 there's a couple nice ones in Hawaii and the west coast. 4 But -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rex, talk to us about 6 403. Current budget shows 10,000 in attorney's fees and 7 you're requesting 22. What's that all about? 8 MR. EMERSON: That was based on State 9 Hospital beds, and then our contract for conflicts in the 10 County Court at Law at this point. We've worked through -- 11 I'm going to say maybe half of the complaints that I had on 12 previous clients that I've represented. And the problem 13 there arises in that, based on the Code of Ethics, I can't 14 just turn the case over to my assistant, Jerry, and not have 15 anything to do with it, and nobody in the office can have 16 anything to do with it. So, when we get a case in -- a 17 criminal case against somebody that I've previously 18 represented, we have to shift it outside the office, and 19 that's where the problem lies. The State Hospital beds, 20 we've been running at 10 beds. I think we're up to 16 in 21 the next year, from what I understand. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Next month. 23 MR. EMERSON: And which is very good. Our 24 supplement to the attorney that's been contracting and 25 covering that has been running 600 a month or so. I would 8-24-05 bwk 90 1 anticipate that going up to 800, maybe 900. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What is that 3 conflict of interest? It's somebody you represented in the 4 past? Or -- 5 MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If they come in, you 7 can't prosecute? 8 MR. EMERSON: Cannot prosecute them. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That will diminish 10 over time? 11 MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there any fallout 13 to your department from the new legislation on C.P.S. 14 indigent health care defense? I mean -- 15 MR. EMERSON: Not -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I mean C.P.S. cases. 17 MR. EMERSON: Not at this point. The only 18 thing that may come up from that, and I didn't put anything 19 in the budget, is that our area of Texas -- basically a 20 triangle, working off of San Antonio, going to the border 21 and the south -- is the only area of Texas where the A.G.'s 22 office has not shifted the C.P.S. cases back to the 23 counties. So -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. 25 MR. EMERSON: -- at some point, I would 8-24-05 bwk 91 1 anticipate that happening, unfortunately. But right now, 2 they haven't done it. And I know Judge Dubose, who's the 3 Court Master y'all were talking about earlier, has applied 4 for a grant for two prosecutors to try to help cover her 5 area. And the last conversation I had with her, when I was 6 talking to her about I needed to know something one way or 7 another as far as an effect on budget, she said it wouldn't 8 happen this year; don't worry about it. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? 12 MR. EMERSON: Not unless y'all have some 13 questions. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. I appreciate it. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question. No, 16 not -- it's on the crime victims. Are you -- are you 17 handling that or is Rosa handling that? 18 MR. EMERSON: I think Rosa's running her own 19 department, since it's grant-based. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. It was under that 21 same tab. All right. 22 MR. EMERSON: Thank y'all. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Extension Service. 24 Anybody here from Extension Service? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Lost your chance, 8-24-05 bwk 92 1 Dave. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Draw a line through them? 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just read the court 4 reporter's comments from last year. I won't go through it 5 again. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I guess we can come back to 7 that. Animal Control. Well, we got somebody here from 8 Animal Control. 9 MS. ROMAN: Hello. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: How are you, Ms. Roman? 11 MS. ROMAN: Just fine, thank you. Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Give us a report on 13 Justin first. 14 MS. ROMAN: Well, Justin is doing so much 15 better. He actually drove to school yesterday, so he's 16 doing great. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good news. 19 MS. ROMAN: And I appreciate y'all being 20 concerned, and being patient with me through all of this. I 21 have made some corrections. I'll start with the Line Item 22 103 -- well, actually, that one is -- I am requesting the 23 29,943. That is including longevity, which will be in April 24 of -- of '06, plus a 2 and a half percent increase. On to 25 Line Item 104 -- 8-24-05 bwk 93 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Back to that -- 2 MS. ROMAN: Pardon me? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- what was the -- what 4 is your annual salary now? 5 MS. ROMAN: 28,5. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 28,5. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Current budget -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: That was -- let me -- 9 I'm sorry, excuse me. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Was that -- that was the 12 initial probationary amount that we set? 13 MS. ROMAN: No, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We raised it. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Raised it to 28,5. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then why are we 18 showing it as current at 30,955? 19 MS. ROMAN: What happened is, apparently my 20 salary had -- had continued to come out of Line Item 104 21 rather than 103. That has been corrected, I believe, has it 22 not, Barbara? 23 MS. NEMEC: Yes, it has. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, your -- 25 MS. ROMAN: Because that is supposedly what 8-24-05 bwk 94 1 Marc -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 3 MS. ROMAN: -- was at. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And your -- okay. The 5 longevity increase is automatic. You said a 2.5 percent. 6 Was that a COLA or is that just you requesting a salary 7 increase? 8 MS. ROMAN: A COLA. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 10 MS. ROMAN: Depending on what's -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That will be county-wide. 12 MS. ROMAN: Right. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right, thank 14 you. 15 MS. ROMAN: Now, on Line Item 104, it has -- 16 I requested 45,074, and I have made a correction. What 17 happened is I requested -- and this is my first time doing 18 this, so bear with me. What I did is I requested the 19 longevity for the entire year. I had to go back and 20 recalculate their current salary for the -- you know, for 21 the number of months until their longevity goes into effect, 22 so that has now been changed to 44,341, rather than the 23 45,074. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But your -- 25 MS. ROMAN: That is for two Animal Control 8-24-05 bwk 95 1 officers. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: But does not include any 4 longevity plug-in or any educational plug-in that's required 5 under policy. Is that what I'm hearing? 6 MS. ROMAN: That is -- the 44,341 is with the 7 longevity -- with their longevity. For instance -- pardon 8 me. 9 (Discussion off the record.) 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Longevities plus 11 2.5 percent? 12 MS. ROMAN: No, that's just the longevity. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And can you confer 15 with Ms. Nemec and confirm that number? 16 MS. ROMAN: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 18 MS. ROMAN: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- but there's no -- 20 no number of personnel increase; it's the same? You have 21 two employees and two animal control officers? 22 MS. ROMAN: Correct. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 24 MS. ROMAN: One's longevity is in May and the 25 other is in June. So, like I said, I had to figure their 8-24-05 bwk 96 1 current salary for those number of months until their 2 longevity goes into effect. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 4 MS. NEMEC: She's the only one that does that 5 figuring out for me. I have to figure everybody else's out. 6 Thank you, Janie. 7 MS. ROMAN: You're welcome. 105, this is the 8 Assistant Animal Control Officer. That is her title. I am 9 requesting -- of course, she -- her longevity goes into 10 effect this month. As of September -- well, she actually 11 was hired August of '01, so she is due for her -- her 12 longevity now. I am requesting a merit increase on her. 13 This young lady has been with the Animal Control Department 14 for four years. She has really taken charge. She does all 15 of our registration program on top of dispatching, all of 16 the work with the computer. She does adoptions, 17 vaccinations. She does everything -- a little bit of 18 everything. And she really made me proud the two weeks that 19 I was out with my son; she really, really took charge and 20 took care of things. So, I am requesting twenty -- I had 21 her at 20,927 -- 20,927. And, of course, with the 22 adjustment of the longevity and her merit, I would like to 23 bring her up to a 12-4. She is currently a 12-2. As of 24 September 1st, for one month, she'll be at a 12-3 with a 25 longevity. I would like to bring her up to a 12-4, which 8-24-05 bwk 97 1 would bring her up to 20,417. That is still below what I 2 requested. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: That would include a longevity 4 and a merit? 5 MS. ROMAN: Correct. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Janie, there's still 8 some uncertainty about whether or not we'll be in the 9 business of providing service to Kerrville -- 10 MS. ROMAN: Correct. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- next year. And 12 Kerrville takes up about 60 percent of your effort. So, if 13 we didn't -- if we don't come to an agreement, we don't 14 provide that service. You got five people. Does that cut 15 it back to three? 16 MS. ROMAN: That's going to be very 17 difficult. And the reason I say that is, this county has -- 18 has grown. It's a large county. If I have just one Animal 19 Control officer to cover the entire -- the entire county, 20 plus myself, it makes it very difficult on me, because I'm 21 the only one that does the cruelty investigations, most of 22 the bite investigations, on top of, like, livestock. I do 23 estray stuff for the Sheriff's department on top of doing my 24 normal everyday duties, so it makes it extremely difficult. 25 I think if we had to, we might be able to do away with a 8-24-05 bwk 98 1 kennel worker; however, that's going to be very hard also, 2 because I'm not sure if y'all are aware that we're fixing to 3 expand the facility, so that's -- that's going to make it 4 very difficult. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're working with 6 the County Attorney on how to -- 7 MS. ROMAN: Expand. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- expand the 9 facility at no cost to Kerr County. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or the City of Kerrville. 11 MS. ROMAN: Or -- exactly, yes. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Kennel worker, can 13 that work be done by probationers? Prisoners? 14 MS. ROMAN: Certain things could. Other 15 things I'd be real leery about anyone else doing, simply 16 because the -- some of the animals that we bring in are 17 extremely aggressive animals. If you don't know how to 18 properly handle these animals, then -- 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, this just -- 20 MS. ROMAN: -- we're going to have some 21 accidents. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This isn't just a 23 mucking-out-the-kennels job? It takes some skill? 24 MS. ROMAN: Oh, no, not at all. Yes, it does 25 take training and skill. Yes. My kennel worker, with her 8-24-05 bwk 99 1 longevity, I requested 19,919. I have made some 2 corrections. It will now be 19,433, and that is with her 3 longevity, bringing her from a 12-1 to a 12-2. I also 4 have -- on my Line Item 108, my part-time kennel worker has 5 been with us for some time also. She works strictly on 6 weekends and holidays. I am requesting three -- 3,276. I 7 had it at 3,580, and that would be bringing her up to $7 an 8 hour. This young lady also -- she has a full-time job. 9 She's a single mother, and makes an effort -- I mean, like 10 you wouldn't believe, she comes in every weekend. Never 11 calls in. She's there on holidays. She keeps the place 12 going on weekends when we're not -- when we're not open. Of 13 course, that changes my FICA to 9,135, rather than 9,367. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How many vehicles do 15 we have? 16 MS. ROMAN: Three. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are the ages of 18 those vehicles, approximately? 19 MS. ROMAN: The one that came from the City, 20 if I'm not mistaken, I think that is a '98 model, I believe. 21 The others, we have one that's two years old and one that's 22 three years old, so those are in great -- great shape. 23 Making sure that the maintenance and everything is kept up 24 on those. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And these are all 8-24-05 bwk 100 1 pickups that are equipped to -- 2 MS. ROMAN: For Animal Control. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- to handle 4 animals? 5 MS. ROMAN: Correct. Correct. Moving down 6 to Line Item 203, my retirement -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: That will get calculated 8 automatically based upon -- 9 MS. ROMAN: Right, yeah. And that's -- well, 10 excuse me. I do have one other request on my -- being that 11 that cut it by approximately $2,500, -- 2,488, to be exact, 12 from what I had originally requested, due to fuel prices, I 13 am requesting an additional $2,000 to what I had currently 14 -- what I had previously requested. I had requested 1150 -- 15 11,050. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 13,000? 17 MS. ROMAN: 13,000. And, like I said, we 18 have the entire county to cover, and with fuel prices -- and 19 occasionally, when we -- you know, when we have problem 20 areas, we have to continually patrol. We can't just sit 21 around the office and wait for a call to come in. You know, 22 I want my officers out patrolling and making sure that -- 23 you know, that animals aren't running loose and things like 24 that. So -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do you fuel your 8-24-05 bwk 101 1 vehicles? The same way the Sheriff does, with a gas card? 2 MS. ROMAN: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, through 3 Maxey. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Looks good to me. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for 6 Ms. Roman? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hmm-mm. Thank you, 8 Janie. 9 MS. ROMAN: Thank you. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Appreciate you 11 being here. 12 MS. ROMAN: Thank you. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll go to constables. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I'll just say 15 one more thing about Animal Control. We're -- we're bulging 16 at the seams all the time. Sometime in the future, it's 17 going to get -- come to a point where we're going to have to 18 have some capital money for -- capital money for a larger 19 facility. With help that's available to us from a private 20 source, it's going to be good help, but it's not going to 21 solve the problem long-term. It's not something we have to 22 deal with this year, probably not next year, but it's coming 23 in the future. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that be -- 25 Dave, would that be because of our contractual obligation 8-24-05 bwk 102 1 with the City? Or -- 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 60 percent of it, 3 yeah. It's just growing population and no changes in 4 people's habits with their -- with their pets. We're just 5 handling more -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: More pets. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. Mostly cats 8 and dogs, all the time. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? Let's go to 10 the constables. They're under -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 17, I believe. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, indeedy. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, Precinct 4 14 looks pretty good. I don't know about those other three. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Any -- any questions or issues 16 you need to raise, Constable Billeiter? 17 MR. BILLEITER: What y'all are going to do to 18 me, that's a question I have. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, what I propose to do to 20 you, you got a copy of. There were a couple of adjustments 21 that I made, I think, and my adjustments were primarily to 22 try and create some uniformity amongst all of -- all of you. 23 MR. BILLEITER: The only concern I have is on 24 fuel costs, and if y'all approve my capital outlay, that 25 would be great. 8-24-05 bwk 103 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the capital outlay 2 for? 3 MR. BILLEITER: I have some things I need to 4 get for my car. I think all of them -- all of us need spike 5 strips in our car. To have an officer strategically located 6 is going to -- even dangerous pursuits in the county, 7 Sheriff's Department has spike strips in every car. It's 8 just having the right officer in the right place. I'm a 9 certified instructor in deployment of spike strips, and I 10 can teach these other guys how to deploy them. Also, we 11 need fire extinguishers. I've had several times, not as a 12 constable, but as a deputy, when I had to pull my fire 13 extinguisher. We do not have fire extinguishers. First aid 14 kit. A quick charge. Also, we have something that we 15 hadn't thought about in the budget, was our radar 16 certification, which should be a yearly thing, when we have 17 a technician check the calibration on them, and safety vest, 18 which would add up to approximately $1,000, somewhere, for 19 that equipment. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $1,000? 21 MR. BILLEITER: Yes, sir. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any problem 23 with that, except it shouldn't be in capital outlay. They 24 ought to be probably in Operating Equipment, I think. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 8-24-05 bwk 104 1 MR. BILLEITER: That'd be fine. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: The request for additional 3 funds in fuel that you made, that, of course, did end up in 4 your proposed. 5 MR. BILLEITER: Gas was 60 cents a gallon 6 cheaper when I made that request. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: You're asking for more now? 8 Is that what I'm hearing? 9 MR. BILLEITER: I don't know. My crystal 10 ball broke on me the other day, and I just don't know what 11 to do there. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's not going to 13 get much cheaper. 14 MR. BILLEITER: No, I know it's not. I don't 15 know if $2,500, considering gas prices today, is -- is 16 adequate or not. I mean, since I've been in office -- 17 which, of course, the budget had already been approved the 18 previous October. Since I took it over, I'm pretty well -- 19 I think Tommy can vouch for this; I'm pretty well going 20 through it. And I do a lot of patrol, so I would like to 21 see that increased if y'all could see fit. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think -- I 23 really think we probably ought to increase -- and I know 24 that we've equalized the fuel or the gasoline charge for all 25 of them. Just on the territory, it's probably easier -- I'm 8-24-05 bwk 105 1 going to say 4 and 3 probably have the most driving, just 2 because of the distances they have to go, but 2's not much 3 farther behind, and I know that y'all, you know, assist in 4 other areas as well, so I'd probably go to 3,000 on those. 5 I mean, I think that we -- I mean if we're going to -- 6 that's a small increase. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Talking about with all four of 8 them? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, go up to 3,000 for 10 each of them. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Four was already well 12 behind the others to -- right now. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four is? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Gasoline is -- oh, he's 16 at 1,500. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't -- well, I 18 don't mind going up on them, because I think you're right, 19 but I'm just pointing out that 4 was already well below 1, 20 2, and 3 already. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, 4's got a 22 little different approach to it. He -- as you know, he owns 23 his own -- we don't provide him with a vehicle. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And he doesn't 8-24-05 bwk 106 1 distinguish between county work and private work, and this 2 is a -- I mean personal. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's his estimate. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is an estimate 5 of what he does. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably need to raise him to 7 2,000, though. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, raise him. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Also, he's got a 10 deputy that handles some of the stuff way out far west, and 11 we just pay a flat amount for that. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, that's true. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Raise him to two and 14 the others to three? Is that what we're talking about? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that'd be fine. I 16 mean, I think -- I mean, we don't want them to run out of 17 fuel money. I want them out on the street patrolling. 18 MR. BILLEITER: Thank you. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? 20 MR. BILLEITER: That's all I have. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: How about you, Constable 22 Garza? 23 MR. BILLEITER: Thank y'all for your time. 24 MR. GARZA: No, sir. I -- just what y'all 25 have there. I -- for me, I'd like to thank you for having 8-24-05 bwk 107 1 me here, Commissioners Court. For me, like I say, when I go 2 out from here to Cypress Creek and come back around, it's 3 50 miles, 'cause that's not going between places, so I 4 appreciate the increase in fuel. I have no -- no questions, 5 other than if you have questions for me, I'm here to 6 hopefully answer them. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding was that all 8 of you guys kind of got together and figured out how to try 9 and get -- get some degree of uniformity amongst you, and 10 this equipment that Constable Billeiter was talking about, 11 the fire extinguishers and safety vest and things of that 12 nature, -- 13 MR. GARZA: First aid equipment. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: -- all of you need this 15 equipment? 16 MR. GARZA: Yes, sir. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, you've each 18 included in your -- in your Capital Outlay, which probably 19 needs to be moved up to Operating Equipment, the 1,500 to 20 make allowance to acquire that? 21 MR. GARZA: Yes, sir. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But Constable Billeiter 24 said that total cost was about 1,000, so why don't we just 25 move 1,000 up? And -- 8-24-05 bwk 108 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On Capital Outlay? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, the Capital Outlay 3 should go to zero for Constables 1, 2, and 3, and then 4 Operating Equipment should go to 2,500. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: And do away with Capital 6 Outlay, you're talking about? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: And change the Operating 9 Equipment from 1,200 to 2,500? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To 2,500. Two of them 11 are at 1,500 already. Okay. Now, why is your lease payment 12 cheaper than the rest of them? 13 MR. GARZA: We made a better deal. No, I 14 don't know, Commissioner. I -- I'm not -- 15 MR. TOMLINSON: I forgot to change it. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You forgot to change 17 that? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, I've got to change 19 that. 20 MR. GARZA: They need to come down to my 21 number. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is -- there's a 23 little bit of disparity in the bonds. It's a very modest 24 amount, and minor. Some of them have a $50 bond item going 25 forward after having purchased their bonds, and one of them 8-24-05 bwk 109 1 does not -- or two of them do not. There we go. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I think it has to do with 3 their two-year bonds, and they -- they fluctuate from year 4 to year. One year, two of them have bonds, and the next 5 year the other two have bonds, I think is how that works, 6 isn't it? 7 MR. GARZA: I'm not very sure about that, 8 Your Honor. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think also it's -- the 10 clerks need bonds, too. So -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, the clerk. 12 That's true. Okay. 13 MR. GARZA: I purchased a bond, like, for the 14 four-year bond, I think, in last year's budget. Hopefully 15 it would cover my term. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What clerk? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right, you don't 18 have a clerk. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, I'm serious. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, they don't have a 21 clerk. I was thinking of J.P.'s when I said clerk. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? 24 MR. GARZA: No, sir. If you have any more 25 questions for me or anything I can answer, I'll try to 8-24-05 bwk 110 1 answer. 2 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Aren't you hungry? 3 MR. GARZA: Not me. I appreciate what the 4 Commissioners Court has done for us and for my office. 5 Commissioner Letz and all the rest of the Commissioners are 6 very kind to my office, and I appreciate it, and I'll 7 hopefully continue and do a good job where it -- the process 8 is very smooth for us with this Court. And I thank the 9 Court for their -- you know, your assistance in, you know, 10 providing for our offices. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Keep bringing in money 12 through speeders on the interstate. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: That's right, stay on the 14 street. 15 MR. GARZA: Warrant fees. I do a lot of 16 warrant fees, out-of-county warrant fees where actually the 17 $50 warrant fee strictly comes to us. It's just for us, or 18 for the County's general fund. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 20 MR. GARZA: Thank you very much. Thank you, 21 Commissioners. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to J.P.'s. 23 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Tommy's not here, just when 24 we need him. Where's Tommy? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's 10. 8-24-05 bwk 111 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Ten. Tab 10. 2 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Maybe the IT guy could help 3 us out. Okay. J.P. 1 is just so excited to do their part 4 in trimming costs, and so -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You eliminated a 6 clerk? 7 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Excuse me? What was that, 8 Commissioner? We submitted -- 9 (Discussion off the record.) 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The question is, is 11 it feasible to put the two J.P.'s -- is it 1 and 2? Yeah, 1 12 and 2. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1 and 3. 14 JUDGE ELLIOTT: 1 and 3. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 1 and 3. Get their 16 offices close together and share a clerk? 17 JUDGE ELLIOTT: I can't see how that would -- 18 that would work. You know, that -- our traffic -- like 19 Judge Brown said, our traffic volume alone keeps my court 20 coordinator busy. Then she still has all the civil and 21 other cases and things that we have to do. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would there be -- is 23 there any efficiencies that could be gained by having more 24 of a receptionist type and a clerk? Or some way to combine 25 the office function of the two offices? Not reduce the 8-24-05 bwk 112 1 staff, but maybe restructure some way that would save money? 2 JUDGE ELLIOTT: I don't -- I just don't see 3 how that would work. I mean, I don't -- you know, I 4 don't -- I have no territorial, you know, deal about it. I 5 just don't see how -- with the work volume that Elsa has, 6 and as my court coordinator, she's doing a lot of things 7 other than just entering tickets, but entering tickets is a 8 big part of her time, but also small claims court, 9 evictions, entering all these things, so it takes a great 10 deal of her time. Plus we have trials. She has to be out 11 for court; she's in the courtroom with me. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 13 JUDGE CASTILLO: Judge, since he said 1 and 14 3, you know, we might could share a receptionist, a new 15 employee. 16 JUDGE ELLIOTT: I don't think that's what 17 they had in mind. (Laughter.) 18 JUDGE CASTILLO: But we couldn't share 19 clerks. 20 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Anyway, back on the real 21 subject matter that we're going to address -- getting back 22 to reality, okay? Just let me inform the Court that Paris 23 is not only in France, but it is in Lamar County. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Paris is Lamar County? 25 JUDGE ELLIOTT: And Lamar County is about as 8-24-05 bwk 113 1 far north Texas as you can get. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate that. What's the 3 -- do you have the population of Paris? Isn't it relatively 4 close to -- 5 JUDGE ELLIOTT: It must be close. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: -- close to the city of 7 Kerrville? 8 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Right. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I was thinking it was. 10 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Paris, Texas, is in Lamar. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There is still -- I'm 12 confused about how they don't have -- they only have two 13 births in the county, and -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And a lot of 15 marriages. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And 621 marriages. And 17 only 14 deaths. 18 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Maybe it's cheaper to get 19 married in Texas and come to Oklahoma and have kids. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they die up there, 21 too. Only 14 deaths, I think, recorded in the county. 22 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Anyway, our budget, as we 23 submitted, was approved with only a couple adjustments. The 24 County Judge had reduced our postage 14 percent and office 25 expense 20 percent. But you know what? We can live with 8-24-05 bwk 114 1 that belt-tightening for the county taxpayers. Do you know 2 what I mean? We can do better. And so we're going to do 3 better this year and we're going to go ahead and we're going 4 to work within that guideline. All the other items look 5 good. The only other thing is, we might be able to even do 6 better. We might even be able to cut more than what the 7 County Judge cut. We spent last year $2,986 in software 8 maintenance. This year, we budgeted 5,381, because that 9 included some type of new software that we were going to 10 get, and that was going to be our portion according to 11 Tommy. That -- in other words, the additional -- there was 12 additional, you know, 2,400 or so out of that. It was 13 upgrading the software, so we budgeted the 5,381. But 14 year-to-date, what we've paid out, I believe, for the rest 15 of the year is 2,905. Now, the question is, on software 16 maintenance, I'm kind -- I feel like Judge Brown; it's like 17 information technology, and Tommy put that -- plugged that 18 number in and I don't have a clue what it is. So, what 19 number do we need to go to there? What number needs to go 20 there? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: I think 2,905. 22 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Yeah. In other words, we 23 don't need that extra software that he was going to buy. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: That was for Word Merge. 25 JUDGE ELLIOTT: So, instead of 5,381, why 8-24-05 bwk 115 1 don't we cut that to 2,905? Tommy, that 2,905 year-to-date 2 covers us for the rest of this budget year, correct? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that would be 5 actual for the year. Are we talking about any potential 6 increase for next year? 7 JUDGE ELLIOTT: No. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: None at all? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 10 MR. TROLINGER: And, actually, the software 11 maintenance will be reduced. J.P. 4 coming online means we 12 have county-wide, as far as Software Group's concerned. 13 JUDGE ELLIOTT: So it may even be reduced 14 more. 15 MR. TROLINGER: There's a little bit of a 16 reduction there. 17 JUDGE ELLIOTT: So, that -- so that line 18 item, Software Maintenance, 5,381, can be reduced to 2,905. 19 JUDGE WRIGHT: 2,840 is what the official 20 amount is that came through. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. 22 JUDGE CASTILLO: 2,905. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're close. 24 JUDGE ELLIOTT: I tell you what, I want to 25 stick with year-to-date this year. If it's a little bit 8-24-05 bwk 116 1 less, that's good. We're still saving a couple thousand 2 dollars. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: And we avoid budget amendments 4 if it's a higher number. 5 JUDGE ELLIOTT: That's right. So that is 6 just great news, isn't it, out of J.P. 1? Now, then, let's 7 see if we can get better news, okay? Better news on top 8 of that would be that we have a J.P. technology fund, and 9 J.P. 1's revenues still show a balance of about 3,563. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Want my glasses so you 11 can read? 12 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Thank you. I can get it. 13 And so what I think, Tommy, we could do, is eliminate the 25 14 or the 29 -- what did I just say? -- the 2,905 out of that 15 Software Maintenance line item, and use the J.P. technology. 16 We would like to budget our technology amount of 2,905 from 17 J.P. technology into that line to pay for that, so that 18 saves the county taxpayers almost $3,000 that these 19 criminals out there speeding up and down our highways can be 20 paying. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very good. What else 22 you got? 23 JUDGE ELLIOTT: So, how's that? So we're 24 going to save $5,381 instead of just the little bit that was 25 submitted back. 8-24-05 bwk 117 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought that -- is it 2 this new fee? Is that the new -- 3 JUDGE ELLIOTT: The J.P. technology fee went 4 in a couple years ago. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 6 JUDGE ELLIOTT: It just got renewed to be 7 indefinite. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there was a change to 9 it with -- some of it has to be spent -- what was the fee 10 that has to be spent on J.P. security that are outside the 11 courthouse? 12 JUDGE ELLIOTT: That's a different -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a different 14 fee. 15 JUDGE ELLIOTT: That's one that's -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a different 17 fee. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Does the Court have to 19 approve that? 20 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Y'all may have to approve it 21 like you do the J.P. -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's for a 23 bodyguard for the J.P.'s. 24 JUDGE ELLIOTT: That's probably needed with 25 the friends I have. (Laughter.) 8-24-05 bwk 118 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the current 2 climate, yes. 3 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Yeah, in the current climate, 4 that's correct. 5 JUDGE CASTILLO: The -- is this technology 6 fee separate from this budget? 7 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Yes. It's a technology fee 8 for J.P.'s. 9 JUDGE CASTILLO: But you're asking that -- 10 that software maintenance be paid out of the technology fee? 11 JUDGE ELLIOTT: That's correct. 12 JUDGE CASTILLO: For each? 13 JUDGE ELLIOTT: I'm doing it for me, and I'm 14 sure now that they got the idea, they'll be talking to you 15 in just a minute. 16 (Discussion off the record.) 17 JUDGE WRIGHT: Prior to September 1, we could 18 not pay maintenance fees out of it, but now we can. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there enough money in the 20 J.P. technology fund to fund all four of those software 21 maintenance costs? 22 JUDGE WRIGHT: Don't spend mine yet. 23 JUDGE ELLIOTT: But -- yeah, but that is set 24 aside just for J.P.'s. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What else you got? 8-24-05 bwk 119 1 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Okay. Well, I think that'll 2 be a -- just tremendous news. We'll get this budget down to 3 little to nothing. So, I can live with all the numbers that 4 we've submitted. Like I said, we've cut the postage and the 5 office expense; we can live within that budget that was 6 given back to us. We'll cut that 5,381 out for software 7 maintenance and use J.P. technology fee of 2,905 out of the 8 J.P. 1 technology fee to cover that expense. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. 11 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Life is good in Paris, huh? 12 Thanks. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Judge Wright? 14 JUDGE WRIGHT: Okay. Now Mr. Happy's gone; 15 the gloom and doom's going to start. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: We can't spend your 2,900 out 17 of the technology fund? 18 JUDGE WRIGHT: Well, no. I have got to have 19 another computer, and that can come out of the technology 20 fund. If there's anything left, then yes, the 710 a quarter 21 can come out of the technology fund. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How big is the technology 23 fund, Tommy? 24 JUDGE WRIGHT: My clerk's computer crashed 25 and had to be replaced about midway through last year. And 8-24-05 bwk 120 1 since hers has been replaced, I can't print a warrant. I 2 can't call up the old files. I can't look at an old file 3 until I get a new computer. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not until you get the new 5 one. 6 JUDGE WRIGHT: Jonathan can probably explain 7 that. I can't. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the reason? 9 MR. TROLINGER: They've got three computers 10 in that office; basically, a constable, the coordinator, and 11 the judge. The judge's computer is Windows '98. It's at 12 the end of its life; it's just time to replace it. The 13 sharing of the files between the computers is the issue 14 there, the two modern computers versus the older, but it is 15 at the end of its useful life. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's in the technology 17 fund, about? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the revenue -- annual 19 revenue is about 16,000 a year. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the balance? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: There -- probably around 20 22 by the end of the year. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Ms. Wright's -- 24 or Judge Wright's computer can come out of this, and her 25 maintenance. 8-24-05 bwk 121 1 JUDGE WRIGHT: Okay, good. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds like it. 3 JUDGE WRIGHT: Also something else, before I 4 even get started with this. That -- and Judge Tinley will 5 understand what I'm talking about, is the approximately 6 $300-a-month cut we've taken with the hospital, loss of 7 revenue. And I know we're going to be going up somewhat, 8 but if you gentlemen, when you're discussing all of this, 9 would think about the three of us that have taken quite a 10 cut in pay. And the cost of gasoline has gone up, and our 11 frequent trips into town to have to take care of problems. 12 Other than that, I don't -- the computer's the only thing 13 that I had to have. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is the gasoline 15 account? 16 JUDGE WRIGHT: We don't get a gasoline cost. 17 They combined it into our salary. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the average 19 amount of driving you do, Judge? 20 JUDGE WRIGHT: I can pull my income tax 21 records and tell you. Right now, offhand, I can't tell you. 22 I've put 42,000 miles on a car in two years. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, as with all 24 elected officials, that's been rolled into the salary. 25 JUDGE WRIGHT: Yes. 8-24-05 bwk 122 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true. I 2 forgot about that. That's true. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand what you're 4 saying, Judge Wright. Any questions? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So does -- Commissioner 4 6 and I certainly do. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: $50 a week. 8 JUDGE WRIGHT: Yeah. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Judge, how much was your 10 computer? 11 JUDGE WRIGHT: I think he's got it down here 12 at 1,100. Is it still correct? 13 MR. TROLINGER: I've been able to get better 14 pricing. We're down to about 900, including software. 15 JUDGE WRIGHT: See there? He just saved you 16 some more money. 17 JUDGE ELLIOTT: And John is just paying for 18 himself already. 19 JUDGE WRIGHT: Anything further? I -- I 20 don't have a problem with -- I'm one of those that will let 21 Barbara figure the salary, and she does it so much better 22 than I do. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Judge Castillo? 25 You have anything in addition to what they're adding? 8-24-05 bwk 123 1 JUDGE CASTILLO: This is the first time I've 2 ever been involved in any budget process, and when I came 3 on -- and I thank y'all for -- for appointing me. I really 4 had to scramble a lot in the conferences. I want to do the 5 bare minimum conferences, but I'm realistic. Since I'll be 6 coming up for a new election, the only reason I added so 7 much on the conferences, if the next person that comes in is 8 not me, they're going to have to do 80 hours, plus my 20. 9 I'm -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are you talking 11 about, Judge? Are you talking about you're not going to be 12 here or what? 13 JUDGE CASTILLO: Well, yeah, I'm going to be 14 here. Hope to be here. But what I've heard -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Heard rumors. 16 JUDGE CASTILLO: Beat like a drum. Anyway -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is the silly 18 season, Judge; you hear a lot of things. 19 JUDGE CASTILLO: Sure, a little humor there. 20 I don't know -- I want to work real close with John. Out of 21 that technology fund, I do want two laptops. I want to loan 22 one to -- to my constable. And I'm real gung-ho about 23 getting standards -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What -- why wouldn't 25 the constable have that in his budget if he needed it? 8-24-05 bwk 124 1 JUDGE CASTILLO: What is -- what? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why wouldn't the 3 constable have that in his budget if he needed it? 4 JUDGE CASTILLO: I have no idea. 5 MR. TROLINGER: How does the technology fund 6 work, Tommy, with -- 7 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Can't be used for anything 8 under J.P. 9 JUDGE CASTILLO: I know it can't be used. I 10 wonder if it could be used as a loaner, and he -- he has the 11 radio. He can hear on the highway. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does he loan you his 13 car? 14 JUDGE CASTILLO: No. No. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 16 JUDGE CASTILLO: I just hope it goes through, 17 but if it doesn't, you know, it's not going to be my fault. 18 But I know there's a lot of cheap laptops out there, but 19 John looks at me and says it's got to work with Software 20 Group real well. And I'll work with John, even if it's one 21 laptop. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that laptop -- is that 23 operating equipment? 24 JUDGE CASTILLO: No, I think I still have to 25 get it approved through y'all if I want a laptop. 8-24-05 bwk 125 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is it in your 2 budget? 3 JUDGE CASTILLO: I guess it got killed when 4 the Judge put the pencil to it. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why -- what -- I mean, I 6 can see having -- when you need a new computer, if you'd 7 rather have a laptop, to get a laptop instead of an office 8 computer, but I can't see getting both -- 9 JUDGE CASTILLO: The office, I've got a 10 computer. I mean, I've got a whiz of a computer. Pretty 11 sure. Right, John? That thing does everything. And Kari 12 put some other stuff on there; I think it's -- I don't know 13 what it is, Excel or something. Nobody else can use it, but 14 I can use it. And although I'm not -- I think Microsoft -- 15 Microsoft is still slow. It's not what I had in Gateway, 16 but -- 17 MR. TROLINGER: The judge is in good shape 18 overall with the existing system. What we're talking about 19 is the ability to have in the vehicle -- in and out of the 20 vehicle both, a replacement for his constable's computer, 21 basically, where it replaces the desktop, gives him the 22 ability on the road, with wireless access, to -- 23 JUDGE CASTILLO: Right. 24 MR. TROLINGER: -- to connect to our system 25 and look up mug shots, warrants, do his paperwork from 8-24-05 bwk 126 1 wherever he's at instead of from his office. 2 JUDGE CASTILLO: I'm seeing a lot of tickets 3 that the -- the troopers are stopping people on traffic, and 4 if they were -- if they still had their -- what was it that 5 he had for us? 6 JUDGE ELLIOTT: So the judge needs a laptop 7 in his budget for him -- wink, wink -- and he'll loan it to 8 the constable. 9 JUDGE CASTILLO: I'm here 24 hours and I'm a 10 24-hour judge, and we -- I'd like to get -- to cover a lot 11 of that, like to get some of that money. And some people 12 still come through here that get stopped a second time. The 13 D.P.S. -- it may even be with the same D.P.S., but he's 14 unaware that he's already issued this guy a ticket, simply 15 because they can't help us any more. They can't have the 16 warrants in their hands any more. And these speeders just 17 come through here driving fast again. They stop them. And 18 if we just had a radio out there -- if I had a radio. The 19 constable has a radio, but he doesn't -- he's not aware that 20 this guy has an open court -- he needs to plea in our court. 21 And he's from California or he's from Arizona, he's from 22 Minnesota. He's not going to -- from Florida. He's not 23 going to come over here and he's not going to send in his 24 plea. He doesn't care about our -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand, I guess, 8-24-05 bwk 127 1 what you're saying. And I think that constables don't 2 currently have computers, correct? 3 MR. TROLINGER: They do. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They do? Constables do? 5 MR. TROLINGER: Yes, they do. 6 JUDGE CASTILLO: Precinct 2. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what you're -- 8 long-term, I think it's a good idea for the constables to 9 have laptops. I think that makes a lot of sense, 'cause 10 they're out, you know, on the road. But I'm not going to 11 buy -- I'm not in favor of buying them a laptop and a 12 desktop. I mean, I think if they get rid of a desktop down 13 the road, when they need to replace it, replace that with a 14 laptop. If we can do that economically, that's fine, but I 15 don't see having two computers. 16 JUDGE CASTILLO: I'm just asking, 17 Commissioner, for out of the technology fund. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The answer is no. 19 JUDGE CASTILLO: Okay. Other than that, I 20 think everything looks good in here. So -- 21 MR. TROLINGER: Well, let me say this. I've 22 looked at the J.P. -- I didn't write it in my efficiency 23 report specifically to address it, because I'm not sure I 24 quite understand it, but there's an issue with how warrants 25 are served at the -- at the precinct versus how the warrants 8-24-05 bwk 128 1 are served from the Sheriff's Office, and basically you have 2 your own system, where you have your own paper, your own 3 warrants. 4 JUDGE CASTILLO: We have our own warrants. 5 We don't know who to send these warrants to. Sheriff 6 doesn't want them. Brad does a lot better job than Omni, as 7 far as I'm concerned. Omni takes a lot of time. That's why 8 I was saying that, yeah, we need a receptionist, so the 9 receptionist would be there at the reception desk, and Elsa 10 and/or my clerk can be entering these warrants with Omni. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I think 12 during the next year, work with John and figure out what -- 13 I mean, sounds like there's some problems with the system 14 right now. 15 JUDGE CASTILLO: Sure. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Work with John and see if 17 you can figure out a way to fix the system. 18 MR. TROLINGER: Well, how I see these 19 warrants that the J.P.'s have, it's money sitting there. 20 It's -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why you need to 22 fix the problem. 23 MR. TROLINGER: And one solution is -- is to 24 start -- since J.P. 3's so automated, that they have a 25 desire to go that next step and put that in the vehicles so 8-24-05 bwk 129 1 that they can further be efficient. They look up their 2 in-house database from where they're at. The Sheriff's 3 Office does not look at that database. 4 JUDGE CASTILLO: Speeders are crooks, and 5 they're moving along faster, and if we don't move fast, 6 they're just going to get away with it. 'Cause I hate to 7 dismiss tickets. I've dismissed $3,000 or $4,000. Is it 8 going to come out of my pocket? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- I 10 don't think there's enough information presented. I think 11 all the J.P.'s need to get together, all the constables, and 12 if they need to rework something and take some additional 13 technology, get with Mr. Trolinger, and I think they will 14 work with y'all and come back with a plan. I think one 15 thing, we finally got all the J.P.'s and constables doing 16 the same thing. I don't want to start diverging from that; 17 I want them all doing the same system again. 18 JUDGE CASTILLO: On 105, do I get that? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one? 20 JUDGE CASTILLO: 105. Line Number 105. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I think personnel issues -- 22 you've made a request for a merit increase for your -- 23 JUDGE CASTILLO: She's been -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: -- court coordinator. 25 JUDGE CASTILLO: -- here off and on for 15 8-24-05 bwk 130 1 years, but permanent, maybe the last five or six years. And 2 she knows her business, I guarantee. Even judges from 3 surrounding counties call her for -- for help. And so -- 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 5 JUDGE CASTILLO: -- she -- I rely on her 6 quite a bit. 'Cause what I learned at the -- as an intern, 7 as a judge and a constable and the civil process, this is a 8 totally different world. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: This is a two-step increase 10 you're asking for her? Is that -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: One? 13 JUDGE CASTILLO: It's not much. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: She's at a 17-3 right 15 now. 16 JUDGE CASTILLO: I'm just going by what the 17 previous clerk was making in Precinct 4. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are all the 19 other clerks? Where are they all -- Ms. Nemec? 20 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where are they -- 22 where are the clerk assistants to the J.P. courts? How are 23 they slotted? 24 JUDGE CASTILLO: I think they're all making 25 25,5. 8-24-05 bwk 131 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're the same? 2 MS. NEMEC: They're all 17's. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 17-2, 17-3. 4 MS. NEMEC: Ms. Sevey is a 17-3, right along 5 with pretty much all the others. J.P. 4's clerk is going to 6 be a 17-4 after her longevity this year. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one? 8 MS. NEMEC: J.P. 4 will be a 17-4. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 10 MS. NEMEC: In September, she gets her 11 longevity. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 13 JUDGE CASTILLO: I -- you know, I'll fight 14 for my clerk tooth and nail before anybody else, 'cause 15 she's good. She's -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- yeah. We haven't 17 really -- 18 JUDGE CASTILLO: See, the previous clerk at 19 Precinct 4 was making this when he left, what I'm asking for 20 right here. And -- and, you know, that -- it's kind of like 21 a bias or something. And, my god, she's good. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- 23 JUDGE CASTILLO: And when he left, there were 24 some problems left over. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, J.P. 1's clerk, in 8-24-05 bwk 132 1 October, is going to be a 17-3. J.P. 2 is 17-2. J.P. -- 2 yours, Ms. Sevey, is a 17-3, and J.P. 4 will end up at the 3 17-4. 4 JUDGE CASTILLO: If I can do at least one 5 good thing, it will be this. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we're probably going 7 to be looking at those. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All at once? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Those merit -- anything over 10 and above salary -- salary increases over and above 11 longevity and educational probably at the next overall 12 session, is what I envision. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 14 JUDGE CASTILLO: Okay. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We appreciate 16 it. 17 JUDGE ELLIOTT: I like that idea he had, 18 though, about just in case I don't get re-elected, and you 19 give us another $1,000 in our Conference line item. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. 21 (Discussion off the record.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We're knocking close to 23 12:00. Do you want to go ahead and try and get these 24 others? Let's get Animal Control, I'd say -- not Animal 25 Control. Environmental Health. 8-24-05 bwk 133 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What about four? Are 2 we doing four? J.P. 4? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't see him here. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I think he's -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Happy. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: We've already -- the software 8 maintenance, of course, is something that we're going to 9 roll into J.P. technology. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Environmental Health is 12 towards the -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 21, I believe. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: -- tail end, I believe. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 21. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Environmental Health? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, 21. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Miguel? 19 MR. ARREOLA: Okay. Good morning -- still 20 morning? Yeah. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Barely. 22 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. I'm going to try to 23 be -- do this quick. There's only about five items that I 24 would like to review with you. The rest look good to me the 25 way the Judge recommended it. It's pretty good. I would 8-24-05 bwk 134 1 like to go -- start with Item 101. There's a request in 2 there -- the reason for my request, I'll show you some 3 copies of what used to be the county salary for that 4 position a few years back when the County had the program 5 and what it is now, the inflation rate and all of that. So, 6 my request is there. It's up to you to approve or deny. 7 Just let me know. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the -- okay. I see 9 what you're saying. 10 MR. ARREOLA: Okay. Next item is Item 103. 11 That's very important. That is critical for our department. 12 What I'm doing in that item, I'm requesting the current 13 part-time inspector that we have for Solid Waste to be 14 transferred to a full-time employee. And that it's -- we're 15 pleased to have a person like that. He is working so well. 16 We're producing a lot of results, and there's a lot more to 17 do. That will be a way of doing it, and if we have more 18 power -- manpower to do it. So, it's holding there. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whoa, whoa, whoa. 20 You've got two part-time people? 21 MR. ARREOLA: Correct. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what are you -- 23 what are you asking? One of them can only work two days a 24 week; is that correct? 25 MR. ARREOLA: Correct. That stays the same 8-24-05 bwk 135 1 way. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so what are you 3 asking? 4 MR. ARREOLA: The other person, I'm trying to 5 get him as a full-time to work five days a week, full-time 6 employee. Also will help us on our nuisance abatement 7 program where we have to have a full-time employee to be 8 named as a representative, so that will help us both ways. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought you were 10 named so that we satisfied the -- you were named in that 11 capacity so that we satisfied the provisions of that code. 12 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, we do. We have it. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That policy. 14 MR. ARREOLA: As a director. But 15 eventually -- no one can do the job in the field or take 16 over because they're not full-time employees. I have to do 17 it. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, under Inspectors 19 Salaries, what you're asking, then, amounts to a one day per 20 week increase, or a three day per week? 21 MR. ARREOLA: Two day per week. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two? 23 MR. ARREOLA: Yeah. What we're doing is 24 three days, six hours a day, so that's 18 hours a week. We 25 want to put it as 40 hours a week. 8-24-05 bwk 136 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you increasing one of your 2 part-times to full-time and then keeping the other 3 part-time? Is that essentially what you're doing? 4 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going from one full spot 6 to 1.5 full spots? 7 MR. ARREOLA: Correct. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, when we 9 initially staffed the department, from that time to right 10 now, we're up one and a half employees? 11 MR. ARREOLA: We started with three and a 12 half, and now we're -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: At four. 14 MR. ARREOLA: -- at five and a half total, 15 counting O.S.S.F. and -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Up two people. 17 MR. ARREOLA: -- Solid Waste, so we got two 18 extra people. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And our budget -- 20 '03-'04 budget, compared to what's requested, is a 21 40 percent or so increase? 22 MR. ARREOLA: It is a good increase, yes, 23 sir. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're going the 25 wrong direction. 8-24-05 bwk 137 1 MR. ARREOLA: Well, we're -- if we go 2 percentage-wise, we're going -- we're reducing our expenses 3 percentage-wise on everything else except on salaries, yes. 4 We got -- if we get this, it'll be two extra people that -- 5 with the salaries, and benefits will bring it up. The other 6 -- the other -- the rest of the budget has actually gone 7 down. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: 40 percent -- 38. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 38.7 percent. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 11 MR. ARREOLA: And that's just basically the 12 needs of the department. I realize it's -- it's more, but 13 also the county's growing, and we got a lot of work to do, 14 so the only way to do it is have manpower. We provide a 15 service to the community, and we need to keep doing it. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many members of 17 your staff do O.S.S.F. inspections? 18 MR. ARREOLA: Two. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You -- 20 MR. ARREOLA: Including myself. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- and one other? 22 MR. ARREOLA: Uh-huh. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And you've got 24 two people involved in Solid Waste? 25 MR. ARREOLA: Correct. 8-24-05 bwk 138 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you've got one 2 person as permanent office? 3 MR. ARREOLA: Two in the office permanent. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two in the office? 5 MR. ARREOLA: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are their 7 responsibilities? 8 MR. ARREOLA: One of them is a 9 clerk/receptionist, and he helps with database, and the 10 other one is strictly database. We get both databases for 11 O.S.S.F. and for Solid Waste. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Trolinger, are we 13 looking at anything in the new computer system that would 14 assist Environmental Health Department? 15 MR. TROLINGER: It's -- there's not one 16 particular package that -- that one particular vendor can 17 provide to handle Environmental Health, so what they've done 18 is they've developed their own database in-house. 19 Basically, they have what I would consider to be a database 20 programmer, a very highly skilled person doing this work, 21 that brings their systems all -- that brings everything 22 together for them so that they can do their daily work. 23 With what Software Group -- with the tax and appraisal 24 consolidation -- or not consolidation, but integration that 25 I'm looking at, I can see that they can take advantage of a 8-24-05 bwk 139 1 piece of that system -- Software Group system for their 2 mapping, the ArcView piece. But it's very difficult to come 3 up with a solution for Environmental Health. They've done 4 it themselves as a result. 5 MR. ARREOLA: And I think we -- we got a 6 pretty good setup, pretty good system that allows us to do 7 things a lot faster. And even when we used to do it at the 8 other administration, I don't have exactly the number, but 9 it was close to six people just for O.S.S.F. So, if we 10 compare O.S.S.F. the way it used to be and now how it is, 11 we're way down. That program that John is talking about, it 12 was designed in-house. We did it ourselves, and it's 13 helping us a lot. This request is basically outside for the 14 O.S.S.F. This is Solid Waste; it's a separate issue, and 15 it's big and it's important. Now, you -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What kind of caseload 17 does your Solid Waste people carry? 18 MR. ARREOLA: Caseload as of this time of the 19 year, it's been, what, 80 and 100 and -- that number I gave 20 to you. 21 MR. GARCIA: 127 cases. 22 MR. ARREOLA: 127 cases from January to now. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many of them are 24 open? How many of them are closed? 25 MR. ARREOLA: I think 80 of them were closed 8-24-05 bwk 140 1 the last time I checked, so we got about 40 pending. And 2 that's with two part-timers. And there's more -- a lot more 3 in the county that we could address if we had the manpower. 4 I don't know if you've noticed in your precincts, things are 5 looking better. We're cleaning up. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think just my view is, 7 I mean, this is not a year that I can see us adding staff 8 really anywhere. We just -- we're faced with some huge 9 expenditures, and, I mean, I like the direction of where 10 you've gone, but I don't see additional people. At least 11 not another full-time, anyway. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are your two people 13 who stay inside, are they -- are they both two full-time 14 positions, or -- 15 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- is there a 17 possibility of consolidating a position that -- 18 MR. ARREOLA: It's pretty difficult because 19 of the public. We -- we do interact with the public. We 20 have a lot of activities with the public. We have people 21 coming into the office, the phone -- answering the phone, 22 and the data entry itself is a full-time job. It's -- you 23 know, we can go back in history and see how that was done. 24 Data entry itself, it is -- it's a lot of data that we got 25 to enter. 8-24-05 bwk 141 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would it be possible to 2 take your data entry -- and I think the answer is going to 3 be no because of the skills, but a data entry to a part-time 4 position or a part -- or get the clerk -- we can do 5 something like Commissioner Williams was saying, go with 6 your clerk to 1.5 employees to free up half an employee to 7 go into O.S.S.F. out in the field. Is there any way you 8 could reconfigure or do anything -- 9 MR. ARREOLA: We can try. For sure, we can 10 try. I'm afraid of -- we tried before. When we started, we 11 started with three in O.S.S.F., and it just didn't work. It 12 was -- the demand from the public is different. So, if -- 13 you know, service-wise, if you want to provide less service 14 to the community, then we can try it out. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let's not go 16 down that road. Let's talk about whether or not your -- 17 your two folks that stay in-house all the time, the 18 receptionist and your data entry person, are they both 19 cross-trained? Can your receptionist do data entry? 20 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir, they can. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And is your 22 receptionist involved eight hours a day dealing with the 23 public directly over the counter -- 24 MR. ARREOLA: No. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- or answering the 8-24-05 bwk 142 1 phone? 2 MR. ARREOLA: Also that's entering, filing. 3 They're both trained. Now, the receptionist position is not 4 as qualified as my data entry person to do it, so on 5 occasions -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I just 7 asked you, are they cross-trained to do that? Is she 8 cross-trained to do that work? 9 MR. ARREOLA: Not 100 percent. The -- my 10 receptionist is not qualified to do the data entry position 11 100 percent. It can do, you know, what's very important, 12 what is -- can't wait. But the full data entry position, I 13 don't think she is. We can try to train her and see how it 14 comes out. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, what I'm 16 driving at is -- you know, what Commissioner Letz and I are 17 both driving at is trying to find a way to get you more 18 manpower on the on the road in terms of Solid Waste without 19 adding another body to your department. 20 MR. ARREOLA: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Think you can get 22 creative and help us figure that out? 23 MR. ARREOLA: We can see the -- the 24 possibility. It sounds difficult because of what we do in 25 that department. It's a lot of public service. But we can 8-24-05 bwk 143 1 try. Yes, sir, we can try that. 2 MR. TROLINGER: And to Miguel's credit, we 3 have looked at mounting a laptop in the vehicle, having 4 access back to his database and streamlining that data entry 5 process where part of it's done out in the field, but we're 6 not there yet. We've got some work to do to figure out how 7 to do that. 8 MS. NEMEC: I think y'all might also -- if 9 you go this route, you might need to look at the -- the 10 position of his receptionist and the step and grade that 11 that position pays, and then if she starts doing data entry, 12 that goes from a 12 to a 15, so there might be some -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: May have to make some 14 adjustments. 15 MS. NEMEC: -- adjustments there. 16 MR. ARREOLA: Adjustments on the salary. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I understand 18 that, but if we can figure out a way to do some 19 consolidation so we can put the manpower on the road where 20 there seems to be a need, that's my goal. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: If we could transition to 22 where some of the people in the field are able to input some 23 of the data right there in the field, that also would lessen 24 the -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That might help. 8-24-05 bwk 144 1 JUDGE TINLEY: -- in-house requirement. 2 MR. ARREOLA: Actually, we're doing that 3 already. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're doing that? 5 MR. ARREOLA: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you carry a laptop 7 out -- 8 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To put the 10 information in? 11 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And your other 13 inspector does the same thing? 14 MR. ARREOLA: We're not set up for that with 15 them yet. We have the computer; we just need the stands and 16 all of that for the vehicle, but yes, it's possible. We're 17 looking into it, trying to get those. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe Mr. Trolinger 19 can help you get there a little quicker, which would cut 20 down your data entry load inside the -- in-house. 21 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, it will help a lot, and we 22 can look at that. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 24 MR. ARREOLA: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Outside of the salary, do 8-24-05 bwk 145 1 you have anything you want to bring up outside salaries and 2 positions? 3 MR. ARREOLA: Something else outside that? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, outside of that. 5 MR. ARREOLA: Yeah, I would like to change a 6 little bit the -- the vehicle gas, oil, and maintenance. I 7 requested 3,500 and it was recommended, but the way it's 8 going with the gasoline prices, I'd like to get a little 9 higher. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Think you better go 11 to 5,000, don't you think? 12 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, I was thinking about 13 5,000, 'cause year-to-date, we already spent almost 4,000. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're at 4,400 right 15 now. 16 MR. ARREOLA: Yes. So if we could get 5,000 17 on that one, that would be great. On the lab testing, Line 18 Item 438, I requested 1,500. I know it's not showing that 19 we spent that in the past. The reason we requested that is 20 we have some special lab testing to do. Occasionally, not 21 all the time, but for, like, oil, polluted soil, that is 22 very expensive. What we do is we try to get that reimbursed 23 by the -- by the person, but in order for us to have a good 24 case, we have to do the lab testing, so I would like to get 25 $1,500 on that one. 8-24-05 bwk 146 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How often do you do that? 2 MR. ARREOLA: Hard to tell. We have one 3 right now that is pending, and we haven't acted on it 4 because of the lack of funds. We tried to get this person 5 to pay for it at the beginning. He didn't agree, but once 6 they found it was a $500 lab test, and -- nevermind, and I 7 didn't have the funds to do it, so that's pending. I don't 8 see that very often, but I want to be prepared in case 9 something comes up. If we don't use it, then it will just 10 stay there. I'm going to go lower on uniforms and boots, 11 316. I requested 2,000; it was recommended for 1,500. I'm 12 talking to different companies now, and looks like I'm going 13 to be able to get a better price, so it'll probably be even 14 lower than that. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much -- do you know 16 how much lower? 17 MR. ARREOLA: Probably we can make it a 18 thousand. Don't put it in there yet. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll put 1,000 in. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Miguel? 21 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Line 435. 23 MR. ARREOLA: 435. Yes, sir? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You had budgeted 25 3,500 for public education. 8-24-05 bwk 147 1 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only spent 1,500. 3 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir, we didn't spend much. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's happening in 5 public education? 6 MR. ARREOLA: Not enough time to spend in the 7 way we want it. We have to take care of business first. We 8 would like to do a lot more. If we can get more manpower, 9 that will probably free me a little bit more to do more 10 public education. We've done a few that it didn't cost us 11 much, and that's why we didn't have to spend so much on it. 12 I would like to have some, and there's -- you know, to do 13 different -- different things. But, yeah, we haven't spent 14 money on it a whole lot. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I 16 agree that public education is important, but I think that I 17 like what you've done in the past in trying to get with, you 18 know, like, the Home Builders Association, things that don't 19 cost very much. 20 MR. ARREOLA: Don't cost very much. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to really reduce 22 that, based on fuel going up, reduce it to 1,000. 23 MR. ARREOLA: That's fine. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of why I 25 asked the question. 8-24-05 bwk 148 1 MR. ARREOLA: Sure, that's okay. The other 2 one that I'm willing to reduce on Capital Outlay, 570, we do 3 need a four-wheel drive vehicle. It's a big need. We still 4 have our jeeps; they're still working real good, and the 5 reason for that money was to lease a four-wheel drive 6 vehicle, probably sell one of the jeeps and lease a 7 four-wheel drive. I think we can still live one more year 8 without it. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One more year? Okay. 10 MR. ARREOLA: So, we're willing to give that 11 as a zero. But I would really like to have my full-time 12 employee. Give some, take some. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that public 14 education down to 1,000? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: 1,000. 16 MR. LESLIE: So, your biggest priority is to 17 go from two part-time to one full-time, one part-time? 18 MR. ARREOLA: One and a half, yes, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then you can take 20 those dollars and increase your Solid Waste manpower? 21 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that it for this 23 one? Okay. Thank you, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When we look at the big 25 numbers. 8-24-05 bwk 149 1 MR. ARREOLA: Okay. Thank you very much. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we break for lunch 3 and come back at 1:30. 4 (Recess taken from 12:15 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 5 - - - - - - - - - - 6 (Commissioner Letz not present.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to 8 order, if we might. We were in recess for lunch until 1:30. 9 It's a bit past that now. The next one on our workshop 10 budget list is the Auditor. Let's go ahead and get him 11 done. What do you have for us? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, what I -- when I did my 13 original budget, $800 in operating equipment didn't roll 14 forward to recommended, and that's -- that's to replace my 15 computer. Actually, that computer belongs to Adult 16 Probation, my -- my computer does. And it's a '96 model, 17 and so I'm having a few difficulties, and so I really do 18 need to replace my PC. The only -- the only other thing 19 that I have is actually a big item, but last -- last year I 20 asked for a part-time person, additional part-time person in 21 my office. I tried it for a few months this year, and 22 finally came to the conclusion that the detailed work in my 23 setting just does not lend itself to part-time. They're 24 here four hours and they're gone a day and a half, and they 25 come back and it's hard to keep up with where you are and 8-24-05 bwk 150 1 what you're doing. We found out that we had, on the 2 average, more redo to -- to do than we did when we started. 3 So, we had a lot of errors and we had a lot of corrections 4 to make. 5 So, what I'm asking for is to replace that -- 6 that part-time with a full-time person. That office has had 7 two people in it since about '88 or '89, and it's been 15 8 years since I've been here with two people. And when I -- 9 when I started in 1990, we had maybe -- maybe one grant to 10 deal with, and that was from -- from Texas Juvenile 11 Probation Commission. Since -- since that time, we've grown 12 from one grant to probably on the average of 15 a year, and 13 we're the -- you know, my office is the sole administrator 14 of all grants that the County gets, and it's -- we're at the 15 point that -- that we really just can't take on much more. 16 And -- and the volume of -- of invoices that we handle, you 17 know, every month is just to the point that -- that it's 18 just almost impossible to handle more. My -- my first 19 assistant probably works 50 hours a week, no overtime. And 20 I know -- I know that she works sometimes on the weekends 21 from 7:30 in the morning till, you know, 6:00, 7:00 at 22 night, and I just -- I just don't think that's fair. 23 And we -- as part of trying to get full-time, 24 you know, we are prepared to take on the billings for an 25 indigent health care program, and that -- that would be -- 8-24-05 bwk 151 1 that's an additional piece of software, but I've talked to 2 Sid Peterson Hospital about it, and part -- the software can 3 be shared by us and the hospital. And they -- the hospital 4 is excited about it, because it automates the qualifications 5 of indigent people. Right now, they're doing it manually. 6 When -- you know, when a person walks in off the street and 7 applies for -- for indigent health care, they're -- they're 8 having to do that manually. This -- this system integrates 9 the billings with the qualification. In other words, what 10 it does, it assigns a case number to each individual, and -- 11 and all of their billings get tied to that case number. And 12 the way it -- the way the law is with indigent health care, 13 they're only qualified for six months at a time. Well, as 14 an example, if John Doe is qualified and he -- they run for 15 six months, and the bill comes in and it's dated after that 16 six months has expired, say, if he went to the pharmacy or 17 to the doctor's office after that -- after that expiration 18 date, this system will -- will pick up on that date, and 19 when -- when it picks that date, it will not pay that -- 20 that vendor, because they're not -- they're not qualified 21 any more. 22 So, I mean, that's -- and right now, we're -- 23 we're paying a third-party administrator 4 and a half 24 percent of all the eligible health care -- indigent health 25 care costs, and that -- right now that amounts to about 8-24-05 bwk 152 1 $26,000, $27,000 a year. So, you know, last -- last year, 2 you know, I reduced my salary by almost 40 percent in order 3 to get a part-time person. And -- and so, you know, if we 4 could -- if we could gain a full-time person, then I think 5 we'd still be well ahead if we could save the -- the 6 27,000-plus that we're paying for a person to do our 7 indigent health care administration. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the cost of 9 the software package, Tommy? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: It's -- we don't purchase. 11 The software is -- is furnished to us on a monthly basis, 12 and for both sides it's -- it's 1,000 -- I think it's $1,000 13 a month. So, the hospital and the County would split 14 that -- that monthly fee, so it would be approximately $500 15 a month for the County. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who would be doing 17 the interview process in each of these patient cases? You 18 would be doing it here, or the hospital would? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: The hospital would continue 20 to do it. The indigent health care program is administered 21 through Social Services at the hospital, and they have 22 people there that deal with Medicaid, Medicare, and all 23 facets of -- of aid to -- you know, to indigent people. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I ask because I don't 25 think you want to do that. 8-24-05 bwk 153 1 MR. TOMLINSON: No. No. No, I don't, that's 2 for sure. But -- so they -- that Social Services office, 3 they feed off each other's information. But if they had -- 4 if they had this part of it automated, it would -- I think 5 it would really benefit them as much as it would us. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Tommy, let me 7 understand. Who's -- you're going to be taking on some more 8 work, indigent health care. Who's doing it now, the work 9 that you'll be taking on? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: We contract with -- with a 11 firm in Houston. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Third party? 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Third-party administrator. 14 And their fee is 4 and a half percent of our total indigent 15 health care deal. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, you're going to 17 get $26,000 back by going from a part-time to a full-time. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You know county 20 government probably about as well as anybody. Are there any 21 other administrative functions in county government -- 22 personnel management comes to mind -- or any others that 23 could be consolidated into your office? Purchasing comes to 24 mind. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, purchasing is -- is an 8-24-05 bwk 154 1 issue that I think, for the long-term, we need to deal with. 2 In fact -- as a matter of fact, I have -- I have visited 3 with my peers in Gillespie County, and I think that -- that 4 we can share in -- in a purchasing officer to -- to do 5 purchases for more than -- for more than one entity. And, 6 you know, I mentioned this when we talked about this new 7 software package. For -- for the accounting part of -- of 8 that software, I think that's the most important thing, is 9 that it will allow us to do online P.O. purchasing. Whereas 10 when -- when any department needs whatever it is they want, 11 they -- they can -- they can requisition that purchase 12 directly through the accounting system. And if we had a 13 purchasing officer, they -- they would handle that -- that 14 purchase requisition before it ever goes into the accounting 15 system. So -- and what it does, when -- when the purchasing 16 officer actually does a P.O., then -- then the amount of 17 that purchase gets applied against the -- the account -- the 18 proper account in that department. So -- so, on a -- on a 19 real, live basis, we have -- we know exactly what -- what's 20 encumbered against every account in every department 21 county-wide. And -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That saves some work 23 on your department, doesn't it? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: It would -- it would save 25 some data entry. I mean, someone -- someone will have to do 8-24-05 bwk 155 1 the data entry, whether it be one in my department or -- or 2 in purchasing. Some -- you know, somebody has to enter that 3 documentation into the system. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought the P.O. 5 originated with the department head. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it -- it can, and it 7 will. But -- but that's only a requisition. That's not the 8 actual payment of the -- of the purchase. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: There's the -- the new 11 system, as -- one example that I think that, you know, the 12 Court would really like is that there are ways to go into -- 13 to the payroll system, and if you -- if you have the idea 14 that you -- you want to increase salaries county-wide by 15 3 percent, you plug that 3 percent in, in the accounting -- 16 in the payroll system, and it will give you the salary of 17 every -- the new salary of every employee, plus benefits 18 that are associated with it in a matter of, you know, 19 minutes. So, for budgeting purposes, it's really a good 20 product. And it -- and the reason is, is the -- the system 21 that we have now -- the accounting system we have now was 22 designed by programmers; it's not designed by accountants. 23 So, that tells you a little something about, you know, 24 our -- our program. This software is designed by -- by one 25 of the men that wrote GASB-34, so this accounting package 8-24-05 bwk 156 1 is -- is designed around that reporting standard. Mr. -- 2 Mr. Freeman -- Dr. Freeman from Texas State University wrote 3 -- helped write this program, and he sat on the Governmental 4 Accounting Standards Board for a number of years, so -- and 5 was instrumental in -- in developing GASB-34. So, it -- 6 it's designed by accountants and it's maintained by 7 accountants. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Isn't the purchasing 9 system and the payroll system part of the entire package 10 that Mr. Trolinger's proposing? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have another 13 question in terms of purchasing. Have we gone this route 14 before and talked about it? Because there really is -- 15 there really is a need to do centralized purchasing. Are 16 there any other counties other than Gillespie that might be 17 interested? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I'm sure that Bandera 19 would be. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I was 21 getting at. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: But I have -- I've had a 23 serious conversation with -- with the Auditor in Gillespie 24 County, and they do have an interest. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What about the 8-24-05 bwk 157 1 personnel management function? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: That -- that's -- that's a 3 highly specialized field. You know, personally, I'm not 4 qualified to do it. If -- I mean, the next -- the next 5 person in this place may, but -- but I'm not. And I'll tell 6 you right off that -- that I don't -- I don't -- I've never 7 done that, and -- and at my age, I don't want to learn. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the 9 question, Commissioner? 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Whether or not 11 there's some synergy by moving the personnel management 12 function into the Auditor's office. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. We're probably 14 not too far away from a Human Resources Department, with the 15 number of employees we got. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: But I think that for the long 17 haul, trying to integrate the indigent health care in -- the 18 administrative part of it into -- at the county level will 19 be of some benefit. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that have some 21 merit if, as, and when, in the EMS investigation, the County 22 were to somewhere down the line get engaged in EMS billing? 23 Does that have some application that way, too? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it does -- I mean, the 25 system does have a -- have a -- it has a utility billing 8-24-05 bwk 158 1 system built in it, so I think that probably any kind of -- 2 of billings, accounts receivable could be applied to -- I 3 mean, it's similar functions, so it could be. I'm not -- I 4 won't say it will, but since -- since it does have a billing 5 system, it seems to me that it could be used for any 6 billing. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do we do the 8 billing for the Juvenile Detention Facility? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: The facility bills -- bills 10 its own per diems. They -- the facility sends the bills 11 out. They give us copies of the billing, and we -- we audit 12 the payments to make sure that all the payments have been 13 made. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In terms of 15 centralized accounts receivable, is that -- is that the way 16 we want to continue, or should we consolidate wherever 17 possible? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, to me, the way -- the 19 way we're doing this right now is -- lends itself to -- to 20 some dual control, because there is -- there is some -- 21 there is two hands in the mix, so to speak. And, so, I -- 22 for that reason, I like the way we're doing that process. 23 The County does not do a lot of accounts receivable other 24 than -- that I can think of, other than that or the courts. 25 But we have a collection -- we have a Collections Department 8-24-05 bwk 159 1 that handles that. But as far as -- as monthly billings, 2 there is not much of that. We -- we bill the other counties 3 in the two districts for -- for all the costs associated 4 with the District Attorney's office and for the district 5 court. That's -- that's -- for the most part, that's all 6 the billings that we do. Any other questions? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we went kind of 9 far afield from your request, but -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially -- I'm sorry, are 11 you through? Essentially, what you're saying is you want to 12 go from what you had hoped to be able to work with a 13 part-time to a full-time. But, by the same token, you've 14 cut yourself back prior to this time. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: But to offset that, you're 17 going to take on the indigent health care billings, which 18 will be pretty close to a wash. The additional costs will 19 be in the software for the -- for the billings? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: And that's going to be about 22 $6,000 a year? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have a 8-24-05 bwk 160 1 problem with that. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Letz 3 needs to hear it, though. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I took some 5 good notes for him. The -- going back and comparing '05-'06 6 requested to '03-'04, we're up $33,000, and I can't -- I 7 can't find why we are, 'cause -- is it all in this 8 additional salary? We spent 141 two years ago, and this 9 year we're going to spend 174, and that considers the 10 significant pay increase you -- you took. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Insurance is about 11,000. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a big one. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, that's a big 14 hit. Okay. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: You there? 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Collections. That's 18 under 6, I believe. This is the guy everybody likes to see, 19 'cause he brings in more than he spends. 20 MR. ALFORD: Any other questions? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, but just seeing 22 your smiling face -- 23 MR. ALFORD: Uh-oh. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- reminds me, I 25 wanted to ask the Auditor a question. In other revenue, 8-24-05 bwk 161 1 when you give us our printout of taxes and other revenues 2 and so forth, will you include the revenue -- anticipated 3 revenue from the juvenile facility and collections in that 4 line? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: The -- the revenues from 6 juvenile detention are in a separate fund alone. The -- the 7 collections that they -- that our Collections Department 8 makes fall -- fall under the fees that are associated 9 with -- with the office that generates the fee. In other 10 words, if -- if they collect a fee for County Court at Law, 11 then that fee or fine is associated with -- with the County 12 Clerk's fines and fees. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Likewise, if it's a district 15 court case, then those fees get associated with -- with the 16 District Clerk's Office. But under -- under GASB-34 -- 17 under the functional accounting system, the -- the rules are 18 that -- that the fees that are generated by a function get 19 associated with the costs of that function. So, the end 20 result is that -- that if the District Clerk generates the 21 fee, then that fee gets netted against the cost of her 22 office, so -- so, thereby, you know how much -- how much 23 dollars in taxes or tax money that you have to use to 24 support her office. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And what about 8-24-05 bwk 162 1 Juvenile Detention Facility? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, that -- those revenues 3 are totally by themselves, 'cause we're -- since we -- since 4 that facility is partially used by other counties, it's 5 considered a proprietary fund, or a -- or I won't call it 6 for-a-profit center. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't yet. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: But -- but, essentially, 9 that's -- you treat it just like you would a business. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Because better than 12 50 percent of the revenues are generated outside the county. 13 So, for that reason, all the revenues that are generated by 14 the facility are included within that fund. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reason I asked -- 16 excuse me, Judge, but I just want to -- and I want to draw 17 Tommy out a little bit. The reason I ask is because every 18 time we have a discussion about the Juvenile Detention 19 Facility, it seems like our discussion is always focused on 20 the cost side, and we don't get -- we don't get the benefit 21 of weighing that against the revenue side. Now, Ms. Harris 22 gives us a report every month, and we know what she billed. 23 But, you know, when you look at all of our funds and so 24 forth, not being able to say that -- that "X" number of 25 dollars over the course of a 12-month period either were 8-24-05 bwk 163 1 generated or anticipated to be generated against the costs 2 that are associated, I think, sometimes becomes a problem in 3 terms of how people perceive the entire thing. If you 4 follow what I'm trying to say. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: All -- all the fees -- all 6 the revenues associated with that function are reported 7 along with the expenditures for that function, so there 8 shouldn't be any confusion about -- I mean, about that 9 issue. Because, I mean, they're all reported and they're -- 10 they're not commingled with any other fund. 11 (Commissioner Letz entered the courtroom.) 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, we'll continue 13 that. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm not exactly following 15 what -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll continue that. 17 We'll get rid of this guy here. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Doesn't sound very nice; want 19 to get rid of him. 20 MR. ALFORD: First it's my "smiling face"; 21 now it's, "Get rid of him." 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You didn't get any 24 further than Collections? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, we got -- we 8-24-05 bwk 164 1 deviated a little bit. 2 MR. ALFORD: I just got here. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We had the Auditor up 4 there for a long time. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: He's explained everything from 6 top to bottom to us; you missed it all. Okay. Any -- have 7 you got any questions, comments about where the recommended 8 is at this point? 9 MR. ALFORD: No, sir, do not. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any special wish list 11 that you've got you want to lay in front of us? 12 MR. ALFORD: No, sir. The only thing would 13 be the $1,000 you and I talked about under Conference, 14 Travel. It's just to leave that there, because I elected 15 not to send us this year because it was going to cost us, 16 like, $1,800. It was outrageous, so I just waived that and 17 asked that that $1,000 be carried over. There should be a 18 fall conference this year, I believe, in Austin. I'm hoping 19 that'll be cheap enough we can attend. Other than that, 20 everything is just like it has been. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What kind of 22 leverage do you have to collect money? What happens to a 23 debtor if he doesn't pay? 24 MR. ALFORD: Depends on which court. If 25 it's -- if it's in a misdemeanor court, if he doesn't pay 8-24-05 bwk 165 1 us, we virtually threaten to put him in jail and/or do put 2 him in jail. If it's a felony court, we have to work real 3 closely with Probation and try to get his probation 4 violated. It's a -- we have a very big hammer in 5 misdemeanor court. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd just like your 7 opinion on -- I think you know something about the very -- 8 what appears to be a very large bad-debt expense that EMS 9 has. 10 MR. ALFORD: I've heard of it yes, sir. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Have you got any 12 opinion about whether or not there's a lot of money laying 13 around there that could be picked up? 14 MR. ALFORD: Not knowing a whole lot about 15 insurance, I'd be scared to venture into that. But I'd be 16 willing to bet that there's probably more out there than is 17 being collected, by skip tracing. As y'all know, we do -- a 18 lot of these people move; no forwarding address. I feel 19 like that's something that we could probably be able to 20 locate them. Now, then, if they pay or not, I don't know. 21 But it seems like something that we've learned through the 22 past; if you locate Johnny once, "Johnny" being a 23 hypothetical person, if he throws the letter in the trash 24 can, you locate him six months from now, he starts getting 25 the idea of, "The cops can still find me," so eventually 8-24-05 bwk 166 1 you'll start getting some money in. So, I'm assuming that 2 may apply to EMS also. I don't know. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for 4 Mr. Alford? Thank you, sir. 5 MR. ALFORD: Thank you, gentlemen. Thank 6 you, Commissioner Letz. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We go -- 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Three gentlemen and 9 Letz? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure how to take 12 that. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want me to interpret 14 it? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rather not. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. D.P.S. That takes us 17 to 19, it looks like. This is not a big item. Trooper? 18 You got anything for us? Or are you just here because 19 somebody said that you need to be here? 20 TROOPER OLIVE: Somebody told me to be here, 21 so I'm here. I'll answer whatever questions y'all might 22 have. We -- I'm even willing to give you some money back. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Really? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Bring it on. 25 TROOPER OLIVE: Line Item 499 on our budget 8-24-05 bwk 167 1 for $150, we had tint meters that we're required to certify 2 that the County purchased for us, and that's what that was 3 for. We've since been given tint meters by the State. 4 We've turned our old ones over to the Sheriff's Department, 5 so we don't need the money; y'all put it to good use 6 somewhere. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 8 MS. HARRIS: You can put it in the Detention 9 account. 10 TROOPER OLIVE: I knew somebody would 11 volunteer for it. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? 13 TROOPER OLIVE: No, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that all? Just 15 150 bucks? 16 TROOPER OLIVE: We do what we can. We give 17 y'all a lot. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know you do. 19 TROOPER OLIVE: It just comes in through 20 another department. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: This guy's quick on his feet, 23 isn't he? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, he is. Take the 25 150 and run, Judge. 8-24-05 bwk 168 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 2 TROOPER OLIVE: That's all I've got, unless 3 you got something for me. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you. 5 TROOPER OLIVE: Thanks for your time. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thanks a lot. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come to Number 1, County 8 Judge. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here comes one we're 10 going to whack on. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, get out your pencil. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Outsource this one. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Outsource? 14 (Laughter.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Cut some, increased some. 16 Didn't even look at the bottom line to see what the 17 difference was. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Out-of-county mileage? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You haven't used that 21 much this year. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm-mm. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You planning to be out of 24 county next year? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Actually, I increased 8-24-05 bwk 169 1 -- increased it over in Commissioners Court, too. 2 Considerably. 3 (Discussion off the record.) 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Even if he drives the 5 same number of miles, with the increased cost of fuel and 6 everything, it's still right there. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same as last year. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I said basically the same 11 as last year. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Pretty close, yeah. Like I 13 say, there -- a few of them are lower, a few of them -- one 14 or two I increased. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the Postage line, 16 Judge -- is that just uniquely for your office, or is that 17 combined with Commissioners Court as well? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Commissioners Court has 19 one also. And from an accounting standpoint, how we 20 separate the two, your guess is as good as mine. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unless Ms. 22 Mitchell -- 23 MS. MITCHELL: It's divided up five ways, 24 one-fifth to the Judge's account. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Really? 8-24-05 bwk 170 1 MS. MITCHELL: Mm-hmm. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good for you. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll move to County 4 Court. Came down a little bit on Mental Health and on 5 Court-Appointed Attorneys. I hope I'm not stretching my 6 neck on court-appointed attorneys, but I think we're going 7 to be able to bring it in at that. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Basically identical to 9 last year. A couple of lower, everything else the same. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah. If anything, it 11 brought it down some, yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Both of yours are down a 13 little bit. Good job, Judge. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. We'll come to 2 -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did you get any more 16 supplements this year we don't know about? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not aware of them if there 18 are. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thought I'd check to see 20 if there was any supplements the Legislature was giving you. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: If they come from outside, 22 I'll take them. 23 (Mr. Tomlkinson pointed at Judge Tinley.) 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He gets a supplement? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I do? 8-24-05 bwk 171 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Good. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much more is he 4 making now? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: I think it was -- this was in 6 the same bill as the District Judges, I believe. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: A separate bill. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: It also affects the -- the 10 supplement of the County Attorney. 11 MR. EMERSON: Cool. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do they all make more 13 money? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I know we had a separate bill 16 that went in the trash somewhere. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: I think it -- 18 JUDGE TINLEY: We weren't part of the 19 District Judges. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: I think somebody dug it out, 21 because it's -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Good. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: That's the information I got 24 from Judge Evans. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe you -- I think 8-24-05 bwk 172 1 you had a $5,000 supplement. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Ten. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Ten. I think it goes to 15. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Wonderful. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So the 10 on the 6 County Judge, that 10 goes to 15? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: That's the information that I 8 got from -- from Judge Evans. I don't know if the bill's 9 been signed or not. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe it was. I 11 think it was part of another bill. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: But it is 5,000 if it -- if 13 it has. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I was hoping to get -- that it 15 would attach to the -- to the general judicial bill, but it 16 was a separate bill forever, and during the session, I knew 17 it wasn't going to go anywhere as a separate bill. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: It was resurrected, I guess. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it 5 or 15? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Five. So -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Increased it five. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Increased to five. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it's 15,000 now. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I 25 thought, yeah. Increases by five. Congratulations, Judge. 8-24-05 bwk 173 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You get that salary 2 up much more, a lot of us are going to be running for County 3 Judge. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: That's right. Come on. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- just out of 6 curiosity, is there a -- a fee where this is coming out of? 7 This is just an unfunded mandate, basically? This is 8 just -- we're going to pay our judges more? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: No, I don't think there's a 10 fee. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just the Legislature 12 telling us we're going to pay certain people more. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: No, this is state money. This 14 money comes from the state. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: State supplements. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: State money, yeah. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could have gone to 19 school. So, you're taking money from the school children. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I guess. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hmm. Where's the 22 reporter when we need them? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Number 2, Commissioners 24 Court. I got input from several of you and tried to 25 interpolate that into what's there. 8-24-05 bwk 174 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One of the items that 2 was referenced -- I guess Commissioner Letz brought it up 3 several months ago, and as a result of some discussions with 4 the Auditor having to do with liability we incur driving our 5 own vehicles in pursuit of county business. Remember that, 6 Commissioner Letz? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I remember. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think we ever got a 9 resolution, but I know what the personal resolution is, 10 'cause I took care of it with my insurance agent, and what 11 that amounted to was $250 more on my insurance bill, just 12 for the vehicle I use exclusively for county -- for county 13 business. So, now I'm covered in case I have a wreck and -- 14 and something happens in the pursuit of county business. 15 How'd you handle yours? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm still just hanging 17 out there somewhere. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hanging out there. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: In past history, when the -- 20 when the constables used their own vehicles, the Court 21 agreed to -- in the past, agreed to pay the additional 22 premiums between -- between an ordinary coverage as a 23 personal vehicle and the additional amount that it would 24 take to -- to bring the coverage up to handle the use in -- 25 in your business. And the Court -- but the Court budgeted 8-24-05 bwk 175 1 that amount to pay for the additional coverage. So, I -- I 2 guess that's one way to deal with it, if -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Was that just a 4 blanket amount for all four, or was that based on each 5 individual's -- 6 MR. TOMLINSON: It was based on each 7 individual's coverage. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I remember when we did 9 that. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I seem to remember a 11 little bit about it. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's a -- I mean, I 13 don't have a real problem doing that, 'cause I don't 14 think -- it's not necessarily for us as much as it is for -- 15 'cause I think the way my driving goes, I think it would be 16 hard-pressed for someone to know what I'm doing when I'm 17 driving where. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And every time I 19 come to Kerrville to be here, I'm off -- I go look at a 20 road. I'm doing something else at the same time. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm more -- my bigger 22 concern is the -- you know, there are some County employees 23 that use their cars, like Paula Rector, as an example. I 24 think she's one, 'cause she goes out to the annex quite a 25 bit. And, certainly, I don't think you need to open it up 8-24-05 bwk 176 1 to everybody, but I think the people that really have a 2 concern about it, I think it may be just fine, 'cause I 3 think the cost of that additional insurance is a whole lot 4 less than lawsuits that may be coming -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- or lawsuits that could 7 be out there. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. The defense costs alone 9 could -- could be well worth it. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: I think you have to require 11 them to pay it. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's that -- what, 13 Tommy? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: I think you need to require 15 that they obtain coverage. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think it's -- 17 MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, just for protection. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that you can 19 require -- we can require elected officials -- I think you 20 can require certain employees that are designated, and if 21 you're not designated, you cannot use your car for county 22 business. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, when 25 Commissioners had an automotive allowance, 1,200 or 1,500, 8-24-05 bwk 177 1 was that -- was the cost of insurance in there? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was never intended to 3 be. I guess it could have been. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In other words, 5 gasoline and wear and tear? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. Basically, 30 7 cents a mile or 35 cents a mile type cost. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we were to 9 accommodate that, where would we put it? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it goes under 11 Nondepartmental or something -- I guess, put it under each 12 -- you do it nondepartmental. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it could go -- just 14 increase the travel. Well, no, that's -- that goes in our 15 salary. Can't do that, no. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you can put it 17 under Nondepartmental as an additional Insurance line item, 18 and just pay all counties out of that one line item -- or 19 all employees or elected officials. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would work. I 21 had thrown in a request for an improved computer, but if 22 Mr. Trolinger has that in his master budget, that would take 23 care of the 561 line that I had. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unless that's 8-24-05 bwk 178 1 somebody else also. Judge? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I would have -- was your 3 number 1,000? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I put 5 down. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's where I would 7 have picked it up, then, 'cause what I did was I -- I pulled 8 from the recommendations of each Commissioner that I got 9 recommendations from on various items, and then tried to 10 interpolate them and pull them into a composite here, and 11 I'm sure that's probably where these are. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would some of the 13 money that you're talking about be allocated for improving 14 computers in Commissioners Court offices? 15 MR. TROLINGER: No, sir, I had recommended 16 that -- that the Commissioners Court budget $3,200 for next 17 year for new computers and software within their budget. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that would be Capital 19 Outlay, then, wouldn't it? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I guess it 21 would be. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm sorry, what was that 23 number again? 24 MR. TROLINGER: 3,200. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who's getting computers? 8-24-05 bwk 179 1 He's gotten one? 2 MR. TROLINGER: Four existing computers now 3 to be replaced. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, you already have 5 it in there? 6 MR. TROLINGER: I had recommended that you 7 budget for that within your budget. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: What we can do is eliminate 10 the 561, $1,000. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Add a capital outlay of 3,200? 13 Is that what I'm hearing? 14 MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that includes -- 16 that's -- who's -- I mean, I don't want one and he doesn't 17 want one. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's an upgrade 19 on mine, and Ms. Mitchell was looking for a scanner and 20 whatever. 21 MS. MITCHELL: Scanner/printer/fax. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: And printer, yeah. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm supposed to be getting one 25 for free from O.C.A. 8-24-05 bwk 180 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So he doesn't need one. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I've been holding my breath 3 now for about seven months, something like that. That's all 4 right. I'm getting by with that. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You got a laptop in 6 your office? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's mine. That 8 didn't cost the County anything. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So there's -- 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 400. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Baldwin's 12 needs to be upgraded. 13 MR. TROLINGER: It needs to be replaced. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, Commissioner Baldwin 15 and Williams and a scanner? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Scanner and a printer 17 or -- 18 MS. MITCHELL: Yeah. It's around -- what, 19 $700, wasn't it, John? 20 MR. TROLINGER: I believe so. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seven. So, 1,000 -- 22 1,000 and 700, so we're -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Ballpark, yeah. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2,700. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's only $500 8-24-05 bwk 181 1 difference in what we put down. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- 3 MR. TROLINGER: 2,700, not 32. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Nicholson 5 and I will take that in travel -- or in insurance money. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry? Say it 7 again. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nevermind. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we through with 10 that one? Moving right along. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whoa. On 12 Professional Services, 486, Commissioners Court, we're going 13 to -- we're going to largely exceed what we appropriated, 14 and what is our anticipated expense for this year? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we're going 16 to exceed. I just figured that our year-to-date as of today 17 is 15,658 still -- or as of whenever Tommy ran this one. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there must be 19 something outstanding, 'cause he estimated it ending at 22. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's -- 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is our 22 insurance consultant and our litigation attorney? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, basically. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And any other 25 professionals that we hired in the course of the -- 8-24-05 bwk 182 1 MR. TOMLINSON: That also takes care of any 2 deductibles. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I thought the 4 insurance consultant was money well spent, in my opinion. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. 6 And should continue to be money well spent. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, do we need to do 8 something with that, gentlemen? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'm not sure we 10 have enough there. Insurance consultant, that's about 5,000 11 a year, I think? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: No, about 12,000. 12,5. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's probably why 14 it's so high. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: 12,5. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 12,5. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: We're talking about a 18 big-ticket item. You're talking about in excess of one-half 19 million dollars that you're -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, yeah. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: -- exposure there. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is the other known 23 expense the litigation over employee health insurance? Is 24 that in here? The attorney that we're -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Walraven? 8-24-05 bwk 183 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- that's pursuing 2 that case? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would be. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's where it would 6 come from. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But most of that -- 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So far, that hasn't 9 cost us anything. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: We've been real fortunate. 11 He's held that expense down very, very well. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, he's -- I suspect 13 it's being added to any recovery, if it's ever -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I don't -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We haven't been billed. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not aware. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We haven't retained 18 any other civil attorneys during the year, have we? 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know if 20 that's money well spent until we get a result. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: What's your pleasure, 24 gentlemen? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd say 20,000. I think 8-24-05 bwk 184 1 if 12,000 is going to insurance, you got to at least have a 2 little bit of cushion there. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: That would leave about seven 4 -- seven, five. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going up. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's go to Line Item 7 475, County Mileage. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's that for? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- 11 JUDGE TINLEY: A lot of that is back and 12 forth to AACOG. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here and there, and 14 anybody that uses a vehicle out of county, any of us. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. It's out-of-county 16 mileage? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's really 19 out-of-county mileage. It says "county," but should say 20 "out-of-county." 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. That's what I was 22 referring to a while ago that I said an increase. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that one? I 25 guess -- well, Nondepartmental is further down the list. Do 8-24-05 bwk 185 1 y'all want to take that up later, or go ahead? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's do it right now, 3 while we're at it. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Nondepartmental also 5 under 2. Worker's comp. I got that number from Tommy, who 6 I guess got it from TAC, along with liability insurance, 7 unemployment insurance. Audit's up a little because our 8 other cost was up a little bit. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: These are mostly not a 10 whole lot of choice. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where would we plug 12 that insurance in for any employees that are authorized 13 using it, Tommy? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: I could add a line item. 15 That's -- well, there's a line item that we haven't used for 16 a long time; I can put it there. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do you think is 19 a reasonable amount? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if he said it was 21 250, elected officials are -- not counting -- get rid of 22 those that have cars, basically. So, 10. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ten others? Ten 24 people, then? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe. 8-24-05 bwk 186 1 JUDGE TINLEY: A dozen. 3,000. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 3,000 or 4,000 -- 3,000. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Here's one right here that 4 uses his. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, exactly. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd say there are quite 8 -- probably I'd say 5,000, 4,000. 4,000 or 5,000. 9 MR. TROLINGER: I have my own liability 10 insurance. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I -- I know, but it 12 is business. 13 MR. TROLINGER: And it's for business, 14 because I used my truck for business before I came here. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you got to 16 renew your policy? 17 MR. TROLINGER: I do, end of September. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you have to 19 separate what you think is the liability portion for use of 20 that vehicle on county business. That's what we're talking 21 about. 22 MR. TROLINGER: Will do. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd say 4,000. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which line? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Want to use 426? 8-24-05 bwk 187 1 MR. TOMLINSON: 220. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: 220? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Mm-hmm. It will be right 4 there under TAC Unemployment. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did you say 4,000, 7 Commissioner? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, 3,000 or 4,000. 9 Everyone -- if we make it mandatory, it's probably going to 10 be 4,000. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's start with 12 three and see where it takes us. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Either way. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: What are we using, three or 15 four? Go with three? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three's fine. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that one? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the second page, 571, 21 Contingency, I'd leave that at 10,000, 'cause I think it's 22 probably a good idea. I mean, or maybe 5,000. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. I think so, 24 too. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then Merit Pool 8-24-05 bwk 188 1 Increase. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: That was the amount that we 3 set per court order, if I'm not mistaken, the pool amount. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: That was my recollection. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That started when we 8 thought about a different kind of way of administering the 9 merit budget. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Now I think merits 12 are built into the departmental salaries instead of a pool 13 that's administered by -- we're talking about the Court 14 administering the pool, and that -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Didn't work. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- that didn't work, 17 so I think we can take that out. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. I think we 19 can take it out. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Got 10,000 there. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: What about Contingency? We 22 going to leave that at 10? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 15, you said. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I think 10's fine. 8-24-05 bwk 189 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: You can do what Gillespie 3 County does. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: You can do what Gillespie 6 County does. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Put all their extra -- 8 MR. TOMLINSON: They put all their surplus in 9 Contingency. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So they never declare an 11 emergency. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Can you believe that? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leaving it at 10? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: That's when they quit using 16 tomato cans. Okay, are we through with those now? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Think so. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Now we can go to the 19 next item, correct? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that Permanent 22 Improvements? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Operations. 24 Isn't that right? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's not on the list 8-24-05 bwk 190 1 here, but we can certainly do that if that's what you want 2 to do. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do you go to? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Talking about coming right on 5 down to County Operations, where we've got the airport. We 6 know what that figure's going to be. That's -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not yet. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, but, I mean, it's going 10 to be determined on a third-party basis, and we get plugged 11 in for half of it, essentially. But you guys have still got 12 that work to do, haven't you? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Some of that work to 14 do. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some of that -- I mean, I 16 guess the -- I don't have -- do you have a copy of that 17 budget with you? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got it in my 19 office. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Airport Board has 21 approved the budget, and if Commissioners Court were to say 22 that that budget's too high, we would go back to the drawing 23 board and reduce some things that probably can be reduced 24 out of that budget. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you think we can 8-24-05 bwk 191 1 effectively do that in the status that we're here today? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you can give a 3 direction. I think we can look at it and say that's too 4 high a budget, and -- there's no action being taken on it; 5 it's just a matter of a direction to Airport Board members. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Has it still got the 7 $50,000 lawnmower in it? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It has some things that 10 need to be -- 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's too high a 12 budget. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. There 14 are some other items, too, that Commissioner Letz and I have 15 talked about that probably need to be addressed, so leave it 16 open for now. We can refine it later. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Are we ready to move to 18 Juvenile Detention? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Certainly. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Juvenile Detention, 21 that is number 22, I think. Well, good afternoon. 22 MS. HARRIS: Good afternoon. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Nice to see you, Ms. Harris. 24 We don't see you very often. 25 MS. HARRIS: I know. I know. 8-24-05 bwk 192 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where have you been 2 hanging out? 3 MS. HARRIS: Oh, just here and there. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me start by 5 telling the Court that Ms. Harris and I had an interesting 6 telephone conversation -- last Friday, was it? 7 MS. HARRIS: Friday, mm-hmm. Yes, sir. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I wanted her to 9 know and I want you to know that what we're talking about in 10 this budget, trying to find a solution that has absolutely 11 zero to do with personalities, Ms. Harris, or even our 12 probation officer who's been involved, and that as far as 13 this Commissioner's concerned, all I'm looking to do is find 14 a way where we can operate, but operate at a level that is 15 an acceptable level, so that we don't have a bath in the 16 red. And I know Ms. Harris supports that concept. Having 17 said that, now, there are -- there is in front of the Court 18 basically two philosophies on how to do that. Ms. Harris, 19 at our request, has been very willing and able to provide us 20 with a whole list of scenarios, I guess all the way from 21 zero to 76 persons incarcerated and numbers in between. And 22 Kevin Stanton, at my request, the Chief Juvenile Probation 23 Officer, has also provided us with some scenarios which 24 essentially are different. So, I guess what we have is a 25 philosophical difference, and what I'm hoping that we can 8-24-05 bwk 193 1 do, Judge, is somehow or other try to understand the 2 difference between those two. I understand why, in some 3 instances, Ms. Harris' budget is larger and why, in some 4 instances, Mr. -- Kevin Stanton's is less. And on that 5 happy note, let me go get my file. Don't go away. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have any new scenarios 7 for us today? 8 MS. HARRIS: As a matter of fact, I do. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We got to start 10 putting names on them. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't you go ahead and get 12 those passed out here? We probably need to label them A 13 through -- 14 MS. HARRIS: Z. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: -- double M or something. 16 MS. HARRIS: I think probably A through Z. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Or at least date 18 them. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: These are the only two 20 that I'm looking at any more. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one are we on? 22 MS. HARRIS: Well, then, I wouldn't bother, 23 if that's the only one that you want. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I'm looking 25 at right now. 8-24-05 bwk 194 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me have one for 2 Commissioner Baldwin. 3 MS. HARRIS: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me make a couple 5 remarks that -- I don't know if it's exactly philosophy, but 6 it may be strategy. I've been reading articles and letters 7 to the editor and getting other information that says that 8 -- that the county officials think that the Juvenile 9 Detention Center should be -- should make a profit, and I 10 don't know where they get this kind of information. It 11 didn't come out of any discussions in this court. And 12 after -- after having dealt with this a number of times now, 13 I've come down to a strategy that I have in my mind, and 14 that would be we need to have a preadjudicated facility. We 15 need to operate that here in Kerr County. I would not be in 16 favor of -- of shipping those kids out, preadjudicated. And 17 then the second thing is, we should only operate a 18 postadjudicated facility if the revenues meet the marginal 19 costs, so -- with preadjudicated. And then, if we've got a 20 case where we can do postadjudicated without us paying to 21 house kids from other counties, without us incurring a net 22 cost, then we should do it. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- let me see if I 24 understand that. If you -- it appears we're never going to 25 get to the point of being able to charge the cost for post 8-24-05 bwk 195 1 or pre -- I mean out-of-county kids. So, if you can't do 2 that, by definition, you're going to automatically be 3 subsidizing them; however, it may be beneficial to the 4 taxpayers of this county to do a subsidy to an extent 5 because of the economy of scale. So, I mean, does that 6 mean -- 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we can look at it 8 like preadjudicated as fixed costs, and postadjudicated as 9 some sort of a variable cost that has revenue associated 10 with it also, and if those two lines are close, then we can 11 justify it. But I don't think we should be using Kerr 12 County taxpayer dollars, net dollars, to house other 13 counties' juveniles. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I mean, I -- 15 that's the only reason we're even looking at a post 16 facility, is it reduces the cost. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: You're never going to -- under 18 every scenario that we've seen so far on post-adjudicated, 19 you are not going to be able to charge your daily operating 20 costs, monthly operating costs, whatever it is, per child. 21 But what you are able to do through the economies of scale, 22 you're able to hedge against the wide fluctuations in census 23 count in the pre's, and by spreading some of the 24 administrative costs and the nondirect ratio costs, you're 25 able to bring down the overall deficit. I think -- I think 8-24-05 bwk 196 1 all of the figures show that one of your biggest 2 deficit-type operations, especially for the number of kids 3 that you have, is if you do a preadjudication-only. Most of 4 the numbers I've seen look at somewhere around $800,000 a 5 year. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Whereas if you can ramp up and 8 spread those administrative and nondirect ratio detention 9 officer staff costs over a larger number, you bring down 10 that overall deficit, but you're never going to get it 11 where -- if it costs you $125 a day, for example, when you 12 prorate that cost, you're not going to be able to charge 13 that in the current environment. It just isn't there. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We may be saying the 15 same thing. If -- if operating postadjudicated only -- I 16 mean preadjudicated only is going to cost $1,000 a year, 17 and -- but operating pre and post is only a net cost of $800 18 a year, then that's the right thing to do. But if the costs 19 go up by operating a post, then that's not the right thing 20 to do. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all I'm 23 saying. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: You're talking about the net 25 cost. 8-24-05 bwk 197 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand what 3 you're saying, and as we talked about it before -- excuse 4 me, Becky, but we talked about what the baseline obligation 5 of Kerr County is if we didn't have a facility, if it wasn't 6 there. We would fund through the Juvenile Probation 7 Department taking care of our kids -- our kids -- to the 8 tune of 285,000 to $300,000 a year. Baseline. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that -- now, is that 10 over and above the 125,000 we're already paying? Or is 11 that -- I'm asking Kevin. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Kevin? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That 200 -- that -- the 14 number if we do not have a preadjudication facility, that 15 number -- you've talked about it -- will cost the County 16 about $300,000? 17 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right now we're spending 19 125,000 on preadjudicated, so is that 300,000 additional? 20 Or -- 21 MR. STANTON: It would be absorbed into 125. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, what was 23 the answer? 24 MR. STANTON: The 125,000 would be part of 25 the 300,000. 8-24-05 bwk 198 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rolled into the 2 three. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's $175,000 4 additional for the preadjudicated if we don't have any 5 facility. 6 MR. STANTON: Because there's already 7 $125,000 budgeted into -- I believe it's 125. I'd have to 8 look, but somewhere in there. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Close enough. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Close enough. So, that's 11 kind of the baseline, is an additional 175,000 over and 12 above what we're spending now. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's shutting 15 everything down scenario. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: Does that take into 17 consideration the overhead of transport -- transporting and 18 all that? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It did in the number 20 that I rolled up when I said 285 to three. That included 21 about 222,000 for -- that we would be paying to other 22 counties, and about $62,000 worth of transportation and 23 costs to get them back and forth. That was rolled into that 24 number. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: What about the additional 8-24-05 bwk 199 1 personnel it would take to -- to do that? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought it was in here. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought it was in 5 there. 6 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, it's all in there. 7 The numbers that Mr. Williams is quoting are the costs to 8 transport the kids back and forth to the detention twice a 9 week for detention hearings, and also the cost of the 10 personnel to do those transports. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The nonquantifiable 13 desirability of having one here is the convenience to 14 parents, Hill Country Youth Ranch, 3-H Youth Ranch, whoever 15 is involved in that preadjudication time. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Plus what the Sheriff 17 and the District Judges have told us repeatedly, that 18 there -- that the operation of a facility here is a 19 deterrent. I don't think you can quantify that. I don't 20 think the sheriff can quantify that, but it certainly acts 21 as a deterrent. You haven't changed your mind, have you, 22 Sheriff? 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Definitely not, and I 24 wouldn't. I still stand by that we need some type of 25 facility here. 8-24-05 bwk 200 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It just makes it easier 3 to deal with our local kids. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The question is, what 6 kind. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, where we're at 9 probably is we're going to have a preadjudicated facility. 10 Now, what makes sense beyond that? That might be where 11 we're at; I don't know. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your nickel or my 13 nickel? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't make any 15 difference to me. I was back where you were originally; I 16 don't know if it's better to try to -- I see two approaches; 17 to figure out which system is better and then figure out the 18 number of beds that fits, or figure out the number of beds 19 and figure out, then, which system is better. Ms. Harris 20 has a set of proposals, and Mr. Stanton has a set of 21 proposals, essentially, and they're different as to, you 22 know, costs. But I'm not sure -- and I really would like to 23 learn or understand more about the differences as to why 24 they're different. And I'm -- when I look at Mr. Stanton's, 25 I'm concerned about, I guess, his numbers being too 8-24-05 bwk 201 1 conservative on the expense side. You know, it seems to me 2 Ms. Harris has more supervisors, or I guess they're deemed 3 supervisor -- or shift supervisors, things of that nature, 4 and I can see a value to that. I also think that you need 5 to have a -- I think, you know, if we're going to have a 6 facility, we need to have quality people there, and that 7 means you have to pay quality people, you know, 8 appropriately. And I want to make sure that those 9 considerations are really imposed in the proposal. And, you 10 know, I don't know how you -- I thought about how we proceed 11 here. I mean, I don't want to get in a debate between 12 Mr. Stanton and Ms. Harris. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And -- you know, because 15 both of them are doing a great job and trying to -- they're 16 slightly different philosophies, I guess. I'm trying to 17 understand them, not get them to debate which is better or 18 what -- why they did one thing or the other. So, if we can 19 do that, it would be helpful to me. So, I'm not real sure 20 how we get that done. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think we both 22 want to try to achieve the same thing, and I'm looking at 23 your latest 48, the one you just gave us. 24 MS. HARRIS: The one I just passed out? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 8-24-05 bwk 202 1 MS. HARRIS: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And on the salaries, 3 as you see it, did you see the operation -- the salaries are 4 projected at 1.134? 5 MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And I see, by 7 comparison, the one that was prepared by Chief Probation 8 Officer -- and I believe this is the 48; that's what it says 9 in the title. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are we looking at? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm looking at trying 12 to compare 48 to 48, is what I'm trying to do. What I see 13 -- excuse me. What I see there is a projected $818,000 14 worth of salaries. If that's reasonably close, I'd like to 15 know -- I'm sure the other members of the Court would, 16 too -- why the disparity in your philosophy versus the other 17 philosophy. Help us get there. 18 MS. HARRIS: Well, in -- in the $818,000, 19 48-bed proposal, I'm not seeing a health service 20 coordinator. I'm not seeing a certified food service 21 manager, and I'm not seeing a person that takes care of 22 scheduling transports, takes care of all the county 23 contracts. I'm not seeing anyone there in that budget to 24 handle all of those things. I'm not seeing anyone there 25 also to handle all of the preadjudication paperwork and 8-24-05 bwk 203 1 files and -- and case management for the preadjudicated 2 kids. So, I -- that's some of the things that I'm not 3 seeing. I'm also seeing a reduction in the shift 4 supervisors of 50 percent. And, as I had shared with you in 5 the telephone conversation on Friday -- and I think 6 Commissioner Letz said it very accurately. The shift 7 supervisors that we have on staff are the veteran core 8 staff. Those are the individuals that can do any job in 9 that facility, virtually, other than some of the 10 administrative stuff. Those are the ones that are the most 11 experienced in de-escalation skills, documentation, 12 reporting abuse and neglect, recognizing abuse and neglect, 13 supervising staff. You cut -- they are the hub of the 14 program. You cut those individuals by 50 percent, there 15 goes the quality and the experience. You're cutting your 16 experience by 50 percent. And I -- and I believe that to be 17 very detrimental to the program -- to both programs. 18 You want to keep those shift supervisors. 19 Those shift supervisors do a myriad of things. They are the 20 ones that are trained to dispense the medication. They are 21 the ones that do the laundry at night. They are the ones 22 that discipline staff. They are the ones that respond to 23 crises, such as PRT's, any crisis intervention. They are 24 also the ones that fill in the gaps when allowable, which 25 here lately is every day. They work the dorms whenever 8-24-05 bwk 204 1 staff calls in sick. We've got a staff member right now 2 that is out on a -- an undetermined period of time due to an 3 injury that he suffered at home, and he can't work the dorm. 4 I've got shift supervisors that are coming in on their days 5 off filling in those gaps. They are people that you rely on 6 a lot to keep things going. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. If -- 8 MS. HARRIS: And also, I put the cooks -- I 9 put my cooks in as full-time. And I had originally had some 10 part-time. I had put part-time cooks in a previous budget. 11 I gave that some more thought. It would be very, very 12 difficult to keep part-time cooks, because there's no 13 benefits, and your ability to get personnel that will stay 14 with you a length of time to cook, that pool is not very 15 large. So, if you have full-time cooks that stay with you, 16 and if you have -- and you give them benefits and they stay 17 with you, it's worth it in the long run, rather than hiring 18 part-time people every week. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a very -- I mean, 20 we're talking -- on the cook, we're talking 33,000 versus 21 38,000. So, dollars, it's not that much difference. 22 MR. STANTON: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's pretty 24 much -- 25 MS. HARRIS: Right. 8-24-05 bwk 205 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where I see a difference 2 is, Mr. Stanton shows basically 20 detention officers, four 3 supervisors, and six part-time detention officers, and you 4 have 22 detention officers -- no, excuse me. You have 18 5 detention officers and eight shift supervisors. 6 MS. HARRIS: Correct. Now, I had 16 7 detention officers in that line item. I increased it by 8 two, and I'll tell you why. Because I had increased -- in a 9 previous proposal, I had increased the part-time from six to 10 nine when we were having the discussion about no longer 11 having female detainees of any kind; no females, period. 12 Well, I think that in subsequent discussions, we've been 13 talking about we've got to have preadjudicated places for 14 girls. Now, the discussion for postadjudicated girls, 15 that's still up for discussion, but I think everyone agrees 16 that we've got to have a place for preadjudicated females. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but on that -- 18 okay. To have that ability, we have to staff all the time. 19 MS. HARRIS: That's what I'm getting at. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 21 MS. HARRIS: That's why I increased from 16 22 to 18 detention officers, 'cause I took -- I put two 23 full-time females in that line item to keep females -- two 24 full-time females on the payroll for the preadjudicated 25 girls, and I left the part-time to six part-time 8-24-05 bwk 206 1 individuals. And some of those part-time -- those six need 2 to be female part-time, 'cause your pre girls is your least 3 population. So, I left the six part-time people. We just 4 need to make sure that some of those part-time people are 5 female. And I put two full-time females into JDO's to 6 assure that we've got a female whenever we need one. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Part of the 8 difference in here, as I see it, the proposal of Mr. Stanton 9 had a great deal more in part-time than you're showing in 10 yours. He had, like, 116,000 in part-time, and I'm seeing 11 for you -- from you 83,000 in part-time. Am I correct? Am 12 I looking at -- 13 MS. HARRIS: That's because I've got that 14 part-time ASOTP in my line item. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's that? Y'all are 16 -- y'all identical on that line. 17 MS. HARRIS: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's a big 19 difference in the salary, the difference between four shift 20 supervisors and eight, and the difference between two 21 managers and one. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think it's the -- 23 yeah. I think the -- Mr. Stanton's proposal has 24 24 detention officers and shift supervisors. Ms. Harris' has 25 26, so there's two additional. 8-24-05 bwk 207 1 MS. HARRIS: I put the two additional females 2 so you would always have a female there when you need one. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But couldn't a female -- 4 I mean, and I don't understand -- I mean, I'm trying to 5 figure out how it works. You say female doesn't -- do the 6 female detention officers for the females have to be 7 females? 8 MS. HARRIS: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the males have to be 10 males? 11 MS. HARRIS: Yes. Now, what you can do -- 12 you have to have the same gender for hygiene and for showers 13 and for changing clothes, and their schedules need to be 14 different, because you don't want to put girls and boys in 15 the same classroom, 'cause then you're going to create a lot 16 of discipline problems, so we keep them separate. Now, a 17 male JDO certainly can escort the pre girls to school. You 18 can do that. In previous years, one of the problems of 19 alleged abuse and neglect and sexual harassment was having 20 male JDO's checking beds at night. Girls are very prone to 21 sexual harassment accusations, whether they're true or 22 false, and if you have a male checking the dorms, checking 23 the individual bedrooms at night, you increase that risk. 24 If you've got a female checking those beds at night, you 25 decrease that risk. Same thing for moving the kids. And 8-24-05 bwk 208 1 you have to have a female pat-searching those kids. We 2 pat-search the kids whenever they move from education back 3 to the dorm, from the dorm to education. Those kids are 4 pat-searched to make sure that they're not smuggling any 5 contraband that they picked up anywhere, and a female has to 6 pat-search females and males have to pat-search males. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question 8 on -- right here at this topic right now. 9 MS. HARRIS: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it plausible for 11 us to consider the facility being male only, both pre and 12 post? 13 MS. HARRIS: I turned in a scenario outlining 14 that very scenario. And I know that the discussion came up 15 about the necessity, not only for Kerr County to have a 16 place to put pre girls, but also the surrounding counties 17 that use the facility have pre girls. So -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What does that 19 translate to, Mr. Stanton, in terms of placement -- female 20 placements in this county and others that might come here? 21 MR. STANTON: As far as -- I'm not sure what 22 it would cost Kerr County to place our females. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Numbers of detainees? 24 MR. STANTON: 39 percent of the -- 39 percent 25 of our referrals in the past two years has been females. 8-24-05 bwk 209 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 39 percent? 2 MR. STANTON: 39 percent of the kids that 3 we've locked up have been females. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, about one-third. 5 MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 7 MR. STANTON: And I did -- I thought I gave 8 everybody one. Somewhere here I did a cost analysis of how 9 much it would cost us to transport our females out of 10 county, and I think it was -- 11 MS. HARRIS: Like, 116,000, I think. 12 MR. STANTON: -- $116,000 to transport our 13 females out. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Hold that 15 thought. What would the corresponding reduction in staffing 16 be if we did that? 17 MS. HARRIS: You would delete those two 18 full-time females, so that would be roughly $41,000, then, 19 plus the benefits that you would reduce. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Don't know 21 that that's the answer, but thanks for the information. 22 MS. HARRIS: If you will look at the 48-bed 23 scenario that I just passed out to you -- you don't have 24 this, because I did this after -- I did some more figuring, 25 in other words. Okay. For the one building, if you had 30 8-24-05 bwk 210 1 post beds signified for post kids, and you reserved 18 beds 2 for pre's -- because you've got to remember, we have the 3 possibility of doing anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 in 4 additional preadjudicated business with Hood County. That's 5 how many pre's, and that comes from the Chief Probation 6 Officer. He spends anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 a year 7 on preadjudication. We're going to get the bulk of that. 8 Okay. Leave that over there to one side. So, if you 9 reserve 18 pre beds, you would have to have two and a half 10 dorms signified for post and one and a half dorms signified 11 for pre's. Okay. The standard says that you can put male 12 and female pre's on the same dorm. You got to have separate 13 staff, which is not going to change your staffing ratio any, 14 but you can put them on the same dorm, which allows you to 15 increase your post beds a little bit. But, remember, we 16 talked about the ability to charge $115? All right. Take 17 30 of those post kids, 10 of the 30 as sex offenders at $115 18 a day. All right. That brings in $419,000 a year on those 19 10 sex offender kids. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Give us that equation 21 one more time, the number again? 22 MS. HARRIS: Ten sex offenders. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Times 115? 24 MS. HARRIS: Times $115 a day. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Times -- 8-24-05 bwk 211 1 MS. HARRIS: 365 days out of the year. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Equals? 3 MS. HARRIS: Is $419,750 for those 10 kids. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 5 MS. HARRIS: Okay. Substance abuse. And I 6 had shared with y'all the other day that we're full on our 7 substance abuse beds. We -- we now are going to have to 8 start a waiting list on our substance abuse beds here pretty 9 quick. So, 20 beds at $83 a day, 365 days, is a revenue of 10 $605,900. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 606. 12 MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm, 606. Now, let's say 13 you've reserved 18 beds, but for the sake of conservatism, 14 let's figure 12 pre's at $83 a day. That's $363,540 a year. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Six -- 16 MS. HARRIS: 363. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 363. 18 MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm. Add all that up. Your 19 revenue with that scenario is $1,389,190. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was that number 21 again? 22 MS. HARRIS: $1,389,190. That's just your 23 per diem revenue. You add all the rest of the revenue that 24 I've always listed in the back of the page, the NSLP, the 25 medical reimbursement, the K.I.S.D. fee, and the JDO stipend 8-24-05 bwk 212 1 reimbursement, add up all of that and that brings your 2 revenue to 1,474,024. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Brings it to 4 1 million what? Four -- 5 MS. HARRIS: 1,474,024. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So that, on 7 top of the 1389, is a plus of how much? 8 MS. HARRIS: 30 -- about 84,000 in addition. 9 An additional 84,000 on top of the 1 million 389. Okay. 10 That's based on 42 beds. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 42? 12 MS. HARRIS: Yeah, because you've got 30 13 post. And I told you, let's be conservative and figure 12 14 pre's. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 16 MS. HARRIS: So that's 42. We have 30 kids 17 today; 25 of them are post and five of them are pre. We got 18 another referral from El Paso today. We're looking at a 19 possible of eight to nine kids coming in quickly. We got a 20 -- remember, I've been telling you we've been waiting on the 21 Calhoun kid forever? He got here today. We've got another 22 Guadalupe kid that comes in Friday, so the 48-bed that I 23 just gave you, on the conservative side, that you keep 42 24 beds filled, is an extremely realistic budget. Extremely 25 realistic. 8-24-05 bwk 213 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is our staffing 2 level, 42 or 48? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 48. 4 MS. HARRIS: 48. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 48. 6 MS. HARRIS: Now, if you want to look at 7 staffing, we can go the that chart that I gave you on the 8 36-bed scenario, and I can explain that. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not yet. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. Keeping 42 11 beds full -- 12 MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- is realistic? 14 MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, this document 16 that you gave us today -- 17 MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm, your revenues. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- a 48-bed facility 19 with 42 full, and the projected deficit's 273, is this -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not realistic. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is this using 42 22 full? You got a -- 23 MS. HARRIS: No, that's using 48 full. What 24 I just gave you was some homework that I did. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 8-24-05 bwk 214 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was the deficit 2 under the new one, the 42? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: The figure she just gave you? 4 338. 5 MS. HARRIS: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 338. 7 MS. HARRIS: 338, mm-hmm. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Now, I'll probably 9 ask the -- you probably already answered this question five 10 times in the last six months. Will we ever have more than 11 12 Kerr County preadjudicated? 12 MS. HARRIS: More than 12 Kerr County 13 preadjudicated? How busy can you get this year? 14 MR. STANTON: I don't know. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Have we ever had 16 more than 12? 17 MS. HARRIS: No. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question is the 20 opposite side of that. Can we ever get to 12? That doesn't 21 -- every time I hear the reports, it seems to me that we 22 usually have anywhere from three to seven. 23 MS. HARRIS: Yeah. There was a period of 24 time this year that we exceeded 11 pre's. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: From Kerr County? 8-24-05 bwk 215 1 MS. HARRIS: No, all together. All together. 2 And we had a larger population than 11. And also what I'm 3 saying again, too, we're going to get pre kids from Hood 4 County. So -- 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My point there, 6 going back to my thinking that we must have a preadjudicated 7 facility, that if we -- if we start with a 12-bed pre, we'll 8 never have to send a Kerr County kid out of county, most 9 likely. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But to have a 12-bed pre, 11 you have to have basically a 24, 'cause you have to staff -- 12 MS. HARRIS: That's right. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- men and women. 14 MS. HARRIS: That's right. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's where the 16 problem is. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're saying no, you 18 don't have to do that. 19 MS. HARRIS: Why don't we have to do that? 20 MR. STANTON: Because you can staff for 16. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can staff for 16. 22 MR. STANTON: If you use the new building. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, the new building. 24 MS. HARRIS: If you use the new building, you 25 staff for 16. I use the old building. You staff for 24, 8-24-05 bwk 216 1 and it's because of the physical configuration -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, right. 3 MS. HARRIS: -- of the dorms. 4 MR. STANTON: Just trying to make it a little 5 more complicated. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thanks, Kevin. I 7 appreciate it. If we -- 8 MR. STANTON: Could -- I mean, I think I 9 might be able to help just a little bit. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Kevin, can you stand 11 up so I can hear? 12 MR. STANTON: I think I might be able to help 13 just a little bit. I mean, if we're going to -- if we're 14 going to do -- if we're going to run a pre and post 15 facility, you know, I think that we need to go for a full 16 blast and do whatever we can to -- to run it. If we're just 17 looking at running a pre facility, if you subtracted the 18 deficit from the -- what it would cost us to shut the whole 19 thing down, you're looking at about right at a $100,000 20 deficit -- deficit running just a 16-bed facility in the new 21 building. Because if you take the deficit running the 22 16-bed facility under my plan, and not Ms. Harris' plan, 23 'cause I don't know -- I don't know Ms. Harris', but it's 24 about 280 -- or the deficit would be at -- I mean, everybody 25 is saying at 80. Even at 80 percent occupancy, I mean, the 8-24-05 bwk 217 1 revenue would be 453,756. The budget would be 837,861, with 2 a deficit of 384,105. If you subtract out of that what it's 3 going to cost the County to transport kids out of the county 4 if they shut the whole thing down, you're looking at about a 5 $99,000 deficit. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I 7 thought. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do you subtract it 9 out? Wouldn't you add it to it? 10 MR. STANTON: No, sir, because if we shut it 11 down, the County's going to pay it anyway. The County's 12 going to pay the $285,000 it's going to cost whether we have 13 a facility here or not. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's our 15 obligation. 16 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, are you saying, 18 then, that the lowest-cost scenario -- 19 MR. STANTON: I don't know the lowest-cost 20 scenario, 'cause I haven't seen -- 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- is a 16-bed 22 preadjudicated? 23 MR. STANTON: I don't know, sir. I can't 24 answer that. The lowest -- the lowest one that I have would 25 be -- unless you -- unless you adopted Ms. Harris' 8-24-05 bwk 218 1 philosophy and raised the rates and take the kind of stuff 2 which you can charge the $115 a day for the sex offenders 3 and those types of things. If you look at the -- the other 4 proposal that was provided, I think that it's -- you could 5 actually make money. Forgive me for saying that. But in 6 the proposal that I gave, you would actually come out ahead 7 a little bit at 80 percent. 8 MS. HARRIS: What it boils down to is you 9 either go all pre, or you stay pre and post. And if you 10 stay pre and post, you need to have enough post beds to help 11 decrease that deficit, or all your Kerr County post kids 12 will have to go out of county. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we just go pre. 14 MS. HARRIS: If you just go pre, right. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have no idea what 16 that's all about. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The sexual -- or abuse -- 18 MS. HARRIS: The sex offenders. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sex offenders, they get 20 $115, or some of them do? 21 MS. HARRIS: Right. Right. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why wouldn't you go more 23 -- go with 20 or 30 beds there, as opposed to -- where 24 you're getting more revenue, as opposed to going with -- and 25 less than the drug abuse. 8-24-05 bwk 219 1 MS. HARRIS: I don't know that you can keep 2 20 or 30 beds full of sex offenders. I don't know that. 3 This is a brand-new scenario that's come up this year, 4 because of the increase of the sex offender crimes across 5 the state of younger juveniles. This is a new phenomenon 6 that has just started in this last year. The ability to 7 charge the 115 and get 115 reimbursed -- and I'm talking 8 about the county that places the kid -- that kid has to meet 9 certain criteria, which they would be able to do. Getting 10 El Paso on board with a contract, this facility's never had 11 an El Paso contract. I've got some experience working with 12 El Paso contracts, and if you provide a good program and do 13 you what you say you're going to do, El Paso will give you a 14 lot of kids. So, there is a possibility that we will have 15 several El Paso kids, but I can't count on that. So, what 16 I'm trying to explain to you, I don't want to tell you that 17 we can keep 20 sex offender kids at this point in time; I 18 don't know if we can or not. It would be great if we could. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what you're saying is 20 you'd rather be conservative on your estimate and -- 21 MS. HARRIS: That's correct. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- during the year, we 23 could adjust it if we -- 24 MS. HARRIS: That's correct. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- there was a -- 8-24-05 bwk 220 1 MS. HARRIS: That's right. If we see we need 2 for more sex offender beds, then we'll sacrifice substance 3 abuse beds. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would account 6 for a large anticipated influx of juveniles from Hood 7 County? Is that -- would that be their proximity to Fort 8 Worth? 9 MS. HARRIS: They've been sending all of 10 their -- 'cause Hood County's facility closed down -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I know. 12 MS. HARRIS: -- two years ago, so all of 13 their preadjudicated kids they've been sending to Garza 14 County, which is Post. Post has been charging them $82.50 a 15 day, plus mileage. And the Chief Probation Officer came 16 down and -- and looked at the facility. He liked what he 17 saw, and he also liked the long-term programs that we have, 18 the sex offender and the substance abuse. And, as a matter 19 of fact, we're getting a long-term sex offender from Hood 20 County the first week in September, so he wants to use us 21 for preadjudicated as well as long-term. He liked what he 22 saw. And, too, Fort Worth -- Fort Worth has, of course, 23 their own facility, and so they're going to take their kids 24 first, and Fort Worth usually stays full with their own 25 kids. 8-24-05 bwk 221 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I imagine. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff? 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's just a couple 4 questions. I don't know whether it's on Becky's, but one 5 thing you may figure too, if she didn't, 'cause I know most 6 department heads didn't do this, but I think Kevin's budget 7 also figures in the administrative salary, so I wasn't sure 8 it was in that one. The other thing that I've just heard 9 rumor to is that the Hood County contract on preadjudicated 10 kids -- and this may not be true; this is what's going 11 around -- is that we pay for the transporting back and forth 12 to Hood County for them as far as that contract. 13 MS. HARRIS: We do that for everybody, Rusty. 14 We transport everybody's kids. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And pay for it. 16 MS. HARRIS: That's right, 'cause that's how 17 come we get so many kids. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't charge the 19 county for transportation? 20 MS. HARRIS: No. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The sending county? 22 MS. HARRIS: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think unanswered 24 was the question about Kerr County's postadjudicated kids. 25 How many and where are they? And how -- or will that -- 8-24-05 bwk 222 1 whatever the current situation is, will it be altered? I 2 guess I have to address that to Kevin. 3 MR. STANTON: I'm sorry, sir? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many post -- Kerr 5 County postadjudicated kids do we have under your 6 administration now? 7 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. How many do we have 8 right now? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 10 MR. STANTON: Six. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Six? 12 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they're out of 14 Kerr County, placed elsewhere? 15 MR. STANTON: No. Off the top of my head, I 16 think we've got one or two here in Kerr County. We have one 17 in Hays County and one at Medina Children's Home, and one at 18 St. Jude's and one at Villa Del Sol. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the nature of the 20 program that the Judge put on these kids is such that they 21 have to go out of county? It can't be taken care of here? 22 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. I mean, they're -- 23 Villa Del Sol is a nonsecure substance abuse facility. St. 24 Jude's is a Level 2 and 3 -- 1, 2, and 3 nonsecured 25 facility. Hays County is a boot camp. They're just -- they 8-24-05 bwk 223 1 offer different programs. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kevin, do you have any 4 more copies of that 16-bed preadjudicated? Can you make -- 5 give it to Kathy, if you would. Thank you. 6 MS. HARRIS: Kathy? Would you make one for 7 me? No, I mean that. 8 MS. MITCHELL: Oh, this? Yeah. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: As you are able to see the 10 substance abuse and the sex offender develop -- right now, 11 what you've got allocated for substance abuse is full? 12 MS. HARRIS: That's right, yes, sir. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: As you're able to see that 14 transition one way or the other, you can adjust those beds 15 either way? 16 MS. HARRIS: Yes. Yes. I have to -- when 17 I'm looking at the population projections, I have to also 18 consider and get a good understanding of what kids are going 19 to be leaving soon, as opposed to how many beds that's going 20 to free up for either one of the programs. And you're not 21 restricted on -- on number of sex offender beds like you're 22 restricted on substance abuse beds, because of -- of how 23 much we -- we pay to license the substance abuse beds. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: What is that, $30 a bed or 25 something? 8-24-05 bwk 224 1 MS. HARRIS: It's a $100 administration fee, 2 then $30 per bed that you want to add. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: From a staffing standpoint, 4 rather than 30 post -- and I believe you were talking about 5 16 pre's? 6 MS. HARRIS: 18. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: 18? 8 MS. HARRIS: But then I said, realistically, 9 let's just look at 12. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: On the pre's? 11 MS. HARRIS: Yes. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: And then you could convert 13 some of those other beds -- 14 MS. HARRIS: Yes. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: -- to post? 16 MS. HARRIS: Exactly. That's why I was 17 saying for 30 post kids, you'd have two and a half dorms. 18 Okay? So, that leaves a half -- if y'all got y'all's chart, 19 your 36-bed, the little colored thing that I gave y'all. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where would it be, 21 under 36? 22 MS. HARRIS: On 36, on the 70 -- it's either 23 the 70 or the 75. Doesn't matter. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is this? 25 MS. HARRIS: Looks like the -- 8-24-05 bwk 225 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's Kevin's 16-bed 2 proposal. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I haven't seen that. 4 MS. HARRIS: Okay. It's on your 36. I know, 5 that horrible stack of stuff. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 36? 7 MS. HARRIS: It's the 36, and I put one on 8 the 70 percent occupancy, and I put one on the 75 percent 9 occupancy. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh. 11 MS. HARRIS: No. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To say this is 13 getting confusing is an underestimation. 14 MS. HARRIS: You're telling me. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure which one 16 I've got. Here's my -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 36. 18 MS. HARRIS: I gave everybody a 36. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've got it. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got it. 21 MS. HARRIS: But, remember, he had asked me 22 to do a 70 percent and a 75 percent scenario. I gave 23 everybody -- I made sure -- there you go. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got it. 25 MS. HARRIS: Okay. I gave everybody one that 8-24-05 bwk 226 1 looks like this on the back. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Your schoolmarm skills are 3 coming in handy here, aren't they? 4 MS. HARRIS: Are we all together? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see that. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have that 7 chart. I've got a 36. 8 MS. HARRIS: I think I have -- hold on a 9 minute. I think I've got another one that y'all can share. 10 Yeah, I got one that you can share. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Here it is. 12 MS. HARRIS: Did you find yours? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I had two 36's. 14 MS. HARRIS: Okay. All right. Now, you'll 15 see that I've got preadjudicated females on Dorm 2, okay? 16 Now, let's flip-flop Dorm 3 and Dorm 2. Let's put the 17 preadjudicated females on Dorm 3, because those are dry 18 cells, and you can put pre's on dry cells. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dry cell? What's that 20 mean? 21 MS. HARRIS: No toilets or sinks in the 22 bedrooms. And Dorm 3 is constructed that way. And you can 23 put -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the old building? 25 MS. HARRIS: We're in the old building. So, 8-24-05 bwk 227 1 let's put the pre females on Dorm 3. And let's put the pre 2 males on Dorm 2. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 4 MS. HARRIS: Okay. Very rarely are you going 5 to have 12 pre boys all at the same time. You're going to 6 have some empty beds on Dorm 2 that you can use for post. 7 That's what I'm telling you; that 30-bed post scenario, 8 you're going to fill up all of Dorm 4. You're going to fill 9 up all of Dorm 5 and half of Dorm 2, or approximately. And 10 you still have enough beds for pre boys and pre girls. If 11 your pre boys exceed six, remember I said you can put pre 12 girls and pre boys on the same dorm, but you got to have 13 separate staff. That's how you can play with those beds if 14 you have to. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, they'd go to Dorm 3? 16 MS. HARRIS: Yes. Yes. That's how you can 17 adjust accordingly. And it's a juggling game. Now, your 18 staff -- you're not messing with your staff, 'cause you're 19 full on Dorm 4. You've got to have four staff for Dorm 4. 20 You're full on Dorm 5. You got to have four staff for Dorm 21 5. You got to have females for your pre females, so you've 22 got your staff over there. And you've got your separate pre 23 males and your separate post males on dorm -- on Dorm 2, and 24 during the daytime you've got your separate staff. But at 25 night you can get by with using one staff on Dorm 2 with 8-24-05 bwk 228 1 pre's and posts, because you're doing dorm checks, but it's 2 got to be a man. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got to be a man? 4 MS. HARRIS: You see what I do every day? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You said it has to be 6 a man? 7 MS. HARRIS: Has to be a man on Dorm 2 'cause 8 you're doing dorm checks. You're looking into bedrooms with 9 a flashlight. You don't want a female doing that. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A man can do it for 11 females? 12 MS. HARRIS: No. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't think so. 14 MS. HARRIS: No, that's what I'm saying. 15 Dorm 2, you can get by with one man on Dorm 2 doing bed 16 checks on pre and post boys. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got you. Okay. 18 Okay. 19 MS. HARRIS: So you're staffed for 48. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, it appears 21 to me that, based on both Mr. Stanton's proposals and 22 Ms. Harris' proposals, that while it might be a little bit 23 -- the down side is a lot less going with pre only, if we 24 can keep it, you know, basically at 70, 80 percent 25 occupancy, you're better off going with a post and a pre. I 8-24-05 bwk 229 1 mean, a 48-bed facility at 80 percent loses less money than 2 a pre only. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Isn't that -- I mean, you 5 showed -- Mr. Stanton shows you start making -- I won't use 6 the word "profit," but you start making something that 7 resembles profit at some point on 48-bed. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How much would that 9 scenario cost a year? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it depends on -- 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: At 70 percent. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where was it? Just 13 had it here a minute ago. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 48? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I got to find it again. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The total cost of 48? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: At 70 percent, 19 Mr. Stanton's was at losing $220,000, but if you go to 20 80 percent, you lose 68,000. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I've got this 22 document that you gave us today. 23 MS. HARRIS: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 48, talking about 25 40 -- 48 residents, one building. 8-24-05 bwk 230 1 MS. HARRIS: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And when you get 3 down here to projected deficit, you got $273,000. I guess 4 that's if it's full? 5 MS. HARRIS: That's right. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: At 70 percent, the 7 projected deficit would go up about $400,000. Is that 8 right? So, it would be 675,000? 9 MS. HARRIS: Okay, what are you looking -- 10 okay. Now -- 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm looking at this 12 last page of the document we got today that shows a 13 projected deficit of 275. And then it goes on to note 14 there, 70 percent capacity for 48 beds is a million, three 15 revenue instead of a million, five. Is that right? 16 MS. HARRIS: One million thirty thousand, 17 yeah. 1,030,000. Now, that's based on $83 a day for 18 everybody, for all the kids. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, at 70 percent, 20 the projected deficit is not 273, it's 273 plus 400,000. 21 MS. HARRIS: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, 675,000. 23 MS. HARRIS: That's right. And that's at $83 24 a day. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that the most 8-24-05 bwk 231 1 likely case, that we'd -- we'd have a $675,000 deficit? 2 MS. HARRIS: No, sir. No, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Then why is that not 4 the most likely case? 5 MS. HARRIS: No, sir, because you're going to 6 have more than 34 kids, and you're going to be able to 7 charge more for those sex offender kids. And I think I put 8 in 10. I figured for 10 sex offender kids. I think you're 9 going to have more than that, but I'm trying to be 10 conservative. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you were going to 12 do this project, -- 13 MS. HARRIS: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- 48 residents, -- 15 MS. HARRIS: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- and it's time to 17 put your bottom line budget number in here, how much are you 18 going to lose next year? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The 338 number, isn't it? 20 MS. HARRIS: If we keep 42 kids, yes, sir. 21 338. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it -- losing 338,000 23 is a 48-bed facility with 42 kids? 24 MS. HARRIS: 42 kids in it. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now, let me ask a 8-24-05 bwk 232 1 question. 2 MS. HARRIS: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take the 338, and can 4 we subtract from that 338 the $285,000, Kevin, that we 5 have -- that ongoing obligation of 285? 6 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. 'Cause, I mean, we'd 7 have a place to put our preadjudicated kids. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then that takes it 9 down to minus 53,000. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It does what? 11 MS. HARRIS: Kevin's preadjudicated kid cost, 12 subtract it from that 338, and that's your true deficit, 13 which is around 53,000. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your red ink. 15 MS. HARRIS: Your red ink is going to be 16 53,000, because you're putting -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your obligation for 18 juveniles is -- 19 MS. HARRIS: Right. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- is 333. But the 21 red ink to the facility is reduced by reason of your 22 obligation. 23 MS. HARRIS: Because you're putting all of 24 Kevin's pre kids in the facility rather than shipping them 25 out. 8-24-05 bwk 233 1 MR. STANTON: Well, no -- well, I -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the difference? 3 MR. STANTON: I'm sorry, I take that back. 4 It's not -- I'm sorry. It's not going to be 285,000, 5 because in the $285,000 proposal that you're looking at, 6 that is hiring two transport officers, that's paying for 7 mileage to and from a facility 104 times. So, the number's 8 going to be a whole lot less than that. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Should be 175, roughly. Take 10 the 125 out, 'cause that's going to go in anyway, so you 11 take 175 off of there. Probably -- 12 MS. HARRIS: So take 175 off the 338. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That gets it down to 15 163. 16 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. Yeah. You could -- 17 'cause you'd have to subtract mileage and you'd have to 18 subtract the cost of the officers. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is harder than 20 drilling for oil in 10,000 feet of water. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've got to go cancel 22 an appointment so I can continue this enlightening 23 discussion. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we take a break 25 here? Our reporter needs a break. We've gone a little long 8-24-05 bwk 234 1 as it is, so why don't we take about a 15-minute break here. 2 (Recess taken from 3:26 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.) 3 - - - - - - - - - - 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go ahead and come back 5 to order, if we might. I think we're somewhat at an impasse 6 now. We've gotten about all the information that we can 7 digest with the possibility of trying to understand exactly 8 how the offset occurs to the deficit based on -- I think we 9 got two variables that -- that are not apparent in the 10 documents that we have here. One is the -- learning 11 recently that on certain Level 5 program children, we can 12 charge up to 115. That's not plugged into the 48-bed 13 proposal -- post proposal. It's not plugged into it. We've 14 been manually given some numbers here. 15 MS. HARRIS: So you want -- okay. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm thinking if you'll refine 17 those numbers better -- 18 MS. HARRIS: Okay. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: -- and then, in addition -- 20 MS. HARRIS: You want the 48-bed? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: One building. And that, I 22 suppose, would carry up to actual 50 or 51. 23 MS. HARRIS: Right. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: If I understand the capacity. 25 MS. HARRIS: Right. 8-24-05 bwk 235 1 JUDGE TINLEY: But to also include the -- the 2 offset of -- against whatever deficit that may indicate of 3 the net cost in trying to take the pre's elsewhere that we 4 would have under our legal obligation if we had no facility 5 at all. 6 MS. HARRIS: Okay. So, what's the solid 7 number that we're looking at if you had to take the pre kids 8 someplace else? 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 285. 10 MS. HARRIS: 285? 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I see people shaking 12 their heads. Is 285 the number? If we had to take -- 13 MR. STANTON: No, sir, it's not the number. 14 The number is -- is 285 minus the cost of the two persons 15 you would hire to transport, plus the cost of the mileage. 16 I can get -- I can give Ms. Harris -- I'll give Ms. Harris a 17 number. I'll get it to her before the day's over. 18 MS. HARRIS: So you want a -- 19 AUDIENCE: Less than 285? 20 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. 21 MS. HARRIS: So you want a 48-bed -- you just 22 want me to take the 48-bed budget that I've already done, 23 plug in the $115 revenue for -- 10? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: 20. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whatever number of 8-24-05 bwk 236 1 beds you think you can keep full. 2 MS. HARRIS: Okay. And then what -- what my 3 deficit line is, subtract what the cost -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The number he gives 5 you. 6 MS. HARRIS: The number that he gives me. I 7 can do that. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: And do we also have the -- the 10 -- do we have a clear picture of what the pre only is? 11 MS. HARRIS: Yes, I think you do, 'cause I've 12 given you an 11-bed and I've given you a 24, and Kevin has 13 given you -- 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 16. 15 MS. HARRIS: -- 16, but he's also given you a 16 24 and a 12 pre. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got them all. 18 MS. HARRIS: You've got them. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me tell you 20 where I'm at in my thinking now. When we started off, I 21 said I think we must operate a preadjudicated facility, and 22 then going beyond that, only if it makes economic sense. It 23 doesn't make any difference if our postadjudicated kids are 24 here or somewhere else. I'm looking at this 16-bed 25 preadjudicated facility budget that Kevin Stanton drew up, 8-24-05 bwk 237 1 and when you look at the costs and then subtract the costs 2 of closing the facility, having preadjudicated only, 16 3 beds, the net -- the total cost to the County would be 4 somewhere between 100,000 and 175,000. I'm thinking that is 5 the best -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's not -- that's 7 based on an occupancy rate that I don't think we can get, 8 'cause our average has been 11. We've never gotten to 16 in 9 three years on an average. 10 MR. STANTON: The number he's quoting is at 11 70 percent occupancy at 16, which is 12. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: With 80 percent, it 13 would be about -- cost us about 100,000. With 70 percent, 14 it would cost us about 145,000. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My -- 433 at 70 percent. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's track the cost 17 of sending children out of county from -- so the net cost is 18 you subtract 285 from four -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You subtract about 150 20 from the 433, 'cause you're going to take 125 either way. 21 MR. STANTON: In that case scenario, you'd 22 have to subtract the 285, because we wouldn't have a 23 facility -- or we wouldn't have a facility in Kerr County to 24 place our kids into. In the scenarios that Ms. -- 25 Ms. Becky's talking about, we would have a place in Kerr 8-24-05 bwk 238 1 County to place our preadjudicated, so you wouldn't need to 2 add in the costs of the transport officers and the mileage 3 costs. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if we only 5 had -- to make it real simple, if we only had two choices, 6 and that's no facility or preadjudicated only, 16 beds, the 7 net cost to Kerr County would be, for the 16 preadjudicated 8 bed facility, would be probably $145,000. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I'm not there. I 10 need to see this on paper, because we've got -- it says here 11 minus 433, but on Becky's proposal, she has something in 12 that same area. I need to see how -- we're subtracting 13 these numbers somewhat arbitrarily. I need to see a -- my 14 mind can't envision all that. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't want to throw 16 a monkey wrench in this, because we got enough already, but 17 I'm just wondering, Tommy, is there any way you can help 18 these folks and put together a spreadsheet showing these 19 various scenarios? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Sure. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I mean, this would be 22 so much easier to do if we had a spreadsheet that showed 23 each of these scenarios by comparison. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on -- and, to me, 25 if we're in a preadjudicated-type facility, just because of 8-24-05 bwk 239 1 the volatility, I think you have to have, like, a 50 percent 2 occupancy. I just don't see -- because we're going to have 3 to keep Kerr County beds. It's going to -- we're going to 4 really look bad if we have a pre facility and then they fill 5 it up with out-of-county kids, so I think you really have to 6 look at 50, 60 percent max on any pre, whether it's Becky's 7 or Kevin's. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you go 10 postadjudicated, I think you can get up to the 70 to 11 80 percent, realistically. And I think those are the -- you 12 know, based on the numbers, make sense. I think that's what 13 you have to compare. You can't -- you know, just like the 14 jail. Rusty doesn't -- well, he doesn't like to; 15 occasionally he's had to actually fill the jail to 190. He 16 wants to keep it at 150. It's the same -- you know, for 17 Kerr County, a little bit of fluff there. I think you've 18 got to do it with a preadjudicated facility as well. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, if these folks 20 could work with Tommy and -- and we could -- and put this 21 off to our next Wednesday full-day meeting, give a week to 22 put this into a spreadsheet for -- you've already done the 23 workups; it's just a matter of putting them in a spreadsheet 24 so we can take a look at it, see where in the hell we are. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And try and list the 8-24-05 bwk 240 1 numbers that -- the 125,000, I mean, have it on your -- 2 somewhere there; you know, we're spending 125,000 across the 3 board in any column. Whatever we do, that's coming out of 4 the budget. If we don't have a -- a facility in this 5 county, then you have to add in transport costs, which is 6 285,000. I'd rather do it that way, rather than subtract 7 that and if we don't do this, we have to subtract it out. 8 I'm trying to figure out -- well, you know, it doesn't make 9 sense to me, really. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Appreciate it. Thank 11 you. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: I'd like to narrow it down to 13 the two or three most obvious answers. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I think so. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No facility, 48-bed 16 facility, and the smallest pre that they can -- they want to 17 do. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think that's it, 19 those three things. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Zero, 12, 48. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or zero, 16 or 24. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or zero, 16, 44, 23 whatever. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't care, whichever 25 one looks better. 8-24-05 bwk 241 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Dozier wants to complicate 2 this thing. 3 MR. DOZIER: No, I wanted y'all to see if you 4 could have Tommy talk to Bill Orr or something and find out 5 what it costs K.I.S.D. to run whatever that 40-bed -- 48-bed 6 is, which is just about pretty close to break-even, that 7 high number. But with a low number like 6 or 8, it's 8 tanking, 'cause ours is -- ours is just, like, on a 9 45-degree line. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it tanks for us if 11 we staff at 48, and if we keep five or six, it tanks for 12 everybody. It's got to be -- if you have a 48 facility, we 13 have to be realistic that we can keep it at about 75 or so 14 percent occupancy. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that certainly -- if 16 there's some numbers that can be shown on the side as other 17 considerations, that -- 18 MR. DOZIER: That's all I was asking about. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: -- it's going to affect the 20 taxpayers -- 21 MR. DOZIER: That's what I was asking. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: -- one way or the other, that 23 is certainly relevant information, yeah. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, I'll sure do that. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8-24-05 bwk 242 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be 2 helpful, thank you. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Why don't we move to 4 the Juvenile Probation Department? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I get rid of some of 6 these old ones? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Number 18. These are the 8 numbers that were approved by the Juvenile Board, as I 9 recall. Is that correct, Mr. Stanton? 10 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, they were approved by 11 the Juvenile Board on 7-11 of '05. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll be right back; I 13 just got to make arrangements to pick Sam up. 14 (Commissioner Letz left the courtroom.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions of Mr. Stanton? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me look at it 17 real quick here, Judge. Probably not. Alternate Housing, 18 1665. That's sort of what we've been chatting about, isn't 19 it? 20 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, it is. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 22 MR. STANTON: The only real big difference, I 23 guess, in the budget this year compared to last year is 24 the -- the $20,000 in residential housing, plus I've had to 25 -- because of certain restrictions on the expenditures that 8-24-05 bwk 243 1 we can use T.J.P.C. money for, I've had to change out one of 2 my probation officers that was making a little bit more 3 money and put them in the county budget, and would move one 4 of my other probation officers into the state budget. So, 5 there's a little bit of difference in the salary line items, 6 but that's just because of the -- the new structure, the way 7 that the -- what caseloads they can deal with and what they 8 can't deal with. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: The net difference is -- 10 MR. STANTON: About $4,000. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, saying $3,000 to $5,000. 12 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think I have 15 any questions. Commissioner Letz may have some. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is it reflected 18 how much we get from the state? 19 MR. STANTON: If you'll look at -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In support of your 21 budget -- 22 MR. STANTON: -- Fund 34, the -- Fund 34 is 23 our J.P.O. Progressive Sanctions money. That's to pay one 24 of our probation officers. That total is $27,567. Fund 35 25 is our Progressive Sanctions Level 1, 2, and 3 money that we 8-24-05 bwk 244 1 can use on nonsecured facilities and diagnosis and 2 treatment, and that total is 20,200. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Not sure he has it. Do you 4 have that backup? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm looking at Title 6 IV-E. Is that what we're talking about? 7 MR. STANTON: No, sir. The -- I only -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't guess I have 9 it. 10 MR. STANTON: I can show you this. Mine -- 11 mine's a little bit different than -- than that, but the 12 last -- if you look at the bottom two on there, the Fund 34, 13 that's state money, and that's 27,567, Fund 34. Fund 35 is 14 state money, and that's the 20,200. The Community 15 Corrections and State Aid money for Fund 27, which is 16 Community Corrections, we get $87,524. For State Aid, we 17 get 68,055, and for salary supplement that we get from the 18 state is $14,250. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, your budget that 20 we have in front of us is over and above these funds and 21 these expenditures? 22 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 24 (Commissioner Letz returned to the courtroom.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: You got any questions on 8-24-05 bwk 245 1 Juvenile Probation? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hope not. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I got one. I don't 4 want to open this can of worms again. Are there -- do you 5 know of any counties where Juvenile Probation and Juvenile 6 Detention operations are combined? 7 MR. STANTON: Out of the 54 counties that run 8 pre or post facilities, 51 of them are combined. There's 9 three counties that I know of right now that are separated. 10 Kerr County is one. There's one that -- that Mike Lindemann 11 runs, and I think it's in -- 12 MS. HARRIS: It's private. 13 MR. STANTON: Yeah, it's a private facility. 14 Yeah, private facility, and then there's another private 15 facility. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does anybody know 17 why we decided to do it differently in this county? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. Since we just 19 inherited this in February and didn't make those decisions, 20 I don't know the answer to that. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge says it didn't 22 happen on his shift. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I can 24 guess on some things. I mean, it was a private facility 25 that we took over. It was run by Recor, a private company. 8-24-05 bwk 246 1 Then we took it over, and they probably had some system set 2 up, and rather -- it seemed -- 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- easier at the time to 5 probably keep running it as a separate facility rather than 6 try to integrate it into Juvenile Probation. I'm -- I guess 7 that's -- and at the time, it was -- it was -- the plan was 8 for it to make positive cash flow, and it did for a while. 9 So -- 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's got to be it. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I don't have 12 anything. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me further complicate that 14 for you. The Juvenile Probation Department is operated 15 under the oversight and auspices of the Juvenile Board in 16 each county, so put that in the mix. Thank you, Mr. 17 Stanton. We appreciate it. 18 MR. STANTON: Thank y'all. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, wait, don't leave 20 yet. 21 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. What -- the County 23 Attorney isn't here right now. Does it change the 24 relationship between the facility and the Commissioners 25 Court if the facility comes under Juvenile Probation, as 8-24-05 bwk 247 1 opposed to if it's -- if we hire an outside person, being 2 the fact that Juvenile -- you report to the -- 3 MR. STANTON: Not -- no, sir, not according 4 to the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- so, the Court would 6 just -- if it were to go that route, the Court would just 7 designate that you were the manager, and that would -- 8 nothing really to do with your -- your Juvenile Probation 9 job? 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He's wearing two 11 hats in that case. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And reporting to two 13 boards. 14 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Looks like we've got 17 volunteer fire departments now. I'm looking for them now. 18 That's going to be under County-sponsored, I think, isn't 19 it? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I hope so. 21 (Discussion off the record.) 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's under Tab 25, Page 23 73. It's pretty far back in that stuff. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tab 25? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, there it is. 8-24-05 bwk 248 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 25, Fire Protection. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: We've had a mass exodus here. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nobody cares about -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Nobody's concerned if the 5 building catches on fire. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. Nobody 7 cares about the volunteer fire departments. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Glenn does. 9 MR. HOLEKAMP: You can open up the checkbook 10 now. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I made the allocations to 12 the volunteer fire departments in the same way that we did 13 last year; some that partially serve get a small stipend, 14 and the rest of them 13,000. I pulled out that grant match, 15 not knowing that it has any application this year. The one 16 thing I did not address is the city fire contract for 17 Kerrville South and Kerrville North, I'm going to call it 18 for lack of a better term. Since that came under a 19 City/County heading, that is left to the entire Court. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we have any reason 21 to believe that that contract will not -- or it will cost us 22 more? We haven't heard anything, have we? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: In a general discussion with 24 Interim City Manager Don Davis -- he has not said anything 25 to me. In just trying to figure out what we've got to get 8-24-05 bwk 249 1 resolved, the discussion has generally been that the costs 2 of housing prisoners, the tax collection, I think it -- 3 recycle, everything with the exception, I believe, of the 4 EMS and the animal control and the library, were pretty much 5 automatic. Which would lead me to indicate that it's going 6 to remain the same. Now, he's not specifically said that, 7 but that's the sense I've gotten from what he has said. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think at this point, 9 with the budget problems I see ahead when we get all these 10 numbers rerun, I recommend we leave these the same. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to raise them, 13 but I just -- 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't hear anybody 15 squealing. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also, I find it quite 17 interesting that -- one, two, three, four -- six out of all 18 the fire departments haven't got their money yet, so they 19 must not be hurting too bad. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you know anything 21 about Divide? You know, will they come in and have some 22 receipts? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we've had some 24 conversation that we need -- we need for them to -- to do 25 it, you know, soon if they're -- if they want to. 8-24-05 bwk 250 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All of them need to get 2 it in pretty quick if they want to get paid this year. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I worry that Divide 4 may not be fully -- I know it's not fully operational. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It doesn't take much for 6 them to get -- come up with $13,000 if they do anything. If 7 they need the money, they -- they can find it, I think. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Three of the four in 9 west Kerr County are doing well. Ingram is in good shape. 10 A new district in Mountain Home has helped them a lot, and 11 they got a notice that they did get a grant approved, a 12 significant one, so I don't feel bad at all about leaving it 13 at 13,000. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Neither do I. I've 15 heard nothing out of my two that indicates that that's not a 16 decent number. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: And city fire contract is -- 18 the consensus seems to be just leave it as-is. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unless you've heard 20 something. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'd like to look 22 at that, really, more with the emergency services issue. I 23 don't like that contract, 'cause I don't like the fact that 24 if we have a bad fire out in the city limits, they send one 25 truck. 8-24-05 bwk 251 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Limited service, exactly. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I don't think I want 3 to open that Pandora's box at this date with the City. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have enough 5 Pandora's boxes open, don't we? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: We are -- if there's nothing 8 further on the VFD's and the city fire contract -- we 9 handled Nondepartmental, didn't we? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we did. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Permanent Improvements. I'm 12 not sure what we got cooking there. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What tab is that? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hey, Judge, while 15 we're here in this tab, why don't we do County-sponsored? 16 We're right there at that tab. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Good plan. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And -- 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What tab is that? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Same tab, 25, except you go 21 back a -- one page to Page 66. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- on this one, 23 Trapper Contract, I'm -- I've been in conversations with the 24 state -- the local office and the state office a little bit 25 about this. There is a desire by some east Kerr County -- 8-24-05 bwk 252 1 probably a few east Kerr County residents to try to get 2 service out of Kendall County partially. Kendall County 3 has -- funds two trappers; Kerr County funds one. And it 4 just -- the one guy from Kerr County is Steve Adams. He 5 does a real good job, but he's just spread real thin. And a 6 lot of -- you know, I would -- either we can do it as an 7 amendment later -- it's the first item, 320 -- or maybe we 8 could add $5,000 this year, which would be -- which would 9 only get paid if we successfully negotiate an interlocal 10 agreement between Kendall County Commissioners Court, and it 11 would allow -- and I'm not sure that will happen, believe 12 me. But if we can negotiate that, that they could come into 13 my precinct -- their trapper would have the ability to come 14 into my precinct, and it could -- I'd probably estimate that 15 25 percent of his time would be in this county. 16 I think it's a good way for us to increase 17 that service. And I will say that that's -- we pay a part 18 of it. The State kicks in a bunch of money there, so 19 it's -- you know, it's pretty good dollars spent from the 20 taxpayer standpoint. And this whole service is -- you know, 21 I think historically has been driven by ranchers, but I bet 22 in Kendall County it's driven by golf courses at the moment. 23 Predators are -- with the urbanization of these counties, 24 predators is becoming a real problem in lots of areas. 25 Feral hogs, coyotes, all that are moving into residential 8-24-05 bwk 253 1 areas pretty rapidly. They're addressing that. So, anyway, 2 I would ask that we add 5,000 to that. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: So, take it to 26,6? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, 26,6. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know why none of the 6 figures got moved over into the last recommended column, but 7 all of those that are in the requested column should be 8 moved over to the recommended, with two exceptions. One is, 9 as you can see, Big Brother/Big Sister I put in there. And 10 what I've done is, I have taken that from CASA and 11 recommended them for $3,000, for a couple of reasons. One 12 is, they terminated service to my juvenile court. Second 13 is, the Kronkowski Foundation awarded them a $50,000 grant 14 here a couple months ago. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is CASA a multi-county -- 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, they actually work in 17 several counties. They would have to, to -- in order to get 18 the Kronkowski; they'd have to go down to either Kendall or 19 Bandera in order to be contingent. But they got a 20 Kronkowski grant for 50K, so -- even before I had heard of 21 that, I had reduced that. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, 420 under 23 Public Transportation goes down a little bit, goes back to 24 the number in '03/'04, 7883. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 8-24-05 bwk 254 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the 216th Task 2 Force? They didn't request any. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Narcotics. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know what it is, but -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't plug that number in 6 because it comes to the Auditor. There's a specific number. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: It's the -- it's the benefits 8 for our -- for our person on the task force. So -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It will be here again? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Depending on what his salary 11 is, we'll calculate the benefits, and it will be close to 12 whatever -- whatever that is. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Why are we bringing 14 Big Brother/Big Sister back in? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Primarily because of -- from 16 the juvenile standpoint, I think they fill a void for me, 17 and I just moved the CASA money up there. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You use Big Brother/Big 19 Sisters? I mean their service? Or -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't -- I don't 21 specifically refer to them, but -- but they work with some 22 of the children that -- that are in my jurisdiction. 23 MR. STANTON: Judge? On the Big Brother/Big 24 Sister thing, we do refer kids -- we do -- we do -- we don't 25 contract, but we do refer kids over through our Probation 8-24-05 bwk 255 1 Department to Big Brothers and Big Sisters when -- when we 2 feel like that's an appropriate action. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I have a concern 4 there, Judge. Sometime in the past, the Court made a 5 decision to not fund them, and if you bring them back in, 6 they're here forever. We can't quit. I -- and as you know, 7 I'd like to quit funding some others, but it's impossible to 8 do without being tarred and feathered. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: I think we can -- I'm not 10 sure about this, but I think at one time, we moved the 11 funding of the Big Brother/Big Sister program to the 12 Juvenile Probation budget. Do you recall that? 13 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. About two years ago, 14 that money did come out of the Probation Department budget, 15 and then -- I think it was last year -- all that money was 16 moved out of the Probation Department budget and put into 17 the Commissioners Court budget. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: So, the County has funded 19 them all along; it just came out of a different place. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, like you say, you 21 can't -- 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I can sleep good 23 tonight. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other item that I 25 have, and I -- Water Development, 447, I'm not positive that 8-24-05 bwk 256 1 Region J is going to need a supplement this year or not, but 2 if they don't -- last year we didn't ask for one, but we're 3 spending quite a bit of money on administrative costs. 4 Hopefully have enough to carry over, but there's another use 5 for that money that I think is very beneficial to, 6 certainly, all the taxpayers, and also keeps us at the table 7 on water. Headwaters is doing a pretty massive study; 8 they've hired outside consultants to basically do a mapping 9 of the Trinity and the Edwards-Trinity out of west Kerr 10 County, which has never been done in any kind of detail. 11 And there's a lot of information now, a lot of data entry, a 12 lot of work going into that. Headwaters is working on it. 13 They're, by far, the primary person. U.G.R.A. is helping 14 fund it, and I believe the City of Kerrville is as well. 15 And I think that I would recommend that -- I would support 16 us funding it to no more than $5,000 as well. I think it is 17 a -- it goes a long ways in giving us the information that 18 this county needs. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Kevin? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Gives the county 21 information it needs for subdivisions, you know, other 22 things that we work on down the road, so I would like to get 23 that put back in. Last year I didn't think we were going to 24 need it, but this year I do see a need for it. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've seen one of the 8-24-05 bwk 257 1 presentations of that geologist, and he does know what he's 2 talking about, in my view, and the product is going to be 3 valuable. And you don't always see that in -- coming out of 4 these kind of projects. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's Headwaters' 6 -- hats off to them, and they're -- they're basically 7 leading the state on doing this on a local basis. So, I 8 think -- and I put -- I think it gives us input into the 9 state when we have money, so ... Should have mentioned it a 10 long time ago. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: When -- when the Big 12 Brother/Big Sister was coming through your budget, do you 13 recall the amount? Are you the -- or either one of you. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 15 MR. STANTON: It was a total of $10,000. 16 And -- but that was for CASA, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, and 17 there was a third; I don't remember. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: It was the -- I think it was 19 the Child Advocacy. 20 MR. STANTON: Child Advocacy Center. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: Those three. 22 MR. STANTON: Those three. The $10,000 was 23 divided between those three. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: You don't remember what the 25 breakdown was? 8-24-05 bwk 258 1 MR. STANTON: No, sir, I don't. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions on that? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not on that, but we 6 still need to determine what we're going to do with 7 Historical Commission. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: That was increased this year 9 from three to five. All of those figures in the next-to-the- 10 right-hand column need to be -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Carried over? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: And the reason that that was 13 increased was because of the sesquicentennial. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I figured they were going to 16 need some additional funds this year for that purpose. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's next? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody find Permanent 21 Improvements? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What tab is that? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know; that's why I'm 24 looking. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Judge, under -- for emergency 8-24-05 bwk 259 1 management -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On what? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: On -- back to the last -- 4 this County-sponsored, there's not anything in Requested for 5 emergency management. Is that an oversight, or is it zero? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Guess they didn't put 7 in a request, huh? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, let me see what I can find 9 here. Well, frankly, Tommy, I haven't found it yet. I 10 don't see anything for that, unless it's under the -- the 11 Health. But you're not talking about First Responders, 12 medical directors, any of that. That's all rolled in under 13 the EMS contract we just approved. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, there's been this -- 15 this funding for emergency management since '03, and I don't 16 know where that comes from. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, it's not related 18 to Chief Holloway being the FEMA representative -- or 19 emergency coordinator? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, I believe it does. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's Emergency 23 Management Coordinator. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that's -- I'm pretty 8-24-05 bwk 260 1 sure that's where the -- what it's for. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: 'cause he's the Emergency 3 Management Coordinator. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So he has -- if we have a 5 disaster, he's the one that has to request it. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you want to 7 inquire of him and see what he wants in there? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we -- I don't 9 know if he wants it. I think we need it. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Under 21, we've got Health and 11 Emergency Services, but that -- that has to do -- best I can 12 tell, that's all the EMS stuff. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I think that 15 emergency EMS is -- that's -- I'm pretty sure it's got to be 16 the -- not the EMS. The -- 17 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think this line item 18 has anything to do with EMS. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, this is separate. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Disaster. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is different. I 23 think we ought to fund it. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it definitely needs 25 to be funded, 'cause without it I don't think you can -- 8-24-05 bwk 261 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Where are you? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right here, on 3 Emergency Management. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 406. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County-sponsored 7 line, 406. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does that mean we 9 underwrite part of the Chief's salary? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You got it. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, not really, not 13 his basic salary. He's providing other services in terms of 14 being the county-wide coordinator for emergency management. 15 He's -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: What are you putting in there? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Four. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe we ought to put 20 3,000, see if he'll go for that. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't you round 22 it off at four? 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Give him till 24 Thursday to take it or leave it? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Take it or leave it. He 8-24-05 bwk 262 1 -- this -- I mean, this isn't just money for doing nothing. 2 He has a book that's bigger -- about two or three of these 3 on emergency management and how you do it and all that 4 stuff. He's got to go to training to -- 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Has this got to do 6 with -- 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we spent $2,142 so far. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, it's 9 important. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: We've expended 2,142 this 12 year. So, we've -- I would have to look at the history and 13 see what that's for. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: See what it is. But I 15 think we need to put, you know -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, actually, 17 '03/'04 was 4,234. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So cut it -- why 20 don't you cut to it 4,000? About where it is. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'd leave it at 22 4,400, but if Tommy can check it, that's certainly -- we 23 certainly need that person doing that. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okey-doke. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Unless Dave wants to take 8-24-05 bwk 263 1 that on. Whichever J.P. wants some more money, we can give 2 it -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Did anybody find Permanent 4 Improvements? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I did not. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is it, Glenn? 7 Permanent Improvements. Where is it? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, this year it was just 9 for the Ag Barn, 150,000 that we spent on -- 10 MR. HOLEKAMP: The roof. Roof and the air 11 conditioning. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it, all right. We 13 don't have anything for next year? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Not that I know of. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. If we did 16 anything, would it be the I.T.? The computer system? Does 17 that go in Permanent Improvements? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: No. I -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it's different? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: I would just set that up as a 21 -- depending on how we finance it. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Some kind of tax 23 anticipation or something like that. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: So that brings us to Parks. 8-24-05 bwk 264 1 And that's under Tab 15. Parks Maintenance, Page 45. I'm 2 glad we got that EMS contract in place. 3 MR. HOLEKAMP: Under Permanent Improvements, 4 what about some new chairs for the courtrooms? With 5 cushions? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nope. 7 MR. HOLEKAMP: It was a try. I -- well, now 8 that everybody left, I probably don't need to do any 9 complimenting, but through being very -- very persistent 10 with the two probation departments in Kerr County, the Adult 11 Probation and the Juvenile Probation, the -- obviously, they 12 get funds from the state to -- I think Kevin called it 13 community -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Involvement, or -- 15 MR. HOLEKAMP: -- involvement or something. 16 I've gotten quite a bit of stuff from him, and we're going 17 to get some more to set up for their community -- and it is 18 to use for community service people. Also, through Howard 19 Hollimon's office, we really did good. They had some money 20 left over, state money for community service, and we just 21 took delivery today on two mowing tractors, small -- they're 22 small ones for Parks, you know, with the deck underneath the 23 tractors. One's a 23-horse and the other one, I think, is 24 an 18. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they're a real 8-24-05 bwk 265 1 tractor? 2 MR. HOLEKAMP: They're real John Deeres. And 3 so -- and it was about $10,000 worth of equipment this 4 morning that we took delivery on, and didn't cost us 5 anything, but we have use of it, just like the weekend crews 6 or community service. We have a real good relationship with 7 community service. And I think -- not only that, and then 8 with the trustee program. I think the Parks budget can hold 9 the line. The only area -- and since the Judge and I sat 10 down, fuel is going to be an issue. It -- I was thinking we 11 had a little flash in the pan, that it just went -- spiked 12 up, but I would -- I would like to ask y'all to maybe add 13 some funds to the fuel-oil-maintenance line. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2,000? Up to 2,000, do 15 you think? Or 2,500? 16 MR. HOLEKAMP: I'd like to try -- you know, I 17 think we'll be close. Because -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 19 MR. HOLEKAMP: -- when you start fueling 20 these tractors, it runs up pretty quick. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure that's going to 22 be enough. We're looking at 1,500 estimated actual this 23 year, and -- 24 MR. HOLEKAMP: So -- so I'm just asking. The 25 rest of the lines, I think we're going to be fine. Our 8-24-05 bwk 266 1 equipment isn't too old to -- to be able to stay within the 2 equipment repairs. Plus, the guy I have doing it, doing the 3 maintenance on that stuff in-house, he -- he doesn't require 4 a whole lot of expenses. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much -- I would say 6 the 2,500 or 2,000 or 2,200, maybe. Pick a number. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you think we need to go as 8 high as 2,500? 9 MR. HOLEKAMP: I'd like to. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's -- I thought 11 that was the figure you were probably thinking about. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Glenn, do you have any 13 idea of what the savings to the taxpayers is by the County 14 using, you know, community service and trustees? I mean, 15 two, three people? 16 MR. HOLEKAMP: Average, yeah. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's about -- 18 MR. HOLEKAMP: Daily. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's probably $50,000 20 a year, something like that? 21 MR. HOLEKAMP: Minimum. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Minimum? 23 MR. HOLEKAMP: Minimum. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason I bring it up 25 is that sometime maybe during this year, I would 8-24-05 bwk 267 1 recommend -- maybe I'll bring it up myself when they have a 2 new City Manager in the city -- that if they would fund a 3 deputy -- a second deputy to watch the trustees, let the 4 city parks get cleaned up the same way. 5 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it seems to me it 7 would be a way to -- to save taxpayers as a whole money and 8 get something done. And mowing and that kind of maintenance 9 is -- is a little bit of luxury. Whether you mow on Monday 10 or Friday doesn't make that much difference in the mowing, 11 as long as you get it mowed. 12 MR. HOLEKAMP: Three times a week, they're 13 watering these pansies on the corners, two men. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: The City, you're talking 15 about? 16 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. And, you know, that -- 17 I'm not so sure a deputy with the three trustees couldn't 18 drive down the street and do those things. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. It's just one of 20 those -- I mean -- 21 MR. HOLEKAMP: Personal opinion. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, that's just 23 something I was thinking, just a thought that I had had 24 earlier. 25 MR. HOLEKAMP: I think you're absolutely 8-24-05 bwk 268 1 right, Jon. I'd really like to pursue that. And I -- I 2 felt uncomfortable in here last time when we had the meeting 3 about mowing the airport. I don't think they understand 4 what trustees are. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 6 MR. HOLEKAMP: You know, they -- they had it 7 in their mind that these guys are out there raping and 8 pillaging in the community. With a guard with them, it 9 doesn't work that way. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought they were 11 all serial killers or serial rapists. 12 MR. HOLEKAMP: And I think that maybe -- 13 maybe we're not selling it. I don't know. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- well, I agree 15 totally on that. The good or bad news, depending on how you 16 do it, is that due to some other legal reasons, that's off 17 the table for this year -- 18 MR. HOLEKAMP: I understand. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- on the airport, but it 20 is on the table from the standpoint of the airport needs to 21 figure out where to save some money in the budget. 22 MR. HOLEKAMP: Commissioner Williams and I -- 23 and I probably dropped the ball as much as anybody, is we -- 24 we want to still do some restrooms for parks, but we need to 25 visit with people. 8-24-05 bwk 269 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's in -- where is 2 that? 3 MR. HOLEKAMP: You got that in another line. 4 I don't have that. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's in another 6 budget someplace. And I'll tell you what, Glenn. I'm kind 7 of waiting on you to get your strength back. 8 MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, yeah. And I appreciate 9 that. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we can engage in 11 another discussion. Commissioner Letz and I had a 12 discussion with the River Star Park folks. 13 MR. HOLEKAMP: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you and I have 15 had this discussion, too. If there's any way we can figure 16 out how to get that restroom up in a closer proximity to the 17 River Star Arts Park, it would benefit everybody, as opposed 18 to trying to put it down in the park and having all those 19 risks and problems that you've outlined before. 20 MR. HOLEKAMP: Absolutely, yes. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So I think, you know, 22 when you get to feeling a little bit better, we can do that, 23 try to figure out if there is a solution there. 24 MR. HOLEKAMP: And I tried twice now, or 25 three times to have a conversation in generalities with Bob 8-24-05 bwk 270 1 Miller. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, Jon and I did. 3 MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, y'all did? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 5 MR. HOLEKAMP: He was kind of covered up when 6 I tried to talk to him, because he had lost a secretary, or 7 she had left, and -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, they're kind of 9 in flux also in terms of facilities. They want to do a 10 small pavilion. 11 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And -- but they also 13 have major plans for a larger pavilion. 14 MR. HOLEKAMP: Uh-huh. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the location of 16 those two things is different in the park. 17 MR. HOLEKAMP: Uh-huh. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you know, our 19 thought has always been to have it toward the rear of the 20 park, which is closer to the sewer connection. 21 MR. HOLEKAMP: Great. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we just need to 23 sit down and brainstorm it. 24 MR. HOLEKAMP: Be glad to. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let them get Peter 8-24-05 bwk 271 1 Lewis, their architect, involved in it and see where it 2 takes us. 3 MR. HOLEKAMP: Let me know. I'm, I think, 4 strong enough to have a meeting with Bob. I'll be glad to 5 sit down with you and we'll go over it. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think I'm going to 7 ask the Court to keep that number in place for next year. 8 MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we'll take it 10 whenever you get to -- 11 MR. HOLEKAMP: Like I said, it's not in my 12 budget. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's here someplace. 14 MR. HOLEKAMP: But the fuel was the only 15 thing that I had. And then, of course, it's not on -- on 16 this part of the agenda, but I -- the Juvenile Detention 17 maintenance thing's still open, my budget on that one, on 18 the maintenance end of it. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's open on everyone's 20 budget. 21 MR. HOLEKAMP: I figured that. So I'm going 22 to leave that until we get to that area, and then we can 23 discuss it. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 25 MR. HOLEKAMP: Have any other questions? 8-24-05 bwk 272 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think so. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't find 4 County-sponsored or City/County. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Trying to find where 6 I've got that -- where do I have that restroom and the lake 7 cleanup and all that? Which one is that? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: That's Fund 31. It's a 9 separate fund, 'cause it's -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: L.C.R.A. grant. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: That was where we used the 12 L.C.R.A. grant moneys. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was for the 14 restroom. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. But -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What about the lake 17 cleanup we budgeted this year? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: It's also in there too. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. We don't have 20 that in here in our book? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: You should. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it's in here 23 somewhere. Was it 61 -- 24 MR. TOMLINSON: It's 31, is the number of the 25 fund. It's called just Parks. 8-24-05 bwk 273 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We looked at it the other 2 day, I remember. I thought we looked at it with Leonard. 3 MR. HOLEKAMP: On that bridge thing. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it's under that 5 with the bridge. 6 MR. HOLEKAMP: The money. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Under -- three of the parks 9 are listed; Flat Rock, Lions, and Ingram Lake, so there's -- 10 there's accounts set up for each park. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know where it is. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Not under Road and Bridge, is 13 it? 14 MR. HOLEKAMP: No, huh-uh. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it's a separate 16 page. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: No, it's by itself. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What are you looking 19 for? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Parks. Or -- 21 MR. HOLEKAMP: Not 515, the other one. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe it's back under 23 Commissioners Court or Nondepartmental or somewhere. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Here it is, Page 25 102. 8-24-05 bwk 274 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh? 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 102. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: What -- under what tab? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioners Court. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under Commissioners 6 Court, right where it ought to be. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We were looking 9 everywhere, including the Probation Department. Okay, I'll 10 find it. Here it is. Hey. Well, and that 78,150 was going 11 to be the lake cleanup this year, and I'm going to come 12 before the Court next month with a requested budget 13 transfer, because we're trying to build that bridge across 14 Third Creek, and Leonard's going to need some money for 15 piers and abutments. So, the question is, what do we want 16 to have in there for next year? I also talked to Leonard 17 about taking another look at trying to figure out how to get 18 the pipes out of the lake. There's two huge pipes out 19 there. They belong to us; they're our county property, and 20 they've been in there so long that I guess the tubes have 21 filled up with gravel and debris and everything else. You 22 can't -- you can't drag them. But if they're going to get 23 out, they're going to have to be cut and pulled apart and 24 taken out, so Leonard's going to take a look at that again 25 and give me some ideas. And if any of you guys got any 8-24-05 bwk 275 1 ideas, now's the time to lay them out there. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I'd sure come closer to 3 trusting Leonard's judgment than I would my own. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Me too. That goes 5 for two of us. The thought occurred to him, maybe we could 6 figure out a way to cut the pipes, torch them and cut them 7 in pieces and dislodge them that way, and winch them into 8 shore. He's going to check on that. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Does he know how much the 10 bridge is going to be? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much the bridge 12 is going to be? 13 MR. HOLEKAMP: Those piers. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Abutments and piers? 15 I think he's thinking somewhere around 35,000, isn't he, 16 Jon? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably 35,000. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, somewhere in 19 the range of 25, 35. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Can he do that this year? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's having a hard time. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If he can't get it 24 done this year, then I sure want to carry those dollars over 25 next year. 8-24-05 bwk 276 1 MR. TOMLINSON: That -- so we need to have 2 that 35 if he can't do it this year. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think he's having a 4 hard time getting a contractor. 5 MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, he is? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He can't get a cement 7 bid. Everybody's busy and -- 8 MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, yeah. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Of course, the cost 10 of steel and concrete goes up every single day. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He had a deal worked out 12 with the contractor that's going to do the new bridge in 13 Comfort; not the Hermann Sons, the -- 14 MR. HOLEKAMP: The High Street bridge? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The High Street bridge. 16 But that bridge got postponed. 17 MR. HOLEKAMP: I heard. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that contractor's no 19 longer coming up here, so he couldn't pick that up. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, he contacted 21 Butler trying to see if Butler -- 'cause Butler's done 22 concrete work for him before, and Butler hasn't gotten back 23 to him yet. So -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 25 MR. HOLEKAMP: I had Butler look at the job 8-24-05 bwk 277 1 originally over there. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway, we need to 3 put 35,000 in Flat Rock? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if it's -- 5 yeah, if it's going to be in the next year budget, it will 6 be 35, plus -- well, Tommy, in this 78, though, isn't the 7 restroom in that 78 as well? 8 MR. HOLEKAMP: No. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: No, I don't think so. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're under -- 11 MR. HOLEKAMP: The 78 was the original amount 12 of the dredging. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, let's 14 think in terms of 35 for next year for trying to get the 15 pipes out. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, 35 for next year for 17 the bridge. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: The bridge. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then another -- what, 20 another 25 to get the pipes out? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, I'm sorry. 22 Yeah, 35 for the bridge. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And 25 for the pipes? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Sixty. 8-24-05 bwk 278 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sixty. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're at 60. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that presupposes we 4 don't get the -- any of that done this year out of the 5 current -- rolling the money back -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It goes into reserves and 8 back in. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The last thing we have 12 today, I believe we talked about City, talked about the 13 airport. We didn't talk about recycling, but we don't spend 14 any money on recycling, correct? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: We own that facility, and the 17 City operates it, and that doesn't cost us anything. But we 18 don't get any money off of it either. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Permanent Improvements. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jon, a revenue 21 source. A revenue source, Jon. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the last thing that I 23 see that we have is library, which is the next tab, next 24 page. Keep going and we get to library. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By golly, there it 8-24-05 bwk 279 1 is. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: 323, less 201. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: I said 323, less 201. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hey, I like that 6 scenario. I don't think that'll fly. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: You're under 2? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The last piece of paper. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The last one under 2. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm not sure I've got 12 it. I got Permanent Improvements. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right after that. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I -- I run out of snuff 15 there. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You shortchanged 17 yourself. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have 19 anything after -- I got Page 125 as my last page. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's currently 323, 21 Judge. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 83. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh, okay. 8-24-05 bwk 280 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 323, less 201. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm up a stump here. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: How many you got? Yeah, these 6 page numbers don't run -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You haven't heard 8 anything, Dave? 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've been trading 10 phone calls with Davis to try to sit down and talk about it. 11 But also, I recall that in the city -- previous City 12 Manager's last communication with us, he said that that 13 was -- before he moved on down the career ladder, he said 14 that -- that we would get the budget at the same time City 15 Council got it. Well, I don't think we did. I think they 16 got it and ruled on it. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They just approved 18 their budget. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Tuesday night, yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 300,000. Keep going that 21 direction. Maybe they'll start looking at it right. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I was thinking about 23 subtracting 201,000. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what Tommy 25 recommended, but that's a little bit -- 8-24-05 bwk 281 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a little 2 drastic. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a little 4 obvious. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 300? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 300. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, at some point 8 maybe they'll get the message that they need to live up to 9 their contract. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We haven't had any 11 meeting on Animal Control, either. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe Janie heard 13 something, 'cause I heard out there there's a message for 14 you to call Janie about something from the City on Animal 15 Control. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And she said it wasn't 18 bad. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wasn't bad? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It wasn't bad. So, I 21 presume they're looking at it, and it looks like the -- 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If I talk to them, I 23 need to say the contract is great, but -- that's what we 24 want, but we want to cover some small matter of 25 administrative expenses. 8-24-05 bwk 282 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And administrative cost 2 is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $6,000, 3 their part of it. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 6,000. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Six. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know we ought to have 8 that spreadsheet. We've looked at it a lot of different 9 ways. It's, you know, looking at the size of that budget 10 compared to the County budget and the number of employees 11 versus number of employees in other departments. Either 12 way, it comes out real close, what the percentage should be. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do we have left 14 to grapple with next week besides Juvenile Detention 15 Facility? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I was planning on doing 17 a posting that would allow us to consider any department 18 budget, and then specifically address salary issues. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: New computer? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Capital outlays. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Personnel increases or 22 merit. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Personnel, yeah. Personnel 24 matters, including, you know, salary. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: COLA and merit. 8-24-05 bwk 283 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, all of that stuff. 2 Kathy's got some notes that I just rattled off the top of my 3 head. But, basically, my intention was to allow us to go 4 back into any particular department's budget for any 5 particular purpose, but then as a general matter, to 6 consider the -- the major items of personnel, COLA, capital 7 outlay, all of those things, salary increases. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's next Wednesday? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I understand we've 10 all tentatively got plugged in. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are we doing Monday? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: We've got a special 13 Commissioners Court meeting beginning at 1:30 to handle a 14 couple issues that must be done before the end of the month. 15 Then we've got the health benefits -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: -- workshop beginning at 2:00. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What time do we meet 19 on Wednesday? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nine. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: 9 o'clock, I think. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, between now 23 and then, I'm going to be meditating on the benefits of a 24 16-bed preadjudicated facility merged into the Juvenile 25 Probation Department. 8-24-05 bwk 284 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to wait 2 till I see the spreadsheet. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I want to look at the 4 spreadsheet. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before I start 6 meditating any more than I already have. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We have not yet seen 8 the numbers, the bottom line numbers lined up side-by-side. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we haven't seen 10 scenarios run on a most likely case of occupancy, truly. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Kind of like, "Trust 12 me." Let's quit. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We done, Judge? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: There -- have you talked 15 about the mile -- the mileage rate? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. We need another 17 thing on the agenda. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We need to talk about 19 that. 20 (Ms. Mitchell handed a note to Commissioner Letz.) 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That answers that 22 question. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Now you're safe. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where does that come 25 up, mileage rate? Mileage reimbursement rate. 8-24-05 bwk 285 1 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. I think it's 2 just your decision, but I know the State just went to 40.5. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the federal 4 also. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, it did go up to that? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: That's what we're paying 7 Kevin's people now. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is also the 9 federal standard. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Is it? I didn't know. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Didn't know it was federal 13 standard, but I knew the state did. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 40.5. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I remember when they 16 were getting 6 cents and making money off of it. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can't do it any more. 18 You barely break even at 40. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we need to look at 20 the other -- all that other stuff that's in our budget book. 21 You know, the holidays, all those -- scheduling, the rules 22 and procedures and all that kind of stuff has to be -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we need to do that in a 24 workshop status? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to go 8-24-05 bwk 286 1 through it. I think we have a tendency to not spend much 2 time on that, just kind of put it in the book and don't 3 think about it, and we end up with these problems with 4 holidays being on the wrong day. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, every year 6 since I've been here. And you can't do it right. If you 7 coincide with the school district, somebody doesn't like 8 that. If we don't do that, somebody else -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Don't have any holidays. 10 Okay, gentlemen. Anything else? Let's fold it up. We 11 stand adjourned. 12 (Budget workshop adjourned at 4:49 p.m.) 13 - - - - - - - - - - 14 STATE OF TEXAS | 15 COUNTY OF KERR | 16 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 17 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 18 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 19 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 20 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 18th day of January, 21 2006. 22 23 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 24 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 25 Certified Shorthand Reporter 8-24-05 bwk