1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Budget Workshop (Reconvened)
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
8:30 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
Reconvened from Monday, Auqust 16, 2004
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
3
by
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
August 17, 2004
PAGE
Budget Workshop
Sheriff's Department 3
Road and Bridge 52
County Engineer 88
Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLA's) 114
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Tuesday, August 17, 2004, at 8:30 a.m., the Monday,
August 16, 2004 budget workshop of the Kerr County
Commissioners Court was reconvened in the Commissioners'
Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the
following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me reconvene the workshop
which was originally posted for Monday, the 16th of August,
at 8:00 a.m. We recessed that meeting a bit before 9:00
that same morning, to be reconvened here this morning at
8:30, and it's a bit after that time right now. So that the
Court will have some idea of where we are schedule-wise, the
reporter and I are due to handle mental health hearings at
the State Hospital at 9 o'clock, so we're going to have to
pick up and go in adequate time to make it out there by
9 o'clock. And what you choose to do during that period of
time, certainly, y'all can carry on, continue, whatever, or
we can recess until late this morning or this afternoon,
whichever -- whichever may be your choice. But I just
wanted to put you on notice about that, that the reporter
and I will be leaving a little bit before 9:00 in order to
make those mental health hearings. The -- the Auditor
printed out the new draft of the proposed budget with the
personnel items included. I know Commissioner Letz was here
yesterday afternoon when they finally got ahold of them, and
8-17-04 wk
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
he and I got ours. I think it was -- y'all probably didn't
get y'all's till this morning, unless you snuck in in the
middle of the night and got them, so I don't know what
degree of opportunity you've had to look over them, but
that's what we'll be working off of, presumably. So, that
being the case, we've got about 10 or 15 minutes before the
reporter and I leave, so what's your pleasure, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My feeling -- I mean,
I -- I don't know if anyone else went through it. I went
through almost all of it, but I didn't get it earlier. I
think the purpose of the meeting is to go through it. I saw
very few changes overall between what was requested by the
department heads and elected officials and the Judge's
recommendations. There's a few areas. I saw a few of them
I have a question on, and I was -- I'd like to have the
Judge present for those. But I think the majority of it --
I mean, the four Commissioners probably need to go through
it and kind of get up to speed to where the Judge was, and
then Friday, you know, have an idea what we really need to
discuss. That would be my thoughts. And if -- you know,
certainly, anyone -- you know, Road and Bridge and Rusty, I
know they're -- they thought we'd go through theirs today.
We can go through theirs while they're here first thing,
since they're present. I saw very few questions. I think
they're going to have what was recommended. And then, any
8-17-04 wk
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
questions that the Commissioners have, we can let those
elected officials know, see if they can be here on Friday,
try to knock a large part of it out. I think there's going
to be several areas that are going to take a lot of
discussion, and I think those -- you know, we just need to
identify them and then think about them and figure out a
time that we're going to go over that and get the people
that we need in the room with us and discuss it. That's my
thought.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Seems like a good
plan to me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like a good
plan to me. I have -- I have an issue that I want to lay on
the table that's going to take, I think, probably quite a
bit of time and some good discussion. Nothing
earth-shattering. It's just a little study that I have done
on the Sheriff's Office, and I kind of wanted to make a
presentation and give -- get rolling on a Q and A with the
Sheriff, and just have a visit. And, so, if you would allow
me to do that, it will --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Anybody opposed to do
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's do it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Crank it up.
8-17-04 wk
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Start out with the
Sheriff, then.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why don't we start out
with the Sheriff?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good idea.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thanks.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, you're first.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I guess so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You going to let me do
mine?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would appreciate
that. What I've done -- you know, we talk -- we talk so
much in here about comparing things and looking at outside
things and trying to -- trying to find a way to get apples
and apples, and as we all know, and we've learned through
the years that it's extremely difficult to do. But I --
I've always wondered, in the back of my mind, what crime
costs the citizens of Kerr County and how much crime we
really have, et cetera, et cetera. So, I took it upon
myself to take a look at that, and what I did was -- and as
we're doing this, I'll pass these around. What I did is, I
contacted the Department of Public Safety and asked them for
the amount of crime in Kerr County for the last ten years,
and actually that's from 1993 to 2003, and we took -- took
8-17-04 wk
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the amount of crime, and then we took the annual budget for
the Sheriff's Office in each of those years and divided one
into the other, and came up with a figure that is the
And if you -- you'd look -- go past the
little graph, and, like, the second page on -- the second
page is the report for 1993. And what they've done here is,
they've listed seven different types of crime. Now, this --
this is the report that the State has. I have, last week,
sat down with Rusty and Clay in his office and presented all
of this to him so he would have a heads-up and wouldn't feel
like that he's being blindsided, and I don't have any
intentions of that at all. I just think this is a super
great tool for us to have a -- a good discussion about what
law enforcement is, what it does and how much it costs in
Kerr County. But on Page 2, if you look at the 1993 report,
it is really self-explanatory, and you can see the -- you
can see across the top the seven different types of crime;
burglary, larceny, auto theft, murder, rape, robbery, and
assault, and then it just goes down the list. The first, I
think, five there are the only things that we need to be
interested in. From there on, it gets into the city of
Kerrville and the city of Ingram, et cetera.
I'll give you an example. In 1993, it shows
that there were 177 burglaries, so you can take that and add
8-17-04 wk
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
all those numbers up as you go across, and you go back to
your front page, the graph, and you see that there were 495
incidents of crime in 1993. And the annual budget that year
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $1.6 million.
JUDGE TINLEY: 1.6.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $1,600 per incident.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $1,641 per incident.
And as you go down through there, looking at this, looking
at this information that we have today that came from D.P.S.
and the Kerr County budget, you'll see that it appears that
the cost goes way up and the rate of crime goes way down.
And then, in 2001 and 2002, it's gone back up considerably,
but then again it drops back down. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I ask a question,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why -- is there a reason
that there's a break here? It appears that the scale is
different on the lower graph than the upper graph. Am I --
MS. MITCHELL: I can answer that, since I'm
the one that did the graph. It's because it's two different
graphs. It had to be done on two different graphs, and it
just measures out the -- the numbers from the top to the
bottom, and that's why it shows it that way. It's whatever
8-17-04 wk
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
numbers you plug in, is what the graph shows.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, I see.
MS. MITCHELL: So -- but it's two
different -- it had to be done as two different graphs,
because I couldn't fit it all on one, using one graph.
JUDGE TINLEY: The scale, if she continued,
would have come right on off over the page.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is pretty
helpful. The -- the number of crimes is county -- Kerr
County-wide?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, Kerr County
Sheriff's Office.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And cost of law
enforcement is Kerr Sheriff's Department only?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, to get -- so, it
cost us $5,611 for major crimes last year, but it would not
be unreasonable to add the cost of the two police
departments to this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, and you could do
that. All those numbers are in here as well.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to --
the Sheriff's the only thing I deal with here.
8-17-04 wk
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One other question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the -- the -- I
think, to get a truer picture, it should be adjusted for
inflation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which -- I mean, which I
don't -- I mean, I don't think you did. Maybe you did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did not. Did not.
And you're --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would change it some,
but it's not going to change the trend, clearly. But it
would make the 1993 numbers bigger, but even if you doubled
them, you're still at $3,200, which is far less than we're
paying right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I did not do that,
and -- but this was the closest I could get to really trying
to get apples and apples. Now, you're fixing to hear that
it suddenly changes to apples and oranges, and he's got a
great story to tell. And at this time, Rusty, get after it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: First off,
Mr. Nicholson, just to clarify one thing, the crimes that
are reported there, the 438 is not including the crimes
inside the city. It's just Kerr County Sheriff's
Department.
8-17-09 wk
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if a murder
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, that's clear.
This is -- this is apples and apples.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: These are just county
offenses.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Should be.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The big difference is --
is that, as you can tell, these are only seven crimes.
These are what's called our U.C.R. report, Uniform Crime
Report. It goes to Austin and to the federal government
every year. The assaults on there are a little misleading.
That is aggravated assaults, not -- not just your family --
none of your family violence.
JUDGE TINLEY: Felony assaults.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Felony assaults.
Aggravated assaults, okay? The rapes are -- under the old
law, the rapes are only forcible rape, male on female. They
are not any of your kids, sexual assaults, or any of your --
your other stuff. It's male-on-female forcible rapes. So,
those are -- are a difference in there. But, again, it is
just seven crimes as reported through U.C.R.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many different
categories of crime are there?
8-17-04 wk
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thousands.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thousands.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thousands?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. Okay? And they
only pick out the seven to report throughout the country.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The seven being the
ones that are most likely to be --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The more --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Show up in a
statistical --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Your more notorious-type
crimes, okay, is what they really pick. So that's not an
accurate reflection of crime, nor can it really accurately
be divided into what the County's budget is or the Sheriff's
Department budget to get an actual figure. The figures are
-- you have to go back to calls for service, all right? Not
only are none of your criminal mischiefs, none of your --
your credit card abuse, any of that kind of stuff is never
counted in -- in any of this stuff. The other thing is,
neither is the -- and my philosophy is, and what we went
back to when I first started as Sheriff, was we put "To
serve and protect" back on the patrol cars. Law enforcement
is in the "to serve and protect" business. It's not just
investigating crime.
8-17-04 wk
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
If my guys are driving down the highway and
some lady has a flat tire, they're going to stop and help
change that tire. If horses or cattle are loose, they've
got to stop and deal with that. Some of those take a long
period of time. If you've got an estray deal where a horse
or cow's on someone else's property and you can't find the
owner, you have to go through and search the brand records,
everything else, have animals picked up, have them sold at
auction. Animal Control, thank goodness, for the last four
years has been great in helping us do that kind of stuff,
but you have all that. You may have a prowler call, which
is very common, over at one of your houses. An officer's
going to respond there; he's going to check out that whole
area, make sure there's not a prowler. None of those kind
of statistics are in any of this information. So, the
majority of our stuff is -- is not in these.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question, Rusty.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I
you're saying, but, you know, percentage
looking at apples versus apples, because
included in '93 and they're not included
unless there's a major shift in the type
county, this still gives a -- a snapshot
understand what
-wise, you're still
they weren't
in 2003. So,
of crime in the
of, you know, a lot
25 ~ of what your department does.
8-17-04 wk
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I really -- I really
disagree with that, because even then, the expense of
investigating crimes, general -- you know, the techniques
and forensics of it. Nowadays, if you had a -- had a murder
and you didn't go out and look for hairs and fibers and DNA
and actually do that type of -- of investigation, you know,
you -- you're falling down on the job. Back in '93, there
was no such thing as DNA or the hairs and fibers, and you
just kind of flew by the seat of your pants doing an
investigation. So, the cost of doing a thorough
investigation and providing thorough law enforcement, all in
all -- maybe that's what you're getting to, Jonathan, but
that's gone up, no matter what any of us do, if you want to
do a thorough investigation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In -- there was a
reduction -- pretty substantial reduction in the cost per
incident in 2003 versus 2001 and 2002. Is that because of
the several capital murders that were committed in 2000 --
when was the Seard murder?
JUDGE TINLEY: No. What the -- what the
difference is, is in the increased number of incidents.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: Went from 355 to 438, which is
a pretty significant increase. That brought the average
cost down.
8-17-09 wk
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And then the other thing
you have is -- and you hope -- I know if you look in 2000,
ours started changing, okay, quite a bit from all the years
before. That's because U.C.R. reporting has to be done
every month. It's about eight different forms. It all has
to be filled out. There is a large matter of interpretation
on how your people are trained to do it. A lot of agencies
don't report things that probably should be reported. A lot
of agencies do report things that shouldn't be reported, and
so a lot -- that takes a big effect. Now, in 2000, after I
took office, we intentionally sent personnel to the State's
U.C.R. reporting school, made sure we were doing it right,
and that started changing our numbers drastically on how we
were reporting it, because I think it needs to be done
correctly if you're going to report it.
To give you an idea, though, and I have it --
in -- in '99, our calls for service -- where you're showing
in '99 here 300 crimes, our calls for service in 1999 was
8,458. This last year, where you're showing 438 crimes, in
2003, our calls for service in 2003 up to right about now,
one-year period, was just a little over 12,000. So, if you
take 12,000, start dividing it into the cost of the
Sheriff's Department, you may get a little bit more
apples-to-apples and what law enforcement costs for the
county.
8-17-04 wk
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me interrupt, if I might.
It's about 10 minutes till. The reporter and I need to
leave. The sense of it I have is that you folks want to
continue, so we'll leave you, and when we get through, we'll
be back and we'll pick up where we come in, I guess.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, he'll still be
talking when you get back, believe me.
(Judge Tinley and the court reporter left the
budget workshop at 8:50 a.m. and returned at
9:40 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we come back to
order? We were on a short break. The reporter and myself
are back now after a brief intermission, so where were we?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If I may start where I
left off --
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're done with the --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, we're not done with
that. The --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nice try.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The one thing, all in
all, Jonathan, that this would do is put -- out of the two
S.R.O.'s, just one staying in the school, she's just a
D.A.R.E. officer, okay? One of those D.A.R.E. officers,
instead of just being a patrol officer during the summer
8-17-04 wk
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
months, would be a full-time patrolman, okay, and the other
one would go into an investigative position to add that --
bump that investigative -- investigators up to help reduce
that case load they have. All right? So that's where that
is. We would end up with -- the way even Barbara gave y'all
on the -- on the employee scale, and with the way I had
figured it, after December -- after January 1st, we could
end up with one additional patrol officer. The reason for
that is, we've had one that's been out on worker's comp for
almost two years now, and that's a discussion I won't get
into, but he is still on the salary scale. He is still
figured into the salary and everything with him. After my
term of office expires December 31st, the County does not
have to keep providing that. So -- and it's figured into
the budget. I would like to add one more to a patrol
position then. That would give us a total on every patrol
shift, okay, of six officers. And compensating on training
and all -- and vacation and that, it would put five officers
normally working patrol for the 1,100 square miles of the
county.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't understand. Why
do we need to add a position if the one who's holding that
worker's comp slot's getting freed up?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're not adding a
position. I will be able to add a body under the same
8-17-04 wk
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't change the
salary.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Doesn't change any of
the figures that we're looking at.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've been paying for an
absent body there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. And, in reality,
without adding any new manpower to the department, okay, to
what's budgeted, it allows me to add an investigator and to
add two patrolmen. All right? Without any new manpower.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just for what's it's
worth, Rusty, I noticed this before and never had an
opportunity to comment on it. Looks like you have six
officers off on worker's comp?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just one?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have one officer
that's been off on worker's comp. I have a couple others
that are assigned to light duty because of shoulder injury.
One other during -- got a shoulder injury during an arrest;
he is still working.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I may be misreading
this. Golden, Schultz, McHorse, Wahl, and Johnson are not
off on worker's comp?
8-17-04 wk
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just got one?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I just have one. Some
are on light duty. I have a patrolman that -- the shoulder
injury, that he is assigned to assist with investigations
and -- and evidence, because he cannot work full-time till
he gets through that injury.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a
question about this worker's comp thing. You said you're
not going to go there, but I am. I always understood the
worker's comp law, that a person has a period of time, like
a two-year period; he gets well and comes back, or he's --
it's over. But you're saying that the law says that his
term of illness is tied with your term in office?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. Under
the Texas Constitution, there's a paragraph in there that
states law enforcement or deputy constables do get full
benefits, total --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Deputy constable?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mm-hmm.
AUDIENCE: Deputy Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Deputy Sheriff, deputy
constables continue to get full benefits until this
Sheriff/elected official's term of office expires, if
25 ~ they're unable to come back to work.
8-17-04 wk
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: An absolute shame.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have never heard of it
until I got into this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What if that person
just -- I mean, what if he gets well and goes off and gets
another job? We still pay?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: To be perfectly honest,
this person isn't even an employee of mine any more, okay?
But he's still carried on the payroll. The County's still
having to pay him. He's not even a certified peace officer
any more.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's sad. What --
what is he doing? Is he employed somewhere?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. He sells real
estate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's awful. That's
horrible. Are you sure that's the law?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. I went to a
hearing on it last month in San Antonio. I have another one
next month. It's been going on for two years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You may want to take
some of us with you to San Antonio next time.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They made me go back
out, lock my car up under escort -- or lock my gun up in the
car; they wouldn't let me in the building with it in San
8-17-04 wk
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Antonio.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, other than the salary
issue and the -- you're happy with the budget as it is right
now?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, the budget items.
The last thing that I would like to raise is salary.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're happy with
the budget. That includes capital?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Includes capital.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Talking about
capital, and you're satisfied with it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I am satisfied with
everything that the Judge has come up with on his
recommendations in the budget until we get to salary.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the capital items --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: May I finish salaries
real quick? I got the one last part.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're still on Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The one group of
employees that I think the County has been lax on for a long
time, okay -- not y'all, not just this Court; it's just that
way -- is our secretaries and clerks. I know I had an
opening for the chief -- chief secretary, administrative
secretary for Criminal Investigation Division, and I had
8-17-04 wk
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
another County employee want to go apply for it, okay,
that's been a County employee. And when that County
employee found out that that County employee was already
making more than my administrative secretary and would have
taken about a $6,000 to $8,000 cut to apply for that
administrative Criminal Investigation Division secretary,
you can imagine what happened. "No, I think I'll stay where
I'm at." And that was another clerk that was going to apply
for that position. One clerk to another clerk, and there
was about a $6,000 to $8,000 reduction.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Again, you and I
talked about this the other day, but I think the problem
is -- is that person is not classified properly.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Our secretaries -- well,
I don't know what it is. That's the way the Court set out
the classification throughout the year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Classification.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay? So I don't go in
and try and change classifications until we get to budget
time and that. But even if classification wouldn't happen,
what I would like to see for all the secretaries and clerks
inside the Sheriff's Department that would put them up equal
with a lot of the other ones around the county, even in
other County departments, would be to add an
across-the-board raise of $3,000, plus the cost -- the COLA.
8-17-04 wk
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I think that would put our secretaries up, and clerks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we talking about your
two -- your 14-level positions?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, just the 12. If you
look at our --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The two 14's and the --
three 14's and two 12's?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. And then my
administrative one also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Administrative is
19?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. I'm talking
across-the-board to keep it equivalent between all of them,
just across-the-board to $3,000, and 2.5 COLA.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe, on the 12's,
didn't we -- I thought we tried to raise all the 12's to
15's last year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We did.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But it didn't --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's a
classification issue. I mean, I don't know that I would
just throw money -- "X" amount of dollars at somebody. I
think we stay in that classification.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. You change the 12
to a -- what it needs to be.
8-17-04 wk
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 14 or 15 or whatever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 14 or 15.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But then you're also --
the only -- the only drawback I see in just doing it that
way -- and, I mean, 12's definitely need to come up; there's
no doubt. But there's also -- it's kind of like what
happens between the chief deputy and my salary every year,
okay? And is going to happen this year again, all right?
If he gets his increases like he should and does every year,
the chief deputy's salary will go back above the Sheriff's
salary. And if you're not -- if what --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And there's something
wrong with that?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He doesn't want to have
to work that hard.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And your point is?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Have to buy a lot of
lunches to make up for that, Buster. What Commissioner
Nicholson did last year on the $3,000 and the -- and the
$1,500, the way that was done, kept the -- the groups at
where they probably should be in trying to keep the parity
between the groups and that, to keep them equal without
putting, you know, lower classified people above other ones.
So, I think that was good. But that's what -- what I feel
needs to be done with the -- the clerks and secretaries on
8-17-04 wk
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that also going to
be included in our sheet?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. Yes, it will be
included in your sheet today. But that's what I'm going --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's going to get --
they're going to get a sheet to Kathy on what exactly he's
asking for on his employees.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that's the essence
of what I had, Jonathan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before you go to the
jail, on your capital outlay --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- $44,000 for vehicles
and work truck?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER:
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
JUDGE TINLEY: Sher
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER:
yes, for vehicles and work truck.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
vehicles is that?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER:
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
Jail?
Sheriff.
iff.
Okay. No, that is --
Okay. That's -- how many
Four.
That's a total of four
8-17-04 wk
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
vehicles?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER:
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER:
and the work truck. The work truc
the initial year, but you're still
come up on it.
Four vehicles.
Three patrol?
No, four patrol vehicles
k's already been done on
going to have a payment
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And those are all -- so,
it's four new vehicles, and just rotate them into this
system?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. That will be the
initial payment on four patrol cars, and would have been the
initial payment on the work truck. Now it'll be the second
payment, I guess, on the work truck.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, four new patrol cars,
and then you'll rotate and -- as we have been.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where are we?
Capital items?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And if you'd
have been in here, your calculator would have burned up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What does he want
now?
AUDIENCE: Money.
JUDGE TINLEY: Only takes money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's all it takes.
8-17-04 wk
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where's jail?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Forward a couple pages.
It's Page 42. Again, as I see it, the only questions I
really had on it were what you want to do -- your request is
on the jail side, salaries, and capital outlay. Everything
else was pretty much what the Judge recommended -- what you
recommended or requested.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Salaries, we just went
through what my request is on those. That includes the
jail, the $2,000 and the cost-of-living across-the-board.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: For all of them, and
then part of that, the secretaries would also fall in there,
'cause there are two in the jail.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Capital outlay, what
that is, it's time to replace the camera system inside the
jail. We had talked about that; one of the vendors came up
and gave y'all the demonstration here. We went through some
serious problems. They gave me that one vendor; we got bids
from three different vendors. One of them was 200-something
thousand. One was 300-something thousand. And then the
vendor y'all met, I got it from him broke down in three
different stages. To replace just the recording equipment,
8-17-04 wk
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
try and use our own cameras and not add any additional
cameras that are going to end up having to be added
eventually, was $39,000. And why I'm saying they're going
to have to be added, this is the 2003 law on Prison Rape
Prevention Act passed by the -- by the federal government to
where you're going to have to monitor prisoners in every
area of the jail that they could possibly be at at any time
to prevent sexual assaults on inmates or hangings or
anything else.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, lots of that's going
to change. The State of Texas last year took the opinion
they required all the jails to send in how many cameras and
what it would take to comply with this new federal act. And
in that federal act it says there's a lot of money
available, okay? In checking into that money that's
available to see if we could possibly cover any of these
expenditures that are going to come down the line through
federal grants or anything else, I was informed by the
governor's office that, no, all that money available is only
to upgrade the federal prison system and the state
penitentiaries. It will not be available to counties, okay?
So, that's -- that's where we stood. So, the very basic --
just to replace equipment, not really expand our ability to
monitor better, is $39,000. Replace all that equipment.
8-17-04 wk
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The second bid was to replace some of the
cameras that would have to be replaced, and to try and use
some of our old cameras that are not digital cameras, but
they're VHS, as he was showing y'all out here in the parking
lot that day, but does not add all the new cameras that have
to be added. That cost was $85,000. The third bid from
this same vendor to replace everything, do the whole match,
everything that was needed, and bring it totally up to
standards where we can actually monitor people in every area
of the jail and get it where it should be is $141,000. The
Judge and I, in talking about it, felt that if we're going
to have to do it, you might as well get it done, okay? So
there's $141,000 in the jail's capital outlay that is for
that expenditure. That's what's figured in. The other --
about $6,000 in there is miscellaneous, such as a food cart
that might have to be replaced or a violent chair that may
have to be replaced that we have those capital outlay
expenditures, or computer.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, this requirement
that's been laid on us by the feds to have all this in
place, that's required to be in place, is it not, January 1,
'06?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm not positive of the
date. The State of Texas still hasn't -- they're going to
meet in the next Legislature, and I guess they've been
8-17-04 wk
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
compiling all the figures, okay? The -- the date I've heard
is January 1, '06, all right? But I don't know right now;
it's all in the federal part of it, that they're having to
get it all done in the state penitentiaries and the federal
deals, and they say the jails will have to, but I haven't
heard a finalized date. And this jail that we're in now
wasn't like our jail that we had over here. When this jail
was built, there was not cameras put into the cell -- living
areas, okay? Of course, there was a privacy issue back
then. There's certain areas that you have to have that a
camera wouldn't cover in a cellblock, but -- other than
areas where it will be like it used to be in this old jail.
But the new -- newer jail that we have out there, the only
cameras are down the hallways and inside, like, the kitchen
or the multi-function room. There are no cameras anywhere
near inside any of the cell blocks, and this will require
that they be done.
And there's also an area where all the
incoming inmates are searched and things taken away from
them, what we call a little safety vestibule. When officers
arrest them, bring them in jail, the jailer meets them there
and they search them, and that's normally where all the
fights take place, because when you go to try and empty this
guy's pocket and he's got a pocketful of dope, he don't want
to give it up. You're there in a fight. That needs to be
8-17-04 wk
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on camera and reported, as far as a liability issue and
everything else on that situation. But that's the cost to
redo it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I was thinking
somewhat along the same lines. If it's not until '06, we
don't have to fund it this year. At least not totally this
year.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We do not need to.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My second question
would be -- or comment would be, are you talking about in
terms of new equipment, or -- I hope you're talking about
digital cameras, and not the older models.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, it would be
digital, just as the -- as y'all were shown in the
demonstration out here. We do need to do something -- one
of those options this year. The reason I say that is,
number one, if I were to bring in a tape of the cameras
inside the jail and you try and view what went on in a
hallway where we had a fight, you could not make out even
the people involved. Our system is very inadequate in that.
As y'all know, last January we had a -- a serious incident
where, right outside the jail, in the perimeter where our
8-17-04 wk
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
patrol cars were parked and some of our investigators were
parked, New Year's Eve night, we had seven cars damaged.
And a lot of that, the actor was 30 feet from a camera.
It's lit up at night. You still could not even make out
what kind of car the actor pulled up underneath in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you talking about
hard-wired cameras in the jail, or are you talking about
portable cameras?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In the jail, they have
to be hard-wired cameras.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you going to have
to rewire what you've got? Or --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, but all that's in
these prices.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: All that's in these
prices. But, yes, you do have to rewire everything in that
jail.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does -- does the $85,000
figure get everything digital that you currently have?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Except for -- it's still
going to be using a number of the old cameras that are not
digital cameras. We're going to have to use a lot of the
old ones we have, and it will not put new cameras in all the
places that need to be put.
8-17-04 wk
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's kind of like --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's a halfway project.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Halfway?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. And, of course
prices on all that stuff are going to keep going up every
year, so it's just how much do you want to swallow now or
later?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But other than that, the
jail budget, between salaries and -- and letting y'all
decide where we go on the camera system, I have no -- no
problems at all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No problems at all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have a
question. It's kind of a sideline to -- but it deals with
jail. When we did the bonds years ago and built the jail,
five million-something-dollar jail, the bonds were sold to
the public that we wanted to build a jail large enough, 192
beds, to out -- to house outside prisoners; therefore, that
income would be earmarked to pay down the debt, and I'm
wondering if that's being done. And, as an example, Rusty,
do you have a number about how much --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, I do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that brings in
8-17-04 wk
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
annually from -- from outside prisoners?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir, I do. And
going back just a step -- thank you, Buster, for bringing
that up, because I will -- will mention that. In revenues
that -- whether they be through grants, donations, or
anything else that the Sheriff's Office has done in the last
four years, 'cause we do try and do as much as we can
progressively. Now, this does not count citations, tickets,
anything like that. The -- in reimbursement programs and
grants that will cover car videos and all that kind of
stuff, and -- and even -- we get -- we even apply for Social
Security Incentive Program. Any time a person's put in
jail, we notify Social Security; their Social Security
benefits are cut off until they get back out of jail. The
Parole Violator Program, if we arrest a parole violator
that's in a certain category of offense that he was on, we
get reimbursed for that. The profits we get out of that
commissary program, what they are. Now, they have to be
spent back on inmates, but all that revenue from civil
papers, what we charge attorneys and law firms to serve all
their civil papers, that comes back in.
Inmate telephone system revenue. And that
was really a lot lower than what I thought, but I think it
will go up now that the new system is in. And our LAOC
account, which is the Attorney General giving us some funds
8-17-04 wk
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for training of officers, depending on how many officers you
have in a department. Donations include things such as the
-- this year -- and one of the reasons I didn't question how
the Judge cut the first part of the investigative expense,
we added the new interview room, but the $10,000 I've been
running for investigative, we cut that down, because last
year all that -- all our photographs were 35-millimeter
photographs. You'll go through 100 rolls of 35-millimeter
film a week, okay, in taking photographs of -- of crime
scenes, of family violence stuff. All that has been changed
through a donation from the District Attorney's' office, the
198th D.A. His investigator does have an office out at our
Sheriff's Department with some of our people, so in return,
he assisted us. He bought us 13 digital cameras this year
and helped us get the -- as y'all know, the software program
to put them into Ableterm, so now we're all on digital
cameras. We still have some 35's for major crime scene, but
99 percent of our photographs are done digitally now at
crime scenes.
We had a donation from State Farm of 20
laptop computers. They were about $10,000. Now, we do not
have the wireless connection to be able to do like the City
does, where you can use TLETS or -- or local computer system
in the car, but it does give the officers, you know,
Microsoft Word, and they try and transfer those reports over
8-17-04 wk
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to the Ableterm/Software Group system. Donations to our
D.A.R.E. program. That D.A.R.E. program, except for her
salary on the officer that teaches D.A.R.E., none of these
supplies, nothing connected with D.A.R.E. is paid for by the
County. All the workbooks for 900 students, everything
else, is all done through donations. That line item doesn't
cost the County taxpayers anything. And donations through
our equipment fund, our total grants this year -- or in the
four years I've been there, is $909,514.96 that the County
has applied for and gotten grants for. Our miscellaneous
revenue, which a big part of this is exactly what Buster was
mentioning on our housing of inmates, our out-of-county
housing. Our out-of-county housing for the four years that
I have been --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Buster, what was your
question?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Inmate housing, how much
that was. Total of that for four years has been right at
$1, 632, 718.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's for how many
years?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Four years, since April
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's external
8-17-04 wk
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
revenue?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's external revenue
coming in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: However, that
external revenue is on a per diem basis.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which you have told
this Court repeatedly is set so as to cover your costs of
operation.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The net of that means
that there's not very much left over that could be dedicated
to debt service.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I don't
necessarily totally agree with that. There is a large --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tell me where I'm
wrong.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There is a large amount
of that inmate housing -- like, this is not counting medical
reimbursement. If we're housing an inmate for another
county and he gets sick and goes to the hospital, true, we
pay that up front. That county reimburses Kerr County for
the costs of all that medical expense. If that inmate takes
an aspirin inside our jail, that other county gets charged
for that aspirin, okay?
8-17-04 wk
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are incidental.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That -- those
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's not in here.
Now, the other part of that is, we have cut as much as we
can and still stay within legal guidelines of the
dietitian-approved meal, okay? We had cut meal costs last
year; it was 89 cents. This year it's gone up because of
milk prices and bread prices, but at 89 cents a meal, okay,
and then you divide in the number of employees you have.
Now, the State Jail Commission requires one floor officer
per 48 inmates, so once we get to the average we have, all
right, even with the out-of-county inmates, we're still
going to have the same number of personnel, 'cause of those
increments -- those 48-inmate increments. We normally house
about 25 to 30 out-of-county inmates, so we're still past
that increment, so you're not saving on personnel costs.
What you would be saving on is three meals a day at 85 to 90
cents a meal. That's your cost of actually housing that
inmate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay? So, three meals a
day; say, a dollar. That's $3 a day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Means you're netting
$3 a day?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mm-hmm.
8-17-04 wk
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's true unless --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Per inmate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As long as your Kerr
County population -- you know, you go in those 48-people --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- increments. As long
as you're not a full -- long as we don't have more than 48
out-of-county.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only thing I do
then -- do when we get to that point is we cut off the other
counties bringing in more than we could have.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. What is our, I
guess -- let me rephrase the question. What is the average
number of out-of-county prisoners we have?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 25 to 30.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 25 or 30, okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is about average. And
we have contracts with four counties -- five counties.
But -- so you're not saving on personnel costs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're only saving on
meals.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I was getting at, if
your average was 50, well, then, do you have to include that
incremental --
8-17-04 wk
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You pay salaries, but you
don't if you're less than 50 -- less than 48.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's costing us actually
$3, 'cause we're going to pay the same utilities, the same
water bill, pretty well the same salaries, okay? All that's
not going to change. It's costing us an additional $3 a day
to house an out-of-county inmate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the question is,
there's a million-plus in the last four years that could
have gone to pay down the -- which would have paid off the
debt.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many years have we
had the jail?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It opened in '95 -- '96.
'96, it actually opened.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Six years?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Eight years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Eight years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But it didn't -- it
wasn't dedicated.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, in response to -- to
Commissioner Baldwin, there may have been some expectation
that there would be some additional revenue generated by
8-17-04 wk
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
out-of-county prisoners. The bonds that financed the
construction of that jail are, far as I know, general
obligation bonds; they're not revenue bonds.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which would require the
dedication of any revenue to be applied directly towards
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I don't think
there was any dedication. It was just the simple fact that
the public was told that.
JUDGE TINLEY: There was some anticipation
that additional revenues would be generated by incarcerating
out-of-county prisoners, sure.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The public was told that
back during all that, as Buster said, that we would build it
with 192 beds so that we could house out-of-county inmates
for a while to pay off the debt. When I took office, that's
exactly what we tried to do, was expand on our contracts and
put out-of-county inmates in that jail. Now, I drew the
line when it came to federal inmates. We could have made
more off federal inmates, but I will not house federal
inmates in this jail just for purposes of -- you saw, like,
Frio County. I won't do it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I wouldn't -- my
25 ~ reason to not house them would be that they won't give us
8-17-04 wk
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
some of our money back.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wouldn't deal with
them.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. Well, they would
pay a lot better daily rate to house an inmate, but the
other thing they wanted us to do was to do all their court
transports back and forth from here to San Antonio with
those federal inmates, and I'm not -- we don't have the
manpower. We don't -- our jail staff does not have that
kind of training to deal with those, so I would not house
them. Now, we do house the illegal aliens or the INS-type
holds and that for a very short period of time, normally
less than 24 hours. The other thing that -- on housing, is
the City of Kerrville does pay a per diem for any of their
arrests. The problem with that -- and the City of Kerrville
does not pay much at all in their per diem -- is they only
have to pay the County, by law, a per diem on city ordinance
violation inmates. If it's a city ordinance, then they have
to pay us to house that person for however long. If it is a
state statute violation, like a public intoxication, traffic
offense, whatever, that's a state statute violation. They
only have to pay until that person sees the judge. And a
magistrate is on duty every morning, so the very most the
City ever pays is one day per inmate.
8-17-09 wk
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Now, the other thing that they could do, if
they have an inmate -- an arrestee that gets injured while
they're making an arrest, or is involved in a wreck or is
hurt or whatever, you know, and they arrest this person, and
they have to take him to the hospital first, if they get a
magistrate over to that hospital and magistrate him, after
that magistrate's magistrated that person, the City officer
can leave and we have the responsibility to take care of
that inmate at the hospital. I don't know -- you know, and
that -- you never know how to draw your manpower. And my
jail staff is four on duty at a time, so anybody that goes
to the hospital and stays there, we have to call in extra
people to handle that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My point is that
you said that we couldn't get any federal money for our
cameras --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- because it's not a
federal facility. And that money that they won't send us is
our money that we have sent -- that the citizens of this
county have sent to Washington, and now they don't want to
give us our money back. I don't -- I'm not in favor of
housing their prisoners.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I agree with you.
And we do try and get as much of our money back as we can,
8-17-04 wk
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
such as the $909,000 in the four years we've gotten in
grants, okay? We do try and do that. But, grand total of
everything, revenues, not counting citations, that our
department has brought in in four years -- and I know our
budget's gone up, but I'd like this considered in it. Just
our fees -- and this isn't warrant fees that go directly to
the courts or any of that kind of stuff, or -- or citations
or anything -- is a total of $2,598,130.96 in extra things
we do out there to bring in the revenues and offset our
budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, you've come
before the Court on numerous occasions to tell us about the
increasing costs of -- to provide health care for inmates --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- on various and
sundry occasions when you have to take them to the hospital
and so forth, and I think we all recognize that as the case.
My question to you is, are there instances where you could
qualify those inmates for indigent care? And if so, do you
try to do that?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is Tommy in here? I
wish the Auditor was in here. Tommy and I had a meeting
that he set up with a company that, what they have done and
what they do -- and they are doing it for a large -- about
-- probably about close to half the counties in the state.
8-17-04 wk
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
You know, it costs the County about a thousand -- let me get
does is it classifies any person that is incarcerated, okay,
and does not have access to their funds -- which they don't;
we take everything away from them when they come into
jail -- as indigent inmates, and it only pays the Medicare
rate and the indigent rate of their hospital bill, okay?
Which would drastically cut down the cost for us on house --
on medical costs.
It's something that we have looked at. We
met with -- the Judge walked in during our meeting; we had
it here in this courtroom. And Tommy and I have talked
about it, and it will be on the agenda at some point for the
County and the Commissioners to look at to get a
demonstration of it and see how it works, and see if y'all
are willing to do that, because when you get into surgeries
and intensive care rooms and anesthesiologists, it is a
drastic cut. Tommy was going to send them one month of our
bills, whether they be prescription or -- or whatever.
We're spending now anywhere from $4,000 to $6,000 a month on
prescriptions. He was going to send them one month of our
bills and have them figure that into that system, and see
what that month's bills would actually cost under the
indigent care part of it, which is what it should be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reason I asked
8-17-04 wk
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
was because I know other counties are doing it.
for savings.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Large opportunity, and
it is coming before y'all. It is something that we need to
go to and we need to start doing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, there are some -- there
are some software costs, and there are some -- what's going
on right now is we're having the -- the outfit's name is
Indigent Health Care Solutions. They are analyzing what we
do in our Indigent Health Care program, and the preliminary
indication is, where we stand to save the most money is in
the jail context, not necessarily just with our Indigent
Health Care program. But what we're trying to do is look at
those savings based on a -- on a sample, and then, secondly,
take a look at the cost factors of what it's actually
costing us to administer our Indigent Health Care program,
'cause we got some fixed costs that go into that, too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: They're working those numbers
24 now.
25
8-17-04 wk
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. Thank you.
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And just -- I've pretty
well presented everything that I would like to present. I
would like to remind the Commissioners of the -- 'cause I
feel I would be amiss if I did not, because that group did a
very detailed yearlong study, the position and long-range
planning committee study that was done in 2004. And where
we are at this time, personnel-wise and salary-wise,
compared to that study -- which each of the Commissioners at
that time, except for Commissioner Nicholson wasn't on the
court then, and Judge Tinley, appointed their own
representative through their precinct to actually do this --
this study and this committee meeting. And we tried to do a
long-range plan so that the Court could see where the
Sheriff's Department needed to go.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it on-target or --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, way behind.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're way behind,
18 aren't we?
19
20 forgot it.
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We accepted it and
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're behind on the
personnel numbers, but we're following it on getting
salaries increased, as I recall.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The biggest part of the
study was on -- on personnel numbers and addition of
8-17-04 wk
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
physical facility and things like that. Now, the things we
did accomplish, okay, number one, there was -- there was
five goals of the committee. One was communications.
Personnel, records management, physical facilities addition,
and optimize the use of available funds. Okay. We've tried
to optimize the use of available funds by definitely getting
grants, housing out-of-county inmates, all that kind of
stuff, bringing back into it everything we could.
Communications, this Court took care of by replacing the
Sheriff's Office radio system. That was done. Physical
facilities, we're still at that point. I hope that my
retirement is well into effect before I ever have to come to
this Court and say, "We need to add onto that jail or build
a new jail." I want to be well retired by that time.
But records management, the jail doesn't --
still does not have scanners for scanning all our records.
We still have over 160 file cabinets out there with records.
We have the ability to, along those lines, with the inmate
tracking system, the digital camera system, the expanded
stuff we're using with Software Group, put more current
information directly into the computer system so that we
don't continue to build up a very large -- larger than what
we already have of -- of file cabinets and things. So,
we're getting more records into the system right away, so
we're getting there, but we have not addressed those old
8-17-04 wk
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
records. And I didn't address it in this budget request,
entails.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Reality is, we've --
excuse me -- accomplished a lot of what that committee
recommended, though we have long ways to go. So, what
we've -- I mean, it's not like we didn't follow it. We did.
We have used it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We started real well
with the jail, okay? Even on personnel, 'cause they -- they
recommended a large addition to employees in the jail. And
then, last year, through the salary compromise, and then, of
course, we gave up four positions, but we hadn't been able
to fill those because turnover was too low. So, I think,
all in all, even though we cut that salary -- that personnel
numbers down, we did ourselves a great benefit by improving
the salaries at that time, and kept more people.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's your turnover rate been
this past -- current -- actually, current budget year --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sheriff's Department?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- relative to earlier budget
years in the jail?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. In the jail,
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What about in the S.O.?
8-17-09 wk
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, a lot less. I
probably lost three or four officers this year for other
reasons, but not -- not anything compared to what we had.
Maybe a tenth.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, we had this
conversation --
JUDGE TINLEY: So, it's down by about
90 percent?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In the Sheriff's Office.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We had that
conversation while you were gone, and probably put some
numbers together that show that the net effect of those
catch-up increases we gave doesn't cost the County any money
because of turnover savings.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, and training and
uniforms and all the -- all the start-up costs that we get
for new officers.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You will see where both
my uniform budgets have decreased, and that is partly to do
with the lower turnover rate. Because officers, each
year -- even though we buy them new uniforms, they build up
uniforms if they haven't torn them up, and without new
personnel coming in, you're not buying as many every year,
and that has helped us drastically. The last thing I was
going to say -- and, like some of y'all saw yesterday, and
8-17-04 wk
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
some of y'all I met with, you know, when you look at
crime statistics. Now, we have some major investigations
going that some of y'all know about; two very, very large
federal investigations that are going on. One of them --
this is just some players in it, okay? This is -- is done
out of the task force deal out of San Antonio. Some of
y'all saw part of it on the news the other night, that San
Antonio made the arrest of -- ended up being six; four
initially and two later, $90,000 in a mechanic shop where
they took all the tools, welders, everything else, including
their trucks. That group consists of about 20 different
actors. Part of it is Mexican Mafia involved.
This county has been hit by them. We've been
working it hard. Kendall County's been hit, Atascosa
County, Bexar County, Comal County. And their task force --
I had an officer down in San Antonio all day yesterday
trying to go through that stolen stuff that was recovered.
Unfortunately, because -- one thing I wouldn't mind the
press harping on is, there was a whole lot of stuff there
that looked a lot like our victims', but there's no
identifying features on it. When you're talking tools and
that, if they don't have something that we can positively
say it's theirs, we can't take it. We can't recover it.
8-17-04 wk
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And that's a problem this county has. But there's a lot of
consideration y'all can give us. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we take about a
10-minute break and come back and start on the next phase?
Didn't seem to meet with any disapproval from you, did it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, I'm ready.
(Recess taken from 10:31 a.m. to 10:43 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to order,
reconvene. We were in recess for 10 minutes or so. I guess
we'll get a couple other participants here in a minute. I
think the next item is the Road and Bridge that we had
indicated a desire to take a look at. Is that not correct,
gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What do you have for us
this morning, Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Well, sir, I have a sheet that
Tommy gave me, which I appreciate. I notice some errors on
it, but -- and I'm sure you wish to discuss some of it, but
some of it has to do with salaries. And talking -- and some
of these numbers come from Barbara, which I gave her a sheet
of the position schedules, and I see what she gave me this
morning before y'all started meeting with Rusty, that it
8-17-04 wk
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
didn't correlate with what I had -- what I presented. And
what I had done in the budget was to give up a position, and
to eliminate 12 positions to create 14's -- 14's to 17's.
And I gave that sheet to her, and that number doesn't jibe
in the 611 at all, so I want to bring that up.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I want to apologize to
you, Mr. Odom. You and I had talked about some things, and
the personnel numbers that got plugged in here got plugged
in yesterday. As I indicated to you, we're going to work
initially from the position schedule from the Treasurer's
office.
MR. ODOM: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that's what got plugged
in, not what you and I had talked about, or what you had
turned in.
MR. ODOM: Right. And I don't blame Barbara
on that. It seems like that what she had been given, she
had down, but it wasn't what I gave her yesterday on the
schedule, and she plugged in what she actually had. So,
basically, that's it. And I had seen a few items there. I
see one on 600; 600-105 was for secretaries salary. That
number is higher than what I was proposing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait. Help me get on
the same page here.
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry.
8-17-04 wk
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That 105, the
secretaries salary?
MR. ODOM: Right. That's a combination of
both of them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You requested $52,991?
MR. ODOM: Yes. And I had made an error on
that, and I'm actually requesting $50,774.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $50,774?
MR. ODOM: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the Judge is
giving you $51,509?
MR. ODOM: Yes. And I -- yes. I mean, I'l1
take it. I mean, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't have a
problem?
MR. ODOM: I don't have a problem. I'm just
bringing that up. I'm just --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 50 thousand what?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 774.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but overall,
you're -- what you were saying just a minute ago is you're
adjusting -- there's some adjustments in your salaries, and
you want -- the adjustments you want are not reflected in
the numbers here.
MR. ODOM: Let's see if I -- I'm quite -- I'm
8-17-04 wk
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lost.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You were adjusting some
classifications.
MR. ODOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And those classifications
are not reflected?
MR. ODOM: They're not reflected in the 611,
that's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I think this kind
of goes back to, like -- what was the -- we need to get
those rerun with what you want, or what you're --
MR. ODOM: Proposing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What you're proposing, so
that we -- like, same as we with did with Rusty, with this
shuffling things around. We need to get those, you know,
summarized.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Could you just
describe real briefly what you're changing, in general?
MR. ODOM: In general?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not
employee-by-employee.
MR. ODOM: Not employees; we'd have to go in
executive session to start doing that, start naming names.
What I'm trying to do is, I'm giving up one 12 position, 12
-- 12 position. What I'm trying -- what I've done is be
8-17-04 wk
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
able to change -- eliminate 12's and move them to 14's, and
to take 14's and move them to 17 positions.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
MR. ODOM: I was trying to upgrade, like, one
to a 17, 'cause that's basically what I've done. And I did
that with less money than what I had last year.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, when we run --
rerun it, we'll see that?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, you will see that. And
that number should be -- I had 572. I need to check it to
be sure, versus this 564. But what the Treasurer did
doesn't reflect -- what she's put in doesn't reflect that,
and that's all it is. I wanted to bring that up. That will
change the numbers a little bit, certainly in your FICA and
your retirement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: And it'll do the same thing on
that other one that I proposed on the 600 budget. It will
come down a little bit. And then I have a few questions
here on what the Judge has, but I certainly will answer
y'all's, and then I have questions that I -- I see what
Tommy printed up is a difference from when I talked to the
Judge. I didn't know exactly what was proposed, other than
what we discussed, and now I see it, so I have a few
questions -- or explanations of why I was asking what I did.
8-17-04 wk
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
But, basically, it's there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: We did -- he did leave out a few
items, and I have questions for the Court on that. That
would be basically in Special Projects.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What number -- item
number is that?
MR. ODOM: Well, one is Employee Medicals on
611-220. He has me down for $1,500, and which we've been
running maybe in the neighborhood of $3,000, $2,500. That
$1,500 is essentially what I'm going to have to pay in
September just to renew the contract. Then I have -- you
can see around $900 a year as far as random selections of
tests and all, and then any new hires that I have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard?
MR. ODOM: Physicals on them, and we take it
out of there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is the requested
number correct?
MR. ODOM: The requested number is correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, on Employee Medicals,
you think you need that $3,200?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, I do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 76, Judge, 220.
8-17-04 wk
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: 220. 611-220.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Judge was probably
thinking -- he sees that you had spent $1,000.
MR. ODOM: And he did that percentage of
that; that's what he did. But, in actuality, I mean, it's
going to cost me $1,500 to renew it, somewhere in that
neighborhood, and then you've -- you put on top of that new
hires and physicals, and the random selections for that, and
we run around $3,000, $3,200.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: And see that nine -- that $1,000
doesn't reflect September, when it comes up for renewal.
They just -- they used to hit us in October, and they
changed it, and they come back.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is it
specifically that we're talking about?
MR. ODOM: We're talking about the contract
-- the overall contract to do the D.O.T. medicals.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it a specific
doctor? Sid Peterson? Who is it with?
MR. ODOM: Well, there's a certain provider
that we had been using since we went to -- federal law
required that our people have D.O.T.'s, and that they do a
background check. Any new hires we have, we have to do
testing on them, and then they do the random testing. I
8-17-04 wk
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mean, there's a contract in there that's charged every year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "Random test" meaning
drug?
MR. ODOM: Drug and alcohol.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Drug and alcohol test.
And you do that?
MR. ODOM: Well, we -- we send it out to do.
They -- they come there and take these tests, and they do
the random selection, so tort liability and everything is
taken off the County. We put it on this -- this entity to
do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So that's $3,200?
MR. ODOM: Right. Now, the other one --
other question I have is 454, Tires and Tire Repair. The
Judge has me down at $15,000, and if I was at $15,000 as of
June, I would have been out of money in tires.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was that? I'm
sorry, Leonard. Say again?
MR. ODOM: I said if this was June and I had
-- if I had this budget here, I'd be out of money.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Tires.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What line? Tires?
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry, yes, 454.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, then again, it
shows that you spent 62.
8-17-04 wk
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: 62.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As of --
MR. ODOM: That was -- I don't think this is
-- well that's July's, what he's showing here.
JUDGE TINLEY: I annualized it a couple -- at
a couple of points, and I came up with 8,800 to 12,800, that
range. Now, if you had -- if you had some late costs come
in and they all rolled up onto you --
MR. ODOM: Truby told me --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- in the last couple of
months, that's probably what's happened.
MR. ODOM: And we've had -- what we have in
that is not only the tires. Sometimes it goes up; sometimes
it comes down, and one year I may be all right. But, you
know, this is tire repair, where we have to call out where
we have a flat or where the tractor's went over something,
messed up a tire. We're talking about $400 or $500 a tire.
And then the trucks, themselves.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then, because of
this time of the year, you're probably having more of them?
MR. ODOM: I'm having more of them. What
we've had in the past is not that much use.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you've spent more
on that since you and the Judge have sat down?
MR. ODOM: Right.
8-17-04 wk
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: It's loaded towards the latter
part of the budget year?
MR. ODOM: Loaded toward -- that's right.
And this is when my work is, and I have to have the money to
keep going on the thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you need $20,000?
$22,000?
MR. ODOM: Well, I'll take $20,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: What have you got to this
point? Do you know?
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry. Offhand, I -- Truby's
gone today, and --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is 20 going to be
enough?
MR. ODOM: We have had 22 for the last
umpteen years, and it's worked for us. We haven't had to
change the item, so, you know, I feel comfortable with that.
But I need more money in that line item. Jonathan is --
he's hard on this Aggie. I feel, you know, that Austin
sentiment right there is squeezing --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 22?
JUDGE TINLEY: Look up and you see orange,
huh?
MR. ODOM: He's making me see orange.
8-17-04 wk
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which line is that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Better than red.
MR. ODOM: I agree.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Odom, Line 331,
Fuel --
MR. ODOM: 331, sir?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. You're not --
MR. ODOM: Fuel Oils?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're not asking
for a whole lot more than last year's budget, but gasoline's
gone up a lot. Is that 70 going to be enough?
MR. ODOM: To answer your question, I don't
think it is. I told the Judge that, but it is one of those
things that -- that's a call. I don't -- I don't know where
it's going to go. What I'm reading right now says that
they're going to stay in the $40 range right now, and the --
what I read this morning on the report I get says that
supplies are going to be tight, so it's going to be high,
and I just don't know. We've done real well at $66,000 for
years, and we've made it through the ups and downs, but this
squeeze is pretty tough. I don't know.
JUDGE TINLEY: This one really didn't start
coming on until on into this budget year.
MR. ODOM: On into this budget year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Little tough to predict off of
8-17-04 wk
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
an annualized use, 'cause the early part of the year, the
cost wasn't as much.
MR. ODOM: It wasn't too bad.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: About January/February
when it started.
MR. ODOM: And they've got us -- they've got
us -- and probably diesel will come down in the winter some,
but I don't know what's going to happen. They always hit
you when the -- when you're traveling, and you start out
toward the spring sometime. But I -- I sort of feel like
they're going to produce more heating oil and try to get it
that way, and I think diesel will come down. That's the way
we've gone for the last couple years, is go toward diesel
and get out of the gasoline and try to make it, and it's
worked.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we probably need
to go up to either 75 or 80, one or the other.
JUDGE TINLEY: 75?
MR. ODOM: Well, I hate -- let's go to 75. I
hate to put too much in there and not use it, and where it
could be used in other places.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did we end up
with on 454?
JUDGE TINLEY: 22.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I wrote
8-17-04 wk
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 450 is going to 75?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, 331.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, 331. Okay.
MR. ODOM: On 557, the Judge has got me down
at $3,000, and that probably might work, but you can see
there's not a lot of money to do a whole lot with in that
right-of-way and engineering for surveying and all. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In that right-of-way
number, I think that either we need to increase it here, or
I think, really, a better place to increase it is under
Commissioners Court Contingency, because I think it
probably -- at least 50 percent of the years since I've been
a Commissioner, something has come up during the year in my
precinct when I need the County Surveyor to go sort
something out. And we've tried to take it out of this line
item, but this line item really is -- is meant for something
that Leonard already has planned. And I think that it
should either go -- we should either add a County Surveyor
line item under Commissioners Court, or just add it into
Contingency and know that it's there, and take it out of
there a little bit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd rather do it as a
-- under Commissioners Court, because there are
circumstances, and we've talked about this, where we have a
8-17-04 wk
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
need to have the County Surveyor do something that's
beneficial. It may not necessarily be related to something
Leonard has --
MR. ODOM: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- on the drawing
board, and I'd just rather see it under Commissioners Court.
MR. ODOM: I think that makes it cleaner for
the Court, too. You don't run over it into general revenue
and to the other one if that's not related to Road and
Bridge, and it just makes it cleaner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- and have a
right-of-way line, though. I wouldn't put it in
Contingency.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, for the County to
do right-of-ways or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'd end up buying
computers and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I agree. County
Surveyor or something like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: County Surveyor or
Survey.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Survey and Related,
or something like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Survey's good. And I
don't think it takes a lot of money, but I think it's
8-17-04 wk
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
just -- a little bit comes up a lot of years. We need
something.
MR. ODOM: Yeah, it just pops up every now
and then.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You know, you could
use it for --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Already got next year's
spent, Bill.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, no.
JUDGE TINLEY: You spent last year's, too.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Len, I'm looking at
Items 585 through 598.
MR. ODOM: All right, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And this procedure,
I just don't understand. Why -- why are these projects
separated? What makes them distinctive from other work
you're going to do throughout the year?
MR. ODOM: Normally, those are things that
the Court would have -- in the past, special projects have
been outside the normal routine maintenance, and that's
where some of these fall into. Well, they all fall into it,
but when I look at -- when you look at some of this, 27,5
shows Upper Turtle Creek. That's not Upper Turtle Creek;
it's Fall -- Fall Creek.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to ask
8-17-04 wk
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you about that. That's Fall Creek Road?
MR. ODOM: That's Fall Creek Road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Instead of Upper
Turtle Creek?
MR. ODOM: Well, we used the line item, and I
marked through it, but the Auditor doesn't always see the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You preempted my
question.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. ODOM: And that is for material, because
basically what I'm down to now is looking at the different
items that we need to do. And it may be outside; i.e.,
could be road districts, but that is something else up above
in 580 right there. There's no money put into that for road
districts, and I wanted to put $41,500 in there. I think,
in my attachments that I sent the Court, that on the last
page, there was road districts there. And I brought that
up, I believe, once before, that that is something I'd like
for the Court to look at. I had Ball Drive in Ingram, and
that was -- those funds themselves were earmarked directly
out of road district funds. And I believe the last I
checked with the Auditor was $117,000 in that fund where
these road districts from the past have been paying in, and
I wanted to use those funds, which we have done in the past.
8-17-04 wk
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Our precedence has been to use those specific funds for road
districts, so if there were improvements or things we needed
to do within those road districts, we spent it instead of
outside that. We let the road districts pay for themselves.
JUDGE TINLEY: That has no general budgetary
impact?
MR. ODOM: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 597, Beach Road.
That's not Byas Road, is it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, that's the old name that
the Auditor has. The computer just reads exactly what's out
beside 597, which is Beach, but its Byas Springs.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I was wondering if
we were going to spend all the money in Precincts 1 and 3,
and none of it in 4.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three? I don't get
anything.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the status of
MR. ODOM: Town Creek is -- if you see Line
Item 598, I believe that that $15,000 is to go down to Town
Creek. There was a line -- there was a Line Item 600, but
the Auditor -- the computer did not have it on there, and
8-17-04 wk
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that's what I submitted before, was Town Creek at $15,000,
to do that. And I think what it's showing as Pike's Peak up
here at $15,000 should be back down here at Town Creek.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, what do we --
are you going to change that, or are we going to change
that?
MR. ODOM: Well, I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we start at --
your road districts is correct, High Water Bridge?
MR. ODOM: High Water Bridge, I have nothing
there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. But that's going
to --
MR. ODOM: Road districts, I had 40 --
proposed $41,500.
JUDGE TINLEY: But, for the budgetary
purposes that we're dealing with here, we don't want to roll
that up --
MR. ODOM: Okay, I see what you're saying.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- in this line item to be
charged against your general Road and Bridge budget.
MR. ODOM: Okay, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, what -- the other thing
we probably need to clarify here is, what we're doing is
tracking the material costs down here. That pairs up with
8-17-04 wk
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the contract fees up in 553, which is the labor costs for
these same projects.
MR. ODOM: That's right, or for contractor.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: For contractor.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we can delete 580.
Road District doesn't need to be here. It's on a separate
page, correct?
JUDGE TINLEY: Should be, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Should be outside.
MR. ODOM: Should be outside.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get rid of 580.
JUDGE TINLEY: On the summary sheet, it shows
separately any road districts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's try the High
Water Bridge again. What is the status of that? Remind me
again.
MR. ODOM: The High Water Bridge, we have no
costs associated with that. These numbers always roll until
the Auditor --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. ODOM: -- takes them off. I can't --
we've asked him to take certain ones off, but they always
8-17-04 wk
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
keep showing up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the
purchase of right-of-way at the end?
MR. ODOM: That should be totally with the
State. My understanding with the State -- I talked to Mike
Coward -- that's 100 percent now. Somehow, they worked it
that all that's 100 percent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember something
like that. I couldn't remember exactly how it worked. I
think you're right.
MR. ODOM: I believe so. And I don't think
it's going to start this budget year. I believe that that's
been postponed until January of '06 or September of '05,
which would be the '06 budget form.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
MR. ODOM: But I don't believe it's in this
year. I think Hermann Sons is -- is a go very quickly, and
then, maybe late fall of '05, we may have that High Water
Bridge going out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the High Water
Bridge, we can leave it on here, because it is something
that's going to still happen.
MR. ODOM: It will happen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: May never have to budget
for it.
8-17-04 wk
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: Right, I don't believe we'd have
to budget for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 588 is now going to read
Fall Creek?
MR. ODOM: Should be Fall Creek. That's what
we had it down for.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 580?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 588.
MR. ODOM: 588.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 589, Sheppard Rees. We
need to keep Sheppard Rees?
MR. ODOM: I don't think so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask you, before we get
too far astray here. On the High Water Bridge, maybe you've
gotten some information that I'm not privy to. My
understanding was they were going to let that this coming
fall, October-November.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was my
understanding, too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there some change in that?
MR. ODOM: Are we talking about the High
Water Bridge or Hermann Sons?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, talking about High Water.
8-17-04 wk
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1°
2C
21
2c
2~
2~
2`
JUDGE TINLEY: Arcadia Loop, yeah.
MR. ODOM: Well, I'll go from my memory.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ODOM: I can't remember specifically what
Mike said. I know that there was a holdup on real estate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's over.
MR. ODOM: And that's over with. And, so,
there was anticipation that that -- once it gets to Austin
and their Real Estate Division, he says it takes forever.
You can figure another year, the last time I talked to him
about it. And he said that they dot the I's and cross their
T's, but then they came back and said it did clear. But my
understanding is -- is that I don't know whether it was
cleared in time to be scheduled.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My understanding,
Leonard, and I think it's the same as the Judge's, it -- all
the right-of-ways have been acquired, and so the Real Estate
Division has accepted or signed off, and it is scheduled for
letting this fall.
MR. ODOM: This fall. So then the new budget
year, then.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: September.
MR. ODOM: That doesn't jeopardize, then, the
8-17-04 wk
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1E
1.
1F
1~
2(
2:
2:
2
2
2
Hermann Sons, because I heard Hermann Sons -- I was told
Hermann Sons was going before the High Water Bridge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not so sure that the
High Water Bridge is letting, because if it was letting,
that -- those documents are out to the public to be bidding
on right now, and I hadn't heard anything about that
happening. I know Hermann Sons is out there right now.
MR. ODOM: I know that they --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This fall can be
anywhere up to December.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but Hermann Sons
is -- it's in October. It's in a firm line in the chute
right now.
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in October. I
haven't heard about the High Water Bridge being in that --
could be November.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's supposed to be.
~ MR. ODOM: It was supposed to be, but I -- I
think that they anticipated taking longer than what it took,
and I think it got reshuffled back some. And it may --
~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Regardless, we don't
3 have any budgetary obligation.
~ MR. ODOM: To my knowledge, we have none.
5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we've only been at
8-17-04 wk
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1~
1E
1^
1F
1!
2c
2'.
2
2
2
2
MR. ODOM: I've been here 13; we've been
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before we stray too
far off Line 589, I want to bring an issue up to the Court
that I have not had an opportunity to talk to Leonard about,
but it does have to do with Fall Creek Road. Now, he's got
the rehabbing of Fall Creek, the last section, and that's
fine. I had an e-mail from constituents out there that want
us to address -- or want me to address with the Court the
issue of the low-water crossing on Fall Creek, which is the
Turtle Creek Crossing on Fall Creek Road, being inadequate.
And, of course, it was engineered years ago when there
weren't many folks out there. Now there are 17 families out
there, and additional personnel who go back and forth every
day for work purposes, and what they're telling me is that
it is no longer acceptable that people be stranded in a high
) water situation for long periods of time. The cost of that
is not in your budget to do that, but I want to bring it to
court because there are two things. First of all, the cost
to -- an estimated engineering cost to rehab the low-water
3 crossing is about a $90,000 to $95,000 project, of which the
4 residents out there are willing to subscribe to at least
5 50 percent of it to get it done. So, you know, I think it's
8-17-04 wk
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-- it's a health and safety issue for some people. If folks
are ill or in need of medical attention, and they can't get
out because of the low-water crossing not draining in a
very -- a time that's suitable, that's something we ought to
think about.
COMMISSIONER
we start going down a -- we
crossings in this county.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
they stranded, I guess is m
COMMISSIONER
LETZ: How
have a lot
WILLIAMS:
LETZ: You
y question,
WILLIAMS:
-- my -- and because
of low-water
I understand that.
know, how long are
in a normal flood?
That's a good
question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, if there is
such a thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have the
answer to that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, if it's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a legitimate
question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's a day or so,
well, there's a whole lot of us that are -- are county
residents that are stranded for a day or so during a flood.
If it's, you know, a week at a time because it's so low,
well, then, I think that's a different issue. I mean, I
8-17-04 wk
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
think there's a -- we can't make everyone have access 24
hours a day. But I don't -- I think when you start doing
more than a 24- to 48-hour problem, I think then there's
something we can start looking at.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have any sense
of that, Leonard, in a major rise, how long that crossing is
inoperable?
afternoon, they're normally there. It just depends if
Turtle Creek is abnormal, but normally within 24 hours we
have it, if not less. If that water drops down, they can
drive across. Now, small cars may not be able to do that,
but -- I don't mean to be facetious, but they shouldn't be
out there in a small car; they should have some type of SUV
to have a little elevation, you know. So --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I'm
surprised that -- that you can make a difference with
$100,000 or so. What will that money be spent for?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Increasing the -- the
capacity to drain the -- to take the water off.
23
24 heighth?
25
8-17-04 wk
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not increasing the
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we've got two
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
tubes there now; is that correct? Two smaller tubes, and --
MR. ODOM: There may be -- yeah, something
like that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we'd be
increasing them to 72 inches, and half a dozen tubes or
whatever.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We just had this
Cade Loop -- and there are a lot of those places, and you
can't -- we're going to have to win the lottery to fix them
all. But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- we were just
talking about Cade Loop this week, and there's a lot of
people behind it. It's the bridge across the -- just below
the Ingram Dam. And I told them it might cost a million or
two million to raise it to where it would make a difference.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This would be
increasing whatever number of pipes we have there now -- and
I don't recall; it's two or three -- to nine pipes. Take it
away.
MR. ODOM: That still wouldn't -- if you stay
at the same elevation, I don't think that that would -- it's
sort of like the Indian Creek Bridge. Once the -- the
Guadalupe gets up, it's totally irrelevant what type of
spacing you've got. You're going to be stranded no matter
8-17-04 wk
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what. Now, the water may go down a little bit more -- a
little bit quicker, but how much quicker for
cost-effectiveness, I don't know. I don't have those
numbers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Another part of that
reality is that when -- one of the biggest problems is that
the culverts get stopped up, and whether you have three or
nine, they're still going to all get stopped up. Until you
get Road and Bridge out there to unclog them, you're not
going to be able to -- you know, unless you get a little bit
of height increase.
MR. ODOM: Height increase.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- well,
that's part of the reality of low-water crossings.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the other
reality is, I live across a creek; same creek that the
County Judge lives across. And I chose to live out there,
and if I don't have enough sense to get out while the creeks
are not flooded, then woe on me. I can sit at home and
wait, scratch my beagle on the belly.
MR. ODOM: Jonathan has a -- in the early
'90's, we built, what, a half-million-dollar structure?
$600,000? And he's still stranded, and I still have to
clean that thing off down there for them to get across.
So --
8-17-09 wk
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess he's going to
be on your case here one of these days, right?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Philosophically,
what Buster said is -- is half true, and half of it is
another issue. I've had an EMS official tell me that it's
okay that people way far out in the county can't get
adequate EMS service; they chose to live out there. Well, I
got to thinking about -- you know, if it wasn't for Lyndon
Johnson, we still wouldn't have electricity out in Hunt.
MR. ODOM: That's right, you wouldn't have
R.E.A.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No one talked about
that in 1936, either.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: R.E.A.
MR. ODOM: Wouldn't have the R.E.A.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think -- you know,
I think it's something Leonard could look at.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want him to look at
it.
MR. ODOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't propose we
put it in the budget, 'cause we haven't talked about it
before today, but I think we ought to take a look at it.
MR. ODOM: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And see whether the
8-17-04 wk
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
costs are realistic, and if so, what he may choose to do
about it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard also can come up
with ideas that fix problems. You know, he's a pretty good
fixer-upper when it comes to things like that; when you have
problems, just need a slight increase.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll share
engineering and analysis with you.
MR. ODOM: Be happy to meet with you and some
of the people and discuss these things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're deleting
Sheppard Rees? Okay. That's a yes, I take it? Hermann
Sons Road.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Delete.
MR. ODOM: We have 100 percent --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not hung up on the
bridge.
MR. ODOM: -- participation now. But,
remember, we made a resolution -- a resolution of spending
$110,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: Instead of spending it down there,
we chose -- the Court chose Town Creek. What I have is a
proposal of $15,000 to take a look at hydrology and the
8-17-04 wk
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
possibility of some purchase of some land. But, I discussed
it with the Judge, and he knows -- I believe he said he knew
that individual, and hopefully he's an Aggie, so maybe I can
talk to him; he'll let me talk to him.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: So -- but that's -- to my
knowledge, there's nothing else on Hermann Sons we need to
do, with the exception of some surveying you and I are
discussing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That will be this budget
year. Okay. South end project.
MR. ODOM: The south end project has to do --
let's see if I have my notes. I think it's called Eugene,
which is down by Hermann Sons. One is Mosty. It's part of
Mosty Road that is still dirt. I want to eliminate that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ODOM: And let me see if I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got Upper Mason Creek
in there?
MR. ODOM: Not at this point, sir. That's a
mile of road right there, so there'll be a whole lot more
than $6,000 on that one. I'm worse than Rusty here,
flipping through things. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, you're not worse.
JUDGE TINLEY: Don't put yourself -- please,
8-17-04 wk
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
please don't denigrate yourself, Leonard.
MR. ODOM: I'm not quite -- I may have left
that in my truck. I had some notes. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine.
MR. ODOM: I don't see it. But, anyway, they
were small roads; they need to be upgraded. I don't need to
be going out there moving rocks from one side of the road to
the other. I think it is cost-effective that I take care of
those, and that's essentially material, not my time and all.
If I need anything else, that comes out of contract fees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: So that's --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, south end projects?
Not just one?
MR. ODOM: That's right, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: And I do that 'cause that's
Comfort; that's you down there, so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Mountain Home
Yard?
MR. ODOM: Mountain Home Yard is taken care
of at this point. We bought that last year -- or this
budget year when we started off, so there's nothing there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leave it or take it off?
MR. ODOM: You can take it off, if you can
8-17-04 wk
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
get Tommy to eliminate that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's leave it; there may be
some --
MR. ODOM: Might be something in the future.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then west end projects.
MR. ODOM: West end project is essentially
Clark Road. We've been talking about Clark for many years.
I've had -- in Special Projects, you know, I've had floods,
and I've not been able to do anything. We have --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is Clark Road?
MR. ODOM: Clark Road is off 1340. It's
several miles on the right-hand side, if you're coming out
of Hunt, and it's right before you hit the "T" at 41 there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Across from
Leinweber's?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. That goes in to Gray's
place; it goes about a mile and six -- mile and
three-quarters. It just basically takes care of materials,
being able to purchase some and taking care of them. See,
we're not going to reinvent the wheel. It's probably a
16-foot road. We take care of most of that. Some of that
money also is in cow guards; we upgrade all those. I think
I counted five cow guards to do, and that's quite expensive
to replace those little 10-foot cow guards that are my age.
And that's not young any more.
8-17-04 wk
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Beach Road becomes Byas
MR. ODOM: All right, Beach Road is to finish
the last 2 and a half miles in there, to work on it. And
also -- basically, there is a dirt road off there that goes
back a good half mile back up in there.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then Pike's Peak is
-- should be Town Creek?
MR. ODOM: I don't recall -- I'm assuming
that that should actually be down here. We had it numbered
at 600, but the computer didn't have that number. We just
filled in -- I put Town Creek, and I'm assuming that's where
it should be. I don't recall -- I know I need to do things
on Pike's Peak, but -- and Keith Boulevard there, but that's
something I'll try to do within contract fees and -- and our
backhoe that we just purchased.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pike's Peak is
actually Town Creek?
MR. ODOM: Should be, sir, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Len, is it Ingram
Hills Road and the road district -- is that the right name
of it?
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
8-17-04 wk
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The one we were
looking at?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do we have any plans
to try to do anything with that?
MR. ODOM: That is part of the 35 -- I
believe of the road districts on that last page, if you'll
look at that, one is Ball Drive. That was a road district,
and I proposed to use $6,500, off the top of my head. Does
that sound right?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
MR. ODOM: $6,000, something like that. And
then I think it was -- $35,000, is what I thought I needed
to do to bring in the road districts, and that section is
bad right there, sir. I think that is the way to solve that
problem in road districts.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's road districts?
What page?
MR. ODOM: If you take the handout, let me
see if you can identify it. This was what I --
JUDGE TINLEY: I show it on Page 98,
originally.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 98?
JUDGE TINLEY: So we're going to be close
8-17-04 wk
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
around there, I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 98.
MR. ODOM: This is what I presented Jonathan
right there.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm just showing you where it
was in the beginning.
MR. ODOM: It showed revenue of $117,000 in
there, and we propose taking out $41,500.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Road Districts, 86.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it in this
handout?
JUDGE TINLEY: It's in your -- it's in your
printout -- your most recent printout, Page 86.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 41,5, okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. This is Ingram Hills,
35.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. And Ball Drive
Crossing, 65. And it's not -- you know, we will use it for
that. If I don't use that much, we never touch it. It
stays right there, goes back into the fund, but that's
enough to get -- it is not to be -- there's no fluff in
there for any of the other items. We keep that totally
separate, and we feel like that's the fairest way to -- to
address road districts which we don't do any more. Goes
exactly to the people who are paying for it.
8-17-04 wk
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, on the -- back on
Road and Bridge unit road system, between that and looking
at floodplain administration, --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I see -- or based on a
note you handed me, or told me or something, floodplain, you
recommend we put that all into contract services.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: However -- but you're
also leaving the County Engineer --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's on Page 75.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 76. County Engineer is
left as a salaried position.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I don't know how that
got included, because what I turned in did not have that. I
had included it down under 457, in Account 600; you'll see
it there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 600.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, your recommendation
is that we go to contract services for both the County
Engineer and the floodplain?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is the -- I guess
the operational plan as to how you do that? He's -- I mean,
8-17-04 wk
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
contract services, but what -- how do we get a contract
services -- I mean, how is it going to work?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, as we need those
services, we can just hire them from outside, the qualified
professionals. We don't have any -- obviously, any track
record to know exactly what the -- not knowing what the
specific issue is, we don't know what the specific cost is
going to be. That would be a matter of negotiating a
professional services contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- well, and this may
not be the time to try to sort all this out. Just trying to
start. I still think that we -- I would be a lot more
comfortable, or feel we need an opinion from the County
Attorney that we're not required to have a County Engineer,
or -- or that can be done on a contract basis, one or the
other. Which I've never seen, even though we've asked for
over a year now for the County Attorney to give us that
determination; look into it. We still don't have that. And
the other thing is, there are a number of things that the
County Engineer is currently doing, primarily in the area of
subdivisions, that I don't think you can contract out very
efficiently; some plat reviews and, you know, going out,
looking at a location and seeing what needs to be done in
Road and Bridge, and just a lot of communications that
really, I think, are more employee-oriented, as opposed to
8-17-09 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
90
contract-oriented. How do you -- I mean, do you propose to
JUDGE TINLEY: My general philosophy,
Commissioner, is that any services that are directed towards
a particular project for which we've got a developer that's
going to be making a profit out of that project, that those
costs that are associated with it should be borne by that
developer, not by the general taxpayer. Shouldn't be
subsidized by the general taxpayer. Now, with respect to
subdivisions, I think it would be a fairly simple matter to
amend the Subdivision Rules to require the developer and the
developer's professional, be they civil engineers, be they
hydrologists, be they whatever, to certify that the
development, as presented to the Court when there's a
request for a plat to be approved, that they be -- all of
the improvements and the layout and so forth are in
compliance with our Subdivision Rules and our specifications
that are required under those rules. Now, if they're going
to seek a variance, obviously, they have to disclose what
that is and ask us for that to happen. But -- but when the
subdivision is -- is laid before the Court and accepted by
the Court, there needs to be a certification by the
owner-developer and the professionals which are handling the
various aspects for that developer that it's in compliance,
8-17-04 wk
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
so that you've got some accountability. So that when you --
when you have, for example, a drainage failure or you have a
road failure, you've got accountability back to the
developer and/or his hires that assisted him.
I have had a serious concern for some time
that if we have a County representative go out to a
development in process -- in progress, and the developer or
the developer's engineer or someone acting on behalf of the
developer says, "Well, what do you think?" And they're in
mid-stage; you've got -- you've got maybe some road base
laid down, and maybe some drainage cut in, and that question
is propounded by -- by the developer's representative to a
Kerr County employee or representative, and they're told,
"Well, looks like you're okay to this point. Go ahead and
start laying down the asphalt," shooting it or whatever. I
think a serious argument could be raised by a developer, if
there's a subsequent failure, that up to that point, they
were released.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can I say something?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with
everything that you have said. I agree with it 100 percent.
But, as a Commissioner, I would like to have someone on my
team that -- not -- not to give advice to the project
25 ( managers, but to give advice to me.
8-17-04 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
92
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That has been out
there on that road. And I don't care if it's a County
Engineer; I don't care if it's a secretary that has gone out
there with some knowledge that comes back in, you know, just
winks at old Buster and says, "Yeah, it's a good deal," or,
"There's something wrong with this part of it over here."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I am a little bit further
than, I think, Buster is. I think that we need, you know,
some professional advice, because I do not want this county
to get back to where it was a while back on letting the --
basically, the developers police themselves. And that's
what happens when you put everything on the developer. We
need to have a competent person review the reports, the
data, the plats, and make sure that -- I mean, yes, they're
certifying it. I think we do need to change -- to tighten
up that language on the certification from a liability
standpoint, but I think we also know that there are people
in this world and in this town that will sign anything for
some money, and put their license on the line and -- and
jeopardy there. And I think that if we -- and there are
also some developers that will find those people that will
sign anything. And I --
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the key is to hold
8-17-04 wk
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Not let them do that, and then
just say, "Oh, well, we'll just not give that particular
professional or developer any credibility next go-round."
Hold them accountable. Now, you can go one step further
under the Subdivision Rules, I think; that in the event the
Court has a question or concern about the compliance or not,
or there is a drainage issue or a hydrology issue, something
along that line, that as a condition to allowing the project
to proceed forward, that we would have the opportunity to
engage an expert of our choosing to review whatever the
issue may be, and that the cost of that review be borne by
the developer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you do that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Huh?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you do that?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think you can, if you plug
it into the rules.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would --
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, I can assure you, at that
point, they're going to be -- they're going to be playing a
little straighter. Don't you think so, Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, I do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I also think if you
25 ~ put that subjectivity in there and we go to some developer
8-17-04 wk
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that we had -- rumor was cutting corners, and we require him
to spend $50,000 on a study, and he was right and we were
wrong, I would suspect this Court's opened itself up to
another lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you're
probably right. I want to weigh in on a different angle,
too. I think we rely on the independent judgment of -- of
our engineer, whomever that may be, and absent that, with no
cost savings that I can determine, or very insignificant
cost savings, I think we're creating ourselves an
engineering logistical nightmare. I think enforcement goes
begging in terms of right-of-ways and all the things that
are monitored on a very routine basis, and I see -- I think,
from a Commissioner's point of view, we're left holding the
bag for engineering services, and we're -- and we're left to
the whim or devices of another professional engineer, who is
going to weigh his $20,000 contract against everything else
he's got on his plate or in front of him, and we're going to
go begging. And I see that as a logistical -- engineering
logistical nightmare.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not -- I'm somewhere,
I think, in between all this. I mean, I'm -- I think that
there are savings that can be made by contracting a lot of
this out. I'm in favor, I think, of probably -- of
looking -- at least seriously looking at and coming up with
8-17-04 wk
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a definite plan on contracting out County Engineer and
floodplain. But we need some system where somebody who has
some knowledge -- I don't know if it's Leonard or if we hire
another person, or if it's one of Leonard's -- something --
someone like -- throw out a name -- Joey Biermann, someone
who's knowledgeable who can go out there, fill some of this
void and do some -- you know, just from their knowledge of
road construction and things, make -- you know, we need
oversight over construction in subdivisions. And I think if
there's something that a red flag goes up, then we can
say -- you know, really look at that data and maybe have to
hire a contract engineer to say -- you know, to -- to look
at the situation. I just don't think that we can turn it
over to the -- totally over to the developers and say, you
know, "If you don't do it right, we're going to enforce it."
I just don't think that's going to work. We need to have
someone on our staff that's looking after our interests.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. And that
could be Leonard Odom, if we talk to him real nice. I
think --
JUDGE TINLEY: My whole point is, I think --
I think whatever costs Kerr County has involved, to the
maximum degree possible, should be shifted to the developer
of a project where a developer's going to make some money
out of it.
8-17-09 wk
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And not have his project
that. We're doing that right now. I mean, I think the only
thing that you're talking about changing is they sign the
certification, 'cause we are not requiring -- we're not
paying for any engineering on the subdivisions. And we're
doing some oversight, and we're changing a little bit on the
-- that they're -- they're certifying it, which they're not
certifying it now, but they're doing the work right now. I
mean, it's just a matter of getting -- basically, you're
saying that we get the developer and whatever engineer the
developer uses to sign the plat, and that's a pretty minor
change, though it may have some big legal ramifications.
But, in practice, it's not changing anything that we're
doing right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just have to -- I
just have to have somebody I can trust that's going to tell
me yes or no, as opposed to some engineer from Austin. I
can't do that. I can't take the word of a guy from -- some
engineer from Austin. Whether he's got four stamps, I
couldn't care less. It's got to be somebody I can trust,
that I know that's on my team.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's what's -- you
8-17-04 wk
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know, I think if we can sort all this out, figure out how
that's going to functionally work, and have that done in the
next couple weeks, I think this is a good plan to look at.
But I'd also like to hear from the County Engineer, who's in
the audience, and see, you know, if there's things that, you
know, he thinks we're missing. Because he, obviously, is
doing that work, not me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I think we need
to hear from the engineer.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think that -- I wasn't
taking notes, but I think one point you brought up, if we
just go out and look at it and say it's okay, that's
misrepresenting what we do. We require the developer to run
testing on fill and subgrade and all that they put in. We
have compaction tests and tests on the materials, and that's
routinely done, and we review it. And by that, we know that
they're putting in the materials that they claim they are.
I can't see letting a developer just go out on his own, you
know, "Scout's honor, I put it in right." I just -- in the
last 13 years, I've never seen a job work like that.
There's always been -- they're trying to do things that are
not in the rules, and you have to enforce it. And there's
other things besides roads. There's drainage. You know,
you have to evaluate the reports and -- and see if they meet
the rules, what we have in our Subdivision Rules. And, you
8-17-04 wk
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know, there's other items besides that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Frank, I mean, in
reality, we do not have that many new subdivisions, and what
we're talking about, we probably have at most five
subdivisions that require this type of thing. All the
revisions and plats, all the minor revisions which we tend
to spend most of the time in court on, they don't really --
none of our Subdivision Rules really come into play, other
than procedure how to do it. And in a true subdivision,
such as a -- say, Falling Water or, you know, Cypress
Springs, those types of subdivisions, could a contract
engineer do that analysis and check the studies and do that?
My gut feeling is he could, 'cause there's not that much
work, and that we could hire a contract engineer to do that
work. And then there's -- the other work that is coming --
that you're doing now would need to be done, but it's not
necessarily -- doesn't require an engineer to do it. And
what I'm getting at is that I see a lot of, I guess,
correspondence that you prepare on people on everything from
line-of-sight to people doing a road cut and not fixing it
properly, the utility company and things of that nature that
we clearly need to continue to do, but I don't think that we
need an engineer to do those things. I think a -- you know,
I don't think you need that engineer license for that type
of work. So, to me, I think that we are not utilizing -- I
8-17-04 wk
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think the -- as County Engineer, you're doing a lot of
things that are -- a clerical person could do, basically.
And I -- it's not an efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
We're paying a higher salary to do something that doesn't
take engineering services. But we do need, I think, an
engineer's services to look at compaction tests, to look at
things of that nature, and I think that -- because there's
so little of it, I think we need to do it on a contract
basis. Am I off-base, or am I -- of course, I'm asking you
to talk yourself out of a job, but --
MR. JOHNSTON: I think the term "county
engineer" is -- is not -- not really so much as a --
actually do engineering as one that's an administrator. The
terminology used in the statute is the county engineer is
the chief executive officer of Road and Bridge. And that --
you know, that's not necessarily doing the day-to-day
engineering. Court's never provided the -- you know, any
tools to do actual engineering in-house. We don't have the
software. We don't have the -- really, any facilities at
all to do that type work.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think --
MR. JOHNSTON: It's always been basically an
administrative job.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- going back to
the reviewing compaction tests and verifying if --
8-17-04 wk
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. JOHNSTON: That takes the engineer's
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's something you have
to have some knowledge. I could not look at those and make
heads or tails of it, I don't think. I don't know that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank goodness.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it -- and I think
that what you're mentioning, the administrative function, I
think goes to the core issue here; is that, for whatever
reason, before I was a commissioner, I think maybe even
before Commissioner Baldwin was originally on the Court,
when the road -- unit road system was created in Kerr
County, it was set up with a dual administrative situation
with the County Engineer and the Road Administrator, and I
think that is an inefficient system. And I think that's
really what we're trying to correct at this time, is get rid
of that dual administration. And that's -- you know, and
there was a reason the Court did it. There have been -- the
Judge, I know, has given me a copy of an Attorney General's
opinion that certainly puts gray light on whether we need a
County Engineer and a Road Administrator, but we could have
one or the other, is the way I read the -- or how that
Attorney General opinion can be interpreted.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think there's been a number
25 ~ of conflicting Attorney General's opinions over the years.
8-17-04 wk
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Probably need, maybe, to get -- time to get one definite
once and for all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I've tried from the
County Attorney; asked him for about a year now, and we're
at about the same place we were this time last year.
MR. JOHNSTON: Statute says -- you know, it's
pretty clear; it says one thing, and some of the Attorney
General opinions say -- you know, suggest otherwise. Some
do and some don't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: But they are not statutes;
they're just opinions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But they have the
same impact or same effect from our -- from my standpoint,
on making a decision as to a statute, because when an
Attorney General says it, that means he's going to go to
court and fight on that position. Which, to me, is -- you
know, so anyway, that's splitting hairs there. But, you
know, I think it's worthwhile pursuing it. I think we do
need someone with a -- some engineering background, whether
it be contract or salaried, to assist the Court. And I say
background, 'cause it doesn't have to necessarily be an
engineer, I don't think. But I think it is a waste of
taxpayers' money to have two people administering the Road
and Bridge Department. That's my feeling.
8-17-04 wk
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
my opinion. I'm
is, but it's a -
just simply made
unit system, and
had paved roads,
C
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll weigh in with
not sure I know exactly what the solution
- a situation we've got; the Commissioners
a mistake back then when we created the
they created -- that's probably before we
wasn't it, Buster?
OMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There was a paved
road. It was Highway 27.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But the -- the
organization we got is not -- not acceptable. It doesn't --
doesn't function as well as it needs to. And it's an issue
that's been around for at least a few years, and it's
probably time to bite the bullet and deal with it. I don't
have the exact way we ought to do that. What the Judge says
about contract engineering services tends to make sense to
me. On the other hand, if we've got an issue out there with
subdivisions that maybe haven't been engineered right, or
it's running over its neighbors or whatever, I want somebody
I can talk to and say, "What's the real deal on this?" All
that is to say, we ought to do something.
MR. JOHNSTON: Is there any other county in
Texas that does that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does --
MR. JOHNSTON: The unit road system and
has -- that hires a consultant instead of a County Engineer.
8-17-04 wk
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you saying there
is or is not?
MR. JOHNSTON: That's my question. Is there?
I'm not aware of any.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know. I've not
conducted a survey, so I really don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no idea. I
just -- you know, my whole thing is back to just what I
said, is that it's an administration issue. It's not
efficient to have two administrators in the same office.
And they're -- you know, but like I also said, I --
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, with all due respect, we
do different things. I don't administer what Leonard does.
I don't doublecheck what he does, and he doesn't check what
I do. We have separate functions, and that's what we
administer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and I understand
that. But I think that one administrator can do it, is what
I'm saying. The administration side, I think you just need
one person. I think you do need somebody, and I don't know
that -- if Leonard would be willing, or if Leonard is the
right person or has the understanding or whatever to do some
of the engineering guidance that I think this Court does
need. And it may be we can do it contract; maybe not. But
8-17-04 wk
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I think that there is a component that a lot -- and a large
doing is -- is clerical. And I think that is a -- a poor
use of a County Engineer's time to do clerical-type work.
And when I say "clerical," I mean going out -- and it's not
really true -- "clerical" is probably not the right term.
But, you know, when we get a complaint about a visibility
issue and a letter goes out, "You need to cut," you know,
"some brush here, 'cause you're covering up a stop sign," I
don't think we need an engineer to do that. I think that's
something that, you know, someone in the maintenance crew
for Leonard can do that. Or if you go out and -- and give
the report, then have secretarial staff in the office write
the letter. So, I think that that's where I see an
inefficiency, and I think that we need to try to, if we can,
figure out a way to address it, and we should.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we have to
define what those administrative services are that we
require, and separate them from the clerical, and be about
our business. But, again, you know, I don't disagree with
what the Judge is saying about -- about having developers
pay for engineering services. To the extent that that's
possible, I think that's fine; we should do that. But I
don't want to compromise our own ability to have the answers
we need, no matter what the topic is, that relates to either
8-17-04 wk
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
engineering services, to subdivision, enforcement, Road and
Bridge, all of the above. And so I think if we have a
problem in terms of who's doing what, we need to define what
we want, and then separate it out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I don't want to
get into the problem of where we have Franklin doing
those -- doing those services that he's doing for 20 cents
an hour, and we contract with another engineer that's going
to charge us 150. It's just -- just a thought. I wouldn't
want to get off into something like that, either.
MR. JOHNSTON: Has anyone done a study on
that? That probably is going -- the going rate is 125, 150.
How many hours, you know, would they -- would they do the
job?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the going
rate? 125 is the going rate? 150?
MR. JOHNSTON: For a principal engineer, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wouldn't take you
long to eat up 20,000 bucks at 150 bucks an hour.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure wouldn't. But,
then again, how many real subdivisions do we do?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I have -- I
understand that. But we also ask for a lot of other things,
too.
MR. JOHNSTON: The City passes the cost on to
8-17-04 wk
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the developer by charging a plan fee, which we don't do. I
think they charge, like -- I think it's $600, and $30 a lot
for preliminary, and half that much again for the final.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If the City does it, I
don't want to do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's something
that -- I think, I mean, to me, if we can set out everything
else in Road and Bridge's budget, you know, that's good.
And I think that is something that we're going to have to
hash out over the next couple weeks, as to how we're going
to handle this issue. I mean, I don't think we have a -- I
think it's on the table, but I don't think we have a
solution right now. I think someone needs to come up with a
plan that we can -- all or most of us can at least sign off
on.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to not be
talking about it again this time next year. I'd like, in
the next couple weeks --
JUDGE TINLEY: I think your comment about --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- to do something,
even if it's wrong.
JUDGE TINLEY: Time to bite the bullet, yeah.
Okay. We've wrung that one out? Have we -- have we pretty
well handled the Road and Bridge issues before us, or did
8-17-04 wk
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you have something additional, Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: No, sir. I think we covered
everything. Any other questions you have, please present
them or ask.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: About lunchtime.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have anything on
this. I have something else for the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not on this issue. I
would like to go back to the Sheriff's Office just for one
second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For pete's sake.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we go back now?
JUDGE TINLEY: You just used your second with
us.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd just like to ask
Mr. Odom if -- are you satisfied with this budget? If we
had more money, could you put it to good use? Do you have a
wish list in addition to this?
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah.
MR. ODOM: Oh, yes, sir. You know, I -- I
have one -- one mile of road right there; could be Evans
Road. I have three -- we have 97 percent of all the roads
paved. It is cost-effective to be that way. I still have
3 percent that we move rocks from one side to the other, and
that -- those always seem to be the ones that you don't need
8-17-04 wk
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to be out there after a flood or something.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What would it cost
MR. ODOM: In addition to each year's budget,
you mean? In a realistic way? $100,000 at least in Special
Projects for the next couple of years. If I build a bridge,
it might be a little bit more. There was a question, when
am I going to get -- when am I going to start redoing
structures. Last budget, this time last year, Commissioner
Letz asked me when we're going to get into it. I told him
it was this decade, but I didn't have a year frame. I just
went from 2001 and '2 and '3 with floods, so I'm a little
bit behind on trying to allocate money. If the ones that
have been here -- Commissioner Letz and Commissioner Baldwin
have seen contract fees at $276,000 on a continual basis,
year-in, year-out, and we rebuilt everything. Now, I would
assume all this would add up far less than $100,000. I
don't recall what it is. So, you can see that I'm down
considerably from where we used to be years ago. And we've
moved from 120 miles of dirt roads to about 12 to 15, maybe
10 or 12 miles now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think in the
next -- I'd like to see in the next, you know, two to five
years, eliminate that last 12 miles of road.
MR. ODOM: Yes. And do I take the money to
8-17-09 wk
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
low-water crossings and address things like that, have
engineering in place and hydrology done? And -- and which
we don't do now. We have to contract out anyway. And so,
you know, those are the questions. We'd have the answers.
We'd know what the future would bring us, what it would cost
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the other thing
that we need to, you know, start tackling, really, before
low-water crossings, I think -- and I don't know how many of
these there are around everybody else's precinct, but I know
in my precinct, there's at least five. I don't know if you
call them old cattle crossings under roads, or old -- I
don't know if they're -- I don't know what they were ever
intended to be, but there's holes under the road where
things go through; sometimes water, sometimes animals.
And --
crossings.
MR. ODOM: They're called livestock
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But some of them are so
caved in or caving in, I don't think livestock really goes
through any more. Maybe a few coyotes. But I think they're
safety concerns, and I know those need to be addressed at
some point.
MR. ODOM: Some point in the future.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And eliminated or redone,
8-17-04 wk
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
because they're going to cave in one of these days when
cement trucks go across them. Then we're going to have a
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My sense of it is
that, all in all, we've got good roads, good bridges. If we
didn't have a river running through the county, it would
probably -- probably be in a lot better shape in that
regard. I just wanted to get a feel to make sure we're not
-- we're not falling behind; that we're at least staying
even, if not catching up with doing everything we can do.
MR. ODOM: We're making progress. I've
still -- I'm behind, but, you know, I have never asked for a
whole lot more than what I could possibly do in-house
anyway. That's for 13 years. And where I've been able
to -- to do a lot is with private contractors, but that
money's not there to do some of this stuff now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't tell you how
good it feels when I'm around the state visiting with my
commissioner friends and they ask me, "How's your unit road
system working?" And I tell them, "About 95 percent of our
roads are paved, and great conditions." That feels good,
'cause they all -- their jaws drop, you know, "How in the
hell do you do that?"
MR. ODOM: And if you look --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or "heck."
8-17-04 wk
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: You know, we do it productive.
When you compare us to some of the others, try and get
comparisons -- of course, I don't know their situations, but
I think we do a pretty good job.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're way ahead,
believe me.
MR. ODOM: Way ahead. And if you ask me,
I'll be more than happy to take some more money; we'll put
it in Special Projects. We could do some -- have some
hydrology to look at. But that's planning. That's up to
the Court. I -- this is a realistic budget that I've had.
It would be better if I could get it, but I live in the real
world, so -- I pay taxes too, like y'all. And we're all
tired of it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Odom. We
appreciate it.
MR. ODOM: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Leonard.
JUDGE TINLEY: You had a one-second item
on --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I just
think that it would be wise for this Court to know that the
secretary-type folks in the Sheriff's Office and the jail
are classified properly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Classified properly?
8-17-04 wk
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Classified properly.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You determined that
that's true?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sir?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Have you determined
that that's true?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm asking that
question.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that we need
to know that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I agree with
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What I'm hearing the
Sheriff say is that they're really not classified properly.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We need to know the
answer to that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, and your comment
earlier, rather than just taking a lump of money and saying,
"In order to fix this problem, we're just going to do this,"
what you're suggesting is -- is that we look at it from a
job duties and job description standpoint?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Exactly.
8-17-04 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
113
JUDGE TINLEY: How they are classified now,
and how they should be classified relative to the other
clerical and administrative personnel?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Exactly.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's right on the
money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And they should. The
study was done, what, two years ago? Or -- I've lost track.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Three years ago, and
they should be somewhere near. And I'm amazed that we're
talking about that they're so far out of -- out of kilter.
How did that happen? Did we not classify them properly in
the first place? Or did we not classify them at all?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When you first set
up the classification system, did a consultant do the
classification?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You know, who
created the scheme?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was a consultant.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've done it twice,
maybe three times.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do we have that
expertise in-house? Does the personnel --
8-17-04 wk
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We contract out for
it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Some weird dude. He
was really weird, too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What else do we have
this morning?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think.
JUDGE TINLEY: What about this afternoon?
Have we got some more things we need to wade through this
afternoon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will not be here this
afternoon, but y'all can wade to your heart's content. But
I think one thing that I would like to get on the table,
'cause I think it is -- is COLA, as to what that amount --
what that number is going to be, and where we're going to
settle on that. Because I think that -- that, to me, is a
priority over a lot of other things, because I think that it
is just not right to not give a cost-of-living adjustment to
all the employees.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have to do that, and
so I think we can figure out that amount or what index we're
going to use. I heard -- I don't know if it came from
Buster. I heard it is -- what, 2.8 percent?
8-17-04 wk
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I told you that
yesterday. I read it in the business section of the Dallas
Morning News, 2.8. And that wasn't just metropolitan;
that's statewide.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Statewide.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I would probably
disagree with that, because of the fuel cost, 'cause you
have some of the fuel costs up as much as 70 percent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what's driving
it up.
13 percent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. It should be
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it could even
be higher, but that's what's driving it up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm in agreement with
Commissioner Letz, that if we can establish some kind of a
number and then adjust everything else to that, that's a
priority.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We do have some
local competitive data, I think.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Have some what?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Local competitive
information. I think at least the Ingram School District
has moved. I can't remember what that number was; it was a
25 ~ little higher than I expected. But the statewide data is
8-17-04 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
116
important, and I think, you know, we could use that and go
with it. And -- but if -- if, as in the past, other
government employers in our area do something different, or
typically something more than we're doing, then I'd like to
know that too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I would too.
And I'd like for us to do kind of a casual survey of other
governmental and educational units to see where we are with
it. We already know that the Appraisal District is plugging
in more than that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They usually do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, I think we need a
little bit more information.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- you know,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- call the -- and I
don't even know. Probably go to maybe our surrounding
counties a little bit as well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just to kind of -- I
don't think we need to call the school district.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you include
state agencies like Kerrville State Hospital?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I would include
8-17-04 wk
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the State. You know, call whoever -- the Comptroller's
office, whoever does that, see what they're doing as a
cost-of-living adjustment this year. I think you can
probably find that online. I think you have the State one
that Bill has. You get the -- the overall state, then the
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Peterson, K.I.S.D. and
those kinds of things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Try to get a few,
and then try to -- and then first thing on Friday, really
try to tackle that and get that number nailed down so
that -- because I think that that's a priority. That has to
be done. And then we go from there on everything else, and
some of the other requests and adjustments.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Then what?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One commercial about
employee productivity. I did notice, reading the newspaper
account of Ingram Independent School District salary
increases, they were tallying that they had been able to
give above-average increases because they had not replaced
employees who had left, but had taken those duties and
passed them around. And -- and now they're coming back and
saying, okay, everybody benefits when somebody gets a piece
of the productivity --
8-17-04 wk
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds familiar.
this year reducing a level, reshuffling.
JUDGE TINLEY: I was hopeful that I was going
to get some more -- more of those offers this year.
Somewhat disappointed that I didn't. As I think I've
indicated in the past, I was very pleased last year with the
number that was able to work out those type of arrangements
that allowed a position not to be filled and redistributed.
And, of course, the ones it was redistributed to received
extra compensation for it as part of the increased
productivity and efficiency. But maybe there will be some
more come along this year. We can just keep working on it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Or maybe we can't
expect voluntary compliance; maybe we have to edict that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you hope to be able to
achieve it through voluntary compliance. Sometimes, if they
dig in their heels, why, you just got to do what you got to
do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just as a final note,
don't you think that we should set up some type of a
schedule for Friday? Are we going to meet with other
departments, or are we just going to talk about the COLA and
go home? Or --
8-17-04 wk
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm hoping we meet
with all departments.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All departments. So,
we need to notify all departments that we're going to meet
with them. They need to know that.
JUDGE TINLEY: At least give them a copy
of -- of what our -- what our numerical plan is. That would
seem to be appropriate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Also --
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't -- why don't you,
this afternoon, work with me with Ms. Mitchell, and we'll
try and develop that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That okay?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Also, queries are
coming in from outside agencies that want to know when we're
going to talk about County-sponsored and so forth.
JUDGE TINLEY: I thought we'd let
Commissioner Nicholson handle that part of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're only going to
give him Extension Office.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I was going to include
that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They're on my list.
8-17-04 wk
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, in --
Commissioner 1 and the Judge, in your scheduling, I don't
see the need to go over every line item with each elected
official, as we've done in the past. I think that's a waste
of time. What I would like to do, and I think time-wise, we
don't need to schedule a lot of time with each, but I would
just like to hear really where they are and where they're
going in their department, and what's on the horizon type
thing, and what do they see for personnel? Are they
planning to try to do some, you know, reorganization that
may reduce personnel, increase productivity? I think that's
a question that you ask, and I think it's always a good time
to kind of give a strong indication that we're -- this Court
has not been real inclined to increasing our personnel
numbers.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, on the specific line
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's exactly what
I want to do.
JUDGE TINLEY: My one-on-ones with the
elected officials and department heads, one of the primary
purposes of doing that was to have a better understanding of
what their needs are, and secondly, trying to eliminate that
part out of the discussion with the whole Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
8-17-04 wk
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: So that you can concentrate on
hopefully we have accomplished that. I didn't see too much
items that Mr. Odom had a concern about. There was a couple
of items that he had some concern. And I've told them as I
had my one-on-ones with them, you know, what we're talking
about may not be what I put in the initial draft, but you're
free to raise any questions about it at any time until that
budget's finally passed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If there's -- if
there's major changes in there, I'm going to want to know
why.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What it's all about.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. And, generally, if --
if there's been a material deviation -- and they probably
explained it to me. If you've convinced me, you know,
that's all I need is the background facts. Okay. So, I
guess we'll try and work up a schedule for our end of it,
and you're going to handle the Extension and
County-sponsored, and we'll let you integrate that into it,
and then come Monday at -- I mean Friday at 9 o'clock, we'll
go back at it, and we'll have the COLA issue first up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the County-sponsored,
issue, unless I missed something, I believe the Judge
8-17-04 wk
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recommended what everyone requested. I don't think there's
those people coming in here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if they're all
getting what they got in the past, what they've gotten
before, you're right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Most of them are getting
increases -- several of them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I haven't looked at
that; I'll be honest with you. I just know I had a query
about it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nobody got reduced, and I
thought the Judge was overly generous.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Magnanimous.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Magnanimous on that page.
Must have been late in the day when he was doing it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's one that
might need to come in, something we need to -- we got an
issue with KARFA we need to resolve, and that's this request
for us putting up the front money so that they can ask for a
grant for a telecommunications project. That's the new
repeaters. I think we need to bring them in here -- bring
KARFA in here, bring the Sheriff in here, and give them an
answer on whether or not we have a problem with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think volunteer fire
8-17-04 wk
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
departments --	I have no problem with KARFA coming in,
because I don'	t -- I mean, they're County-sponsored, but
they're not --	I was thinking more like CASA and --
	COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, I --
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Historical Commission.
	COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm with you. We
know all we ne	ed to do that.
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anything that's -- you
know, like, KARFA has a special request. I think that's the
type of thing	that needs to come before the Court.
	COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll contact KARFA
and ask them to come in Friday -- Monday -- I mean Friday.
	JUDGE TINLEY: That's it? We will stand
adjourned, to	be reconvened Friday morning at 9 o'clock.
	(Budget workshop adjourned at 12:06 p.m.)
8-17-04 wk
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OF KERR ~
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 3rd day of September,
2004.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: ___ _ _
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
8-17-04 wk