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 Tuesday, August 24, 2004 1:30 p.m. Commissioners' Courtroom Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas 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 ~` 2 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 24, 2004 PAGE Budget Workshop County Holidays 3 District Clerk 9 Maintenance 26 Courthouse & Related Buildings 27 Jail 37 Parks 37 Youth Exhibit Center 38 Juvenile Probation 51 Adult Probation 59 Health & Emergency Services 62 Collections 68 Environmental Health 76 Animal Control 101 Agricultural Extension Service 112 County Court at Law 124 County-sponsored 126 City/County operations 133 Commissioners Court 145 County Judge 155 Elected Officials' compensation 157 Adjourned 220 8-24-04 wk 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 24, 2004, at 1:30 p.m., a budget workshop of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held 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 call to order the Commissioners Court workshop scheduled for this date and time, Tuesday, August the 24th, at 1:30 p.m. The agenda calls for the workshop to be in connection with the Fiscal Year '04-'05 budget. The first individual up on the schedule is the District Clerk. I don't see Ms. Uecker here. We just saved ourselves 20 minutes, it looks like. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I know she's coming, 'cause she said, "I'll see you in a minute" about two minutes ago. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, while we're waiting, can we talk about holidays? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll talk about holidays. The ones we got or the ones we didn't get? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, just look at these dates. My question I had was, are the -- the date -- like, are we just lucky that all the holidays fall on Monday this year coming up? Like, July 4th, it says, is a Monday after -- for instance, is July 4th a Monday? 8-24-04 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 MS. NEMEC: Yes. I prepared that, yes, and I went by the federal holidays. Those are -- federal holidays is when the banks are closed, and I know this past year, we were working when the banks were closed, and it wasn't very convenient for us. And then one time the banks were open, and we weren't working or whatever. But, anyway, I followed the -- last year I kind of did a Tivy -- or a K.I.S.D. holiday, compared that with the federal holidays, and that's how we came up with our holidays. This year, I just strictly did federal holidays. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, by looking at this, we don't have any problems this year. I mean, it works out that almost all the holidays are on -- I mean -- MS. NEMEC: Yes. I went strictly by their -- JUDGE TINLEY: Federal holidays are both December 24th and 27th? MS. NEMEC: Okay, no. Federal holidays, for Christmas -- see, the way I understand it, they can't have four consecutive holidays, and that includes weekends. So, for their -- for their Christmas holiday, their holiday is Monday, December the 26th. JUDGE TINLEY: 26th? MS. NEMEC: I mean the 27th, I'm sorry. They have the 26th, but theirs is wrong. I changed it to the 27th. 8-24-04 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 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. NEMEC: And what I did was I checked how many holidays we had last year, and that is the same number of holidays. I think there may be one more that was recommended this year. So, that's why I included the 24th. COMMISSIONER LETZ: One more recommended this year being the controversial New Year's holiday? MS. NEMEC: No, being -- well, no, New Year's Eve holiday is also a federal holiday. They are celebrating that holiday on New Year's Eve. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. NEMEC: The -- the one that I included this year that we haven't had in several years was Martin Luther King Day. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MS. NEMEC: For years, I get calls on why this holiday is not a holiday. My explanation to them is, some years ago, the Court took that holiday away. Not this Court; several courts back. So, I am proposing that we put that holiday back into our holiday schedule. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that one more holiday than we've had in the past? MS. NEMEC: Actually, what I think it amounts to be is half a day more, because last -- this past year, we did two and a half days for Christmas. And so this year 8-24-04 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 we're only doing two days, so actually, with that Martin Luther King Day, it's half of a holiday, half a day more. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But isn't that really -- isn't this going to yield two and a half days for Christmas too? Because you're going to have -- the 24th is a holiday. We'll do our annual Christmas luncheon on the 23rd, so the holiday begins, basically, noon the 23rd, in reality. MS. NEMEC: That's probably what will happen, but that's not what I'm proposing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the rationale for the 27th? MS. NEMEC: It's a federal holiday. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is a federal? MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're -- the reality is, whatever we put down at Christmas, we're going to end up with half a day more. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is fine. JUDGE TINLEY: Would that also be the same for New Year's? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not this year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: New Year's is 8-24-04 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 December 31st -- that would be giving them New Year's Day, which is a Friday. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the calendar -- this year lends itself -- it's a lot easier to work with, it appears, based on the dates. The 31st is a Friday. MS. NEMEC: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It works out. The problem comes when the 31st is a Thursday. MS. NEMEC: Right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One complaint we got last year with -- as I recall, was that the K.I.S.D. schedule's a little different than ours, so sometimes our people were working when their children were out of school, or vice-versa. Is this different than K.I.S.D.? Or -- MS. NEMEC: It's different, because K.I.S.D. does not observe some of these holidays. I don't believe that -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: They don't observe Veterans Day, I don't believe. MS. NEMEC: Veterans Day or Columbus Day. So I think we probably have, actually, more holidays than they do. And then the thing about it is, too, that K.I.S.D., while they're called holidays -- or no-school days, some of those aren't actually holidays. They're teacher in-service days or for whatever reason, and there's no reason for us to 8-24-04 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 have those holidays. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MS. UECKER: Plus they hold some of those back for bad weather days. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did you count the total days on the schedule versus the total days on last year? MS. NEMEC: Yes, I -- this is 12 here. Last year was 11 and a half. So if we do the 23rd as a half a day, then you're talking a whole -- full day. This would be 12 and a half versus, last year, 11 and a half. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, this is -- MS. NEMEC: It's the same, and then we're adding that -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're adding one full day this year? MS. NEMEC: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the schedule. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that it for the holidays? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have we ever talked about, instead of -- for example, I don't know who -- no, it's not quite, Judge. I'm sorry. You added back in M.L.K. Day, right? MS. NEMEC: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have we ever talked 8-24-04 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 about a floating holiday instead of something like that; i.e., employee's birthday? Let them take that as a floating holiday, and not a rigid holiday? Have we ever discussed that? MS. NEMEC: I don't -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The merits of that? MS. NEMEC: I think, away from the court, I might have had a discussion with some officials, but no, not officially here in court. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not hearing anybody ante up, so it's not resonating, apparently. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It didn't give me goosebumps when you said that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That right. That's 'cause you've got a long-sleeved shirt on. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't want to delay the proceedings. It was just a thought that crossed my mind. JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Uecker is rapidly running out of time; she's only got about 11 minutes left. Why don't we get on to hers? MS. UECKER: Where do you want me to start? Or do you want to start? I don't know how you're doing 8-24-04 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 this. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I brought Subdivision Rules, not the budget. JUDGE TINLEY: Page 23 is where I see us, where we are, gentlemen. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 23. Right to it, just like a homing pigeon. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So far, Ms. Uecker, everybody that's come in here has had good ideas for cutting costs and increasing revenues, so we're ready to hear yours. MS. UECKER: I've been doing that for 37 years. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's why I was -- that's why I couldn't wait to hear from you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm just looking at the bottom line. You went up $2,000 over last year, so I -- I don't understand how you can be so extravagant. MS. UECKER: I know. Isn't it something? I really don't have anything that dramatic to talk about in my budget this year. Because of our limited funding, I'm trying to -- excuse me, frog in my throat -- trying to hold it down where I can. I did have some comments about -- or some questions about some changes that the Judge made, or somebody made on the last printout. JUDGE TINLEY: I did. 8-24-04 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 MS. UECKER: Is that you? JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MS. UECKER: Okay. On 310, Office Supplies. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MS. UECKER: You put -- changed that to 8,000. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MS. UECKER: Right now, there's somewhere between $1,500 and $2,000 left, which I think we'll be okay with that. Let's see. Machine Repair, that I had increased -- asked for an increase, because what you had added to, because we have reduced some of the contracts, and the repair on the machines is costing more. JUDGE TINLEY: I think I gave it to you, too, didn't I? MS. UECKER: Yeah, you've got it in there. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. UECKER: I just didn't know if you wanted me to explain all those, although they were pretty explanatory in my handout. WordMerge, you've probably heard from the other elected officials on that one. The Software Group, that was to be divided between myself -- JUDGE TINLEY: That's 562, Computer Software? MS. UECKER: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: 3,700? 8-24-04 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 MS. UECKER: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, t hat's one program cut -- what, five ways? Something? Four ways? MS. UECKER: Actually -- yeah, District Clerk, County Clerk, J.P.'s 1, 2, and 3, and the Sheriff's Office. So, that's actually -- JUDGE TINLEY: Six. MS. UECKER: Six ways. Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Should be 3,700 each? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. MS. UECKER: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MS. UECKER: Software Maintenance, 563. And what I had in there, and you did too, was the $13,776. About a month ago, I found out that o ne of the other offices -- I think the County Clerk - - had been okaying a couple of -- or one maintenance bill for me, so I had to go in and do a b udget amendment. So, th at line item should probably -- s hould be increased to $1 5,242, rather than the 13. JUDGE TINLEY: Say again? 15? MS. UECKER: 15,242. JUDGE TINLEY: And that -- that's your current fixed cost on that particular item? MS. UECKER: Right. 8-24-09 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 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. UECKER: And what that was -- let me see. That was the -- that was the new program on -- I don't remember. JUDGE TINLEY: About $1,500 worth. MS. UECKER: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. MS. UECKER: I can find out what it was, but it was the latest program on imaging. That's what it was, on the imaging. Other than that, Operating Equipment or Capital Outlay, wherever you want to put it, $2,100 I need, at least, and I just asked for one new computer and two printers. I've got one -- one printer dead, and another one -- and these are not that expensive and not worth -- it costs more to repair them than it does to replace them. I had amended my budget request for Law Library computers -- well, we're not on Law Library yet. JUDGE TINLEY: Are you through with this one? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At this point, one quickie. On your Lease Copier expense, is that a new copy machine where the fee's going to go up, or do they bill per copy cost on the lease, or what? JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't cut that one. MS. UECKER: The original budget was $4,000; that's what I asked for. 8-24-04 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Okay. MS. UECKER: I think -- oh, I know why I added that. The 3,570 is based on the exact amount, up to a certain amount of copies. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which, apparently, you're exceeding this year. MS. UECKER: Right, because of a couple of large cases that we've tried. We have to make copies for the judges and the juries. And I know that we have a couple of -- well, one for sure that's coming up this next year where the same thing will probably happen, where we'll exceed the minimum amount of copies that we can make at that cost per month. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With your usage up already this year, are you sure four is enough? MS. UECKER: Well, I don't know. I wondered about the same thing. Maybe not. That's $500 -- a little bit less than a $500 increase. I would say let's try it and see. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MS. UECKER: The only other thing, I talked to -- Jannett's not in here, is she? As some of you probably know -- or the Judge knows, Jannett and I have been visiting with Del Holzer from Landata about putting our records out on -- on the Internet. And I think the Court 8-24-04 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 has already approved Jannett to do that. JUDGE TINLEY: She's doing that in this budget year. MS. UECKER: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: She's acquiring the license in this budget year. MS. UECKER: Well, at the time we thought that I could piggy-back in on that and not have to pay that other $15,000, the initial setup fee. But I talked to Del this morning, and -- and that can't happen. He gave us the wrong information. We would have -- for me, we would have to pay the $15,000 setup fee. The other problem is, it doesn't -- you can't put documents out on the internet that have not been scanned into the program. Everything I have is on microfilm. But -- so, to be able to sell that document on the internet, those all have to be scanned. Of course, I started scanning January the 1st, so there are some documents out there to be put over the internet, but it's not enough right now to justify what the costs would be to get it there. And I told Mr. Holzer that, and I said -- well, he said it would be pretty easy to image all of your documents, because you do have them all on microfilm. We wouldn't have to pull hard documents. We could just take the tapes and -- and make the digital images from that. So he gave me a figure of the $15,000 plus, 8-24-04 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 based on 532 rolls of film, at about -- at an average of 2,000 shots per roll, would cost us, in addition to the $15,000, $53,200 to get those digitized, put out on the Internet. Of course, for -- and right now, I can't see that that would -- could be justified for me, because there is a different type of customer out there asking for County Clerk records. I know the County Clerks are making -- you know, they're bringing in big money on this, and I think it's great. But it's a different type of record, and they're -- they're having -- they're getting the requests for documents from all over the country, even Alaska. But it's land records, birth records, marriage records, death records. That's where they're getting the money. Being court records, we have a different type situation altogether. Most of our records come from the individuals that are getting the records, either for Social Security purposes or marriages or whatever. The other ones come from -- the requests come from attorneys or security people or abstract companies. And I'm not sure -- you know, there really hasn't been a test market out there on this for district clerks, so we don't know what the yields would be. And although I'd like to do it, in all honesty, I don't know that we could justify it right now, especially since -- although I'm now collecting a $5 fee for records management that goes just for district clerk's purposes. There's three 8-24-04 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 funds there now. And, in this short time, I have not collected enough to even think about this, I don't think. Now, in talking to Mr. Holzer, though, he did say that they -- they could work with us, in that the $15,000 would have to be paid up front, but the $53,000 would come from -- could be paid as that fee comes in and as that fund increases every year, based on what the amount would be. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you explain how this system works? MS. DECKER: How -- how this works is, Landata is the company, and there's several companies out there doing it. I think this is probably one of the more reputable ones. What they do is, they maintain a website -- and that's the other good thing -- where Jannett and myself -- it would be a wonderful website that would maintain all of the information that we would want to put on there. That's kind of a given. Then there are -- then you can go in and access all of the records that you can digitize that have been scanned into that system. You can order them like you order anything else online. You click on it, give them your credit card number. Now, where the County makes the money is, of that fee, if they sell $10 worth of copies, Landata gets $4 of it; Kerr County gets $6 of it. We get $6 for doing nothing except having our records available. Now, like I was saying, for county 8-24-04 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 clerks, their fee, that's going to be paid for pretty quick because of the high volume of records that are going to be requested. After two years is up, they can -- we can negotiate with them to increase our percentage to higher than 60 percent if the volume for them is there. The other perk -- the other pro would be it is an excellent way for clerks to have automatic backup disaster control, you know. Of course, I don't have that problem, I don't think, because I've got all of my records on microfilm, and the originals are in a safe place in Austin, Texas, certified by the State Library. But I know there's a lot of -- you know, a lot of clerks that don't, and I'm one of the very few that has everything that way. But it would be real easy for reestablishing all of your records if they're lost. Damage control, website maintenance, disaster backup. I don't know. At this point, this year, I'm not sure that it would be totally justified for me. I don't think that the requests are going to be out there for district clerks. And I would hate to be the test county, unless they want to, you know, give us a heck of a break on being the test county to see what district clerks bring in. For county clerks, it's working wonderful because of the type of work that they have. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If and when it's fully implemented, will it result in a need for fewer 8-24-04 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 25 clerical personnel? MS. UECKER: Possibility, but it would be for -- that's for copies only. We don't do that many copy requests generally. I could understand where that might be the case in -- where the high volume is, but that -- I mean, it would be minimal, if it was. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think -- I mean, I agree with you; I don't think you would have near the volume potential as the County Clerk does. But it seems to me it would be a -- in either office, it could be a pretty big personnel savings, because the -- both staffs are very accommodating to help people find the stuff. MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if people can find it online, I think it would free them up from being interrupted. MS. UECKER: That's a good point, because the website actually helps them find it. In other words, they don't have to call the clerk and say, "Would you look up a deed from such-and-such to such-and-such?" Ten minutes later, he comes online and says, "Oh, okay, I found it. Okay, I want a copy of it." The web site actually helps the person -- the user locate the record. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Linda, if you know, is this software limited to just county clerk, for example, 8-24-04 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 and/or district clerk? Or can it be any county office that might have -- MS. UECKER: Any county office. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- document or copy MS. UECKER: Any county office where there are -- where there is a public need for record searches or copies or whatever. It's not just limited to county and district clerks, although that is the highest. The county clerks mostly are the ones that are using it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I bet you that it would take years to educate the public that they could go online and get it, anyway. I mean, most people are going to still come to your office physically and -- and ask for a hard copy right there. MS. UECKER: Well, Del -- we used Brazoria County, specifically the County Clerk's office. Of course, they're three or four times as big as we are, and they thought they were going to have the same issue there. But because there was -- because -- and the local people still do, but those that are out of state, they know that many, many counties are now putting their records out there on the web. Bexar County has theirs on the web. Travis County, all of the large counties have all of their records out on 25 ~ the web, you know, and they start looking, and they pull it 8-24-04 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 up and -- "Oh, look, there's Kerr County. Oh, there's divorce records." The only problem I have with putting criminal cases out there on the web site is because -- and I'm not sure that the liability would be with me, but I might put a record out there on the web, State vs. Jane Doe, and Buster comes along and buys a copy. Subsequently, there's an order for expunction signed by the Judge. I've expunged everything in my files on it, but Buster's still got a copy of it. That's one concern that I have about doing criminal records out there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you asked them how to deal with that? Have they not made a provision for that? MS. UECKER: You can't. There's no way you can, unless they chase him down and yank his copy out of his little hand. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, it's for sale. Believe me, my copy's for sale. JUDGE TINLEY: You mentioned something about your Law Library account that -- MS. UECKER: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: -- you want to talk about with MS. UECKER: I had given you, Judge, an amended request for some new computers. Those computers 8-24-04 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 that are in there are -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What page? JUDGE TINLEY: 80. MS. UECKER: -- are part of the old computers, the very first ones that were built out of pieces from some computer company that we were using up here off -- across from the high school. And -- and I was wanting -- none of those were working recently. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, now, looking in your Law Library account, I don't -- I don't see that. Unless they're -- MS. UECKER: Well, I gave it to you afterwards. I gave it to you a couple of weeks later, after I got frustrated with the fact that the computers were not working in the Law Library; had not been working for two years, although I requested to have them repaired. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was your request now, the amount? JUDGE TINLEY: I apologize. For some reason, I didn't get it in here. MS. UECKER: The request was for two new computers for $2,400. However, Commissioner, all four computers are working right now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, do you want to come back next week and tell us, or do you want to deal with 8-24-04 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 it now? JUDGE TINLEY: That's kind of like the two weeks after you turned in your budget, huh? MS. UECKER: Exactly. Exactly. JUDGE TINLEY: I think you know the answer to the question that's before us now. MS. UECKER: I don't know how long they're going to be working. I would really like to see us at least replace one of them. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you put it in and they continue to work, you don't have to spend it. MS. UECKER: No, I don't. I had requested $2,400 for two new computers. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And this is a separate fund from the General Fund? MS. UECKER: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it comes out of a dedicated -- MS. UECKER: Can't be used for anything else. JUDGE TINLEY: Every case that's filed, there's a certain amount that goes in there. Is it $35 still? MS. UECKER: $35 a case. JUDGE TINLEY: Really? MR. TOMLINSON: We have more money in there 8-29-04 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 than we can spend. JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? MR. TOMLINSON: We have more money in there than we can spend. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whoa. MR. TOMLINSON: Law Library. MS. UECKER: Let's put it in. If I don't need them, then -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: library in here needs a new computer? MS. UECKER: So far, I everybody bringing me their bills for mean their books and stuff is working JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's -- What if I told you my think the system of their Law Library -- I out. it's catching on, and MS. UECKER: Yeah, catching on. COMMISSIONER LETZ: More of them are going to do it, because they don't have any money in their own budget. MS. UECKER: didn't put any money in the COMMISSIONER MS. UECKER: COMMISSIONER to this year; they're going That was the whole idea. You it budgets last year. LETZ: Some of them did. They did? WILLIAMS: But they're not going to come see you. 8-24-04 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 MS. UECKER: They'll come see me. MR. TOMLINSON: There's $105,000 in that fund. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Boy, my Law Library computer is out, too. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you get two new ones. Then, if the ones you have are still working, they can go somewhere else. Judge needs a computer. MS. UECKER: I can talk to you about that later if you want me to, but that could actually be a possibility. As long as you put Westlaw under something. I don't see that that -- JUDGE TINLEY: Probably the main reason I'd want it is to do research. MS. UECKER: Then you could probably buy one out of the Law Library fund. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or the Sheriff always needs stuff. MS. UECKER: recently got a new program for by the Law Library. So COMMISSIONER MS. UECKER: COMMISSIONER Mm-hmm, yeah. The Sheriff and I through Westlaw that's being paid LETZ: Okay. What else? LETZ: $2,400, Capital Outlay? 8-24-04 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 26 MS. UECKER: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: You get that? Okay. Thank you, ma'am. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Linda. MS. UECKER: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: If Mr. Holekamp's unkind to you in the next week or so, you'll understand it's 'cause you took up 10 minutes of his time. MS. UECKER: Mr. Holekamp and I got it all worked out. JUDGE TINLEY: I see. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're looking very bright today. MS. UECKER: Thank you. MR. HOLEKAMP: We've got it worked out. JUDGE TINLEY: He didn't realize you were going to show up 10 minutes late, though. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You'll get the list later, Glenn. MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, I'm down to what, five minutes left? COMMISSIONER LETZ: What page are you on? MR. HOLEKAMP: 40? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 40? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 40. 8-24-04 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 MR. HOLEKAMP: Courthouse and Related. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Have you got any money in the budget for WD-40 for this squeaky chair? MR. HOLEKAMP: No, we use a Teflon; we don't use WD-40. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Think somebody can swatch chairs with me? MR. HOLEKAMP: I'm glad you mentioned it. I guess we need to sit in them and turn every once in a while and see if they need it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did you use Teflon tape on them? MR. HOLEKAMP: We use Teflon spray. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, spray? MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah, 'cause WD-40 usually will rust. JUDGE TINLEY: Are you on the Courthouse and Related Buildings, Page 40? MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. I just -- if y'all want to just kind of run down it, I have no problems with the Judge's recommended changes. As I had indicated to him, I'm not sure about the supplies. We reduced it from 24,000 to 21,000. There's a lot of unknowns with chemicals and paper supplies. We're seeing some increases now in some of those areas due to transportation costs. Manufacturers -- 8-24-04 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 28 they've been able to hold our lines pretty well, but where we used to have all of our shipping being paid for by the -- the supplier, they're passing shipping along to us now, and I think it is a transportation issue. But I -- as I told him, I will work with whatever we need to. Under Major there were some changes on. The Judge -- and he may be able to explain this better than me. I have Major Repairs in -- there's a possibility we'll be able to do some closing in of that basement area down here with -- if I get the right kind of community service people; that I buy the material and we'll be able to do some of that, whether it be the floor, the ceiling or whatever, this coming year, and not do too many walls. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that in the Major MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, or Capital Outlay. We put 7,500 in each. And the reason was, is capital -- Capital Outlay would probably be for the hard supplies, and then the Major Repairs would be -- JUDGE TINLEY: We're anticipating an air-conditioner, I think. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah, an air-conditioner, the one over in -- 25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: Judge Brown's. 8-29-04 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 MR. HOLEKAMP: -- Judge Brown's courtroom. That one's about 20 -- 24 years old, but it's been holding up, and we're not going to change it until we need to. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, if at all possible, we should, in that hallway down there, get signs that aren't hanging from coat hangars -- from the wires. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We ought to put a suspended ceiling. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Put a suspended ceiling and proper signage. MR. HOLEKAMP: Mm-hmm. I really would like to, and I think the money in this would adequately provide for that. Because using either trustees or community service, either one, to do some -- the labor part of it, we've been very successful at doing that. It just is timing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about that large -- well, it's two large spaces down there, one area that we have our meetings or courthouse luncheons and things. MR. HOLEKAMP: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Any plans for that space? MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, in the long-range, what the plans that were approved when they did that construction, that is a restroom area. The plumbing is there to just put in the bathrooms. And I will tell you, at 8-24-04 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 some point, and it's not that far off, by the numbers of people that you serve on that floor, you're going to be required to have certain numbers of bathrooms, and we're going to get there. See, right now, we have the one -- two sets -- two bathrooms in that hallway between the County Attorney and J.P. 3, but that was there already before we had Juvenile, Treasurer, and Environmental Health. So, I really think we are going to -- in the not-so-distant future, we're going to have to consider putting in a set of bathrooms there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the cost of a set MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, fixtures -- I'd have to -- no, I can't just do it off the top of my head. I would imagine about $60 a square foot. And that would be -- those two would be -- that's with ceiling, walls, and everything. I'm talking about closing it in. COMMISSIONER LETZ: $10,000 for restrooms? MR. HOLEKAMP: I think we could do it for that. But that is one thing that's going to have to be done at some point in time. And I don't know -- A.D.A. really has a lot of those numbers, that you have "X" number of people, and then it triggers more bathrooms. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other area that may need some work done there is that -- I guess it's 8-24-04 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 technically called the courtroom. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Between J.P. 3 and the County Attorney. That, to me, is wasted space. And I think that the County Attorney is probably in need of room, and has been for some time. I'd probably authorize that this year, which I don't think it costs that much to frame out an office in there. MR. HOLEKAMP: No, it wouldn't. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Put an office in there, and then do restrooms the next year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought we had talked about -- or authorized or talked about giving the County Attorney more space last year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We talked about it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We did. That number is figured in here, isn't it? Expanding the County Attorney's office out into that old courtroom? MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah. Material-wise, yes, but I don't -- I'm not figuring any labor in any of these numbers. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's fine. MR. HOLEKAMP: Because I like to do it in-house. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's good. But that 8-29-04 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 is your thinking with these numbers here? MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: As long as -- yeah, okay. I want to make sure that we get basically that hallway fixed up and the County Attorney done this year. MR. HOLEKAMP: The restroom thing probably is not in here. That would not be in here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then next year, do the final step down there, finish it out, which would be the restrooms, would be my plan. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Glenn, I have a question. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess it comes under your repairs and maintenance. It probably doesn't fall under Major Repair. I see that that number's been increased. MR. HOLEKAMP: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have taking care of some of these old courthouse doors that need replacement or repair? MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, we have that with some -- how would I say that? Th professional painters and renovation people you plugged in windows and -- we're doing ere are that are on 8-24-04 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 community service, and one of the problems I've had is -- year and repainted them all the way around the old courthouse. We reglazed them. That was done with community service people. I intend to do some stuff with some of these doors. I have some people scheduled; they just haven't done it yet. And once they're assigned, it's real hard to -- to hold their feet to the fire to give them an exact timeline that they perform it. We -- we do the best that we can by getting these people to agree to do it, and kind of check out their credentials, so to speak. But then the way probation and community service works is, if they meet the obligation of eight hours a week, or eight hours every two weeks, we can't really make them work more than that to fulfill their obligation. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that. I guess what I'm getting at is, why would it take six years to replace that door that's about to fall apart coming in the back end of the courthouse? MR. HOLEKAMP: You know, that was interesting. Two local woodworking people came over, measured it, priced it, and then were not able to -- to make it. They said I'd have to go to San Antonio, and I dropped the ball after that. I was trying to do business locally. But -- 8-24-04 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 34 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The bottom line is, it is going to be included in this year's budget? MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. It can be, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. MR. HOLEKAMP: All right. On the -- just briefly, on salaries, they've stayed pretty much the same. There were some changes in part-time that I requested. I would also like to make it clear that there's a possibility some of that'll be contracted, and not part-time. Right at this moment, this is where it's at, but if I can contract for a better deal for Kerr County, I'll do that. That -- that doesn't -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: It probably ought to be a separate line item if we go that route. MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, I -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause it's treated differently from MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay, I got -- Jon, down here, it is on this line, 553. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MR. HOLEKAMP: But I have -- and what I'm trying to say is, is on 108, Part-Time, I had a person that has left that's part-time, and if I can make it work, some of that money's going to have to go down to here, is what I -- 8-24-04 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Budget amendment. It's in here? MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. I just can't make that decision right -- with these budget things right now, because I don't know what I'm going to do. All right? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are any of the maintenance personnel in this budget -- are they working on the Ag Barn? MR. HOLEKAMP: No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Is that all on this particular -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Budget? No. JUDGE TINLEY: -- item? Okay. We -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait. Did you say no? MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir, I said no. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You said, "Is that all?" And he said no. MR. HOLEKAMP: No. I answered his question. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Try yours again, 'cause I have a question or two. JUDGE TINLEY: Are we through with the Courthouse and Related Buildings portion of your budget? MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I have a couple of items I wanted to bring up on -- I don't think they're 8-24-04 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 major repairs; it's just issues that need to be taken care of. The back door was one. And I would -- I would really appreciate if you'd consider some kind of pressure wash on the building. If you look at these -- like, the upstairs corners and the front door -- right above the front door, I mean, it's almost black mold, or black something that's grown on there, and I would just assume that you can pressure wash that stuff off. Maybe not. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah, we can. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: May have to get -- get all the prisoners over here with toothbrushes. I don't know how you do that. But the -- if you -- if you stop and look at this building, there are -- there's black all around the old building. And the flagpole -- that flagpole needs to be painted. I don't know how you do that either. This guy's not going to do it. But does that flagpole break down? MR. HOLEKAMP: No, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're going to climb it and paint it? MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah, someone will. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mike's big lift will get you there. Going to rent out a big crane. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just needs to be done to kind of dress things up around here. MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. 8-29-04 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 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that particular budget? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: None from me, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. MR. HOLEKAMP: Jail Maintenance, 511? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. MR. HOLEKAMP: The only change in that one there -- substantial change was an increase in Jail Repairs by 10 percent -- I mean, by $10,000. The reason is, the jail is going to be, next year, ten years old, and we're starting to see some areas that is -- is costing a little bit more. We're having to go back to the factory for some stuff, and those costs are going to go up, okay? That's all I have on that. JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions on Jail Maintenance? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ag Barn is -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Next one would be Parks Maintenance; that's 513. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MR. HOLEKAMP: There's really no changes there at all. Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What page is that? JUDGE TINLEY: 44. MR. HOLEKAMP: That would be 44. 8-29-04 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 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I thought I had a question. MR. HOLEKAMP: On mine? Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. Where did I see a large amount of money for Flat Rock Lake Park? MR. HOLEKAMP: For what? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In Parks. JUDGE TINLEY: It's in the -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the Parks, itself. It's not Parks Maintenance. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's later. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, later. MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. Then 666, which is Youth Exhibit Center. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 68. MR. HOLEKAMP: All right. There were -- the Judge made a few changes here. Nothing that I can't live with. We -- salaries are down approximately 8,000 -- $8,000, $9,000 from last year at that facility. We get down to -- the only one that I have in mind that's concerning me a little bit, and I mentioned it to the Judge, is Vehicle Maintenance. All these vehicles -- these trucks, our maintenance trucks that they use out there, are getting older, and, you know, that's one of those things you just 8-24-04 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 don't know from one year to the other what it's going to cost you to get them -- keep them running. So, I'd -- like I said, I'll live with whatever we get. It's just one of those things that is -- I hope it's going to work out. JUDGE TINLEY: One item on there also on Capital Outlay. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah, that's on this second page. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Before you get to that, Commissioner Williams promised a new speaker system. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got my request right here. Sound system. Is that under 569? MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, it is under 570. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, $60,000 sound system. Wow. MR. HOLEKAMP: No -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're going to resonate all over the county. MR. HOLEKAMP: No, the -- in the Capital Outlay, I -- what I'm thinking is -- is that the sound system repair is approximately 7,300-some-odd -- wasn't it? 73? That's the repair. The replacement was considerably higher. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the replacement 8-29-04 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 MR. HOLEKAMP: 33,998 was replacement. And the repair, which he said would really -- really do what we're trying to do right now, 7,448. The remainder of that money, that 60,000, is -- and I don't know how y'all want to do this. We got to do something about that roof. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the consequences of not doing anything? MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, I'm going to probably have to take ceiling the out of there and just expose the top, because during events when it rains, the ceiling tiles are falling on people sitting in the -- watching events, and that's really not a -- it's not real conducive to, you know, a dance or -- it's not real pleasurable. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Glenn, you're talking about a roof -- MR. HOLEKAMP: No, I -- no, I'm just -- I'm talking about repairing the roof. I'm not talking about replacing -- I'm not -- I have not got -- we went to that trouble -- or not that trouble. Two years ago, we went to extensive pricing of replacement and all of this, and that was over -- it was, like, 96,000, 100,000, something like that for that roof. And, you know, we've -- whatever we do, we're going to have to try to keep the water out of there some way or another. 25 ~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I can tell you 8-24-04 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 25 right now, I think it's foolish to try to repair a flat roof. That's throwing money down a hole. We need to put a roof-roof on that building. That's foolish, in my opinion. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A vaulted roof would be a pretty sizable expense. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see you have any choice. You're going to be doing the same thing again next year. MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, I put -- I put those two items, you know, here, 60,000 and -- in here, and y'all can kind of do -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So you'd have 53,000 left over to do -- to repair the roof? MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah, approximately. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Repair a flat roof. MR. HOLEKAMP: And I'm -- you know, I don't know what it's going to -- what they're going to get into once they peel that other -- that fabric off. I don't know. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't tell anybody I had anything to do with it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question on the sound system. The repair of the current system, is it a -- and I'm not familiar. Is that a totally portable system that's out there now? And the $7,400 system is a totally portable system when it's completed? 8-29-04 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 MR. HOLEKAMP: It'll be totally portable if you pull the speakers out, yes, sir. And the wiring that goes in with those speakers that they're going to -- see, what happened, a lot of that stuff is real old, and they bought speakers that didn't fit those kind of P.A.'s. Well, what happens is the P.A.'s are -- when you start broadcasting, try to go loud, they're throwing -- the speakers are throwing too much current back, and it's kicking the breakers. So, what happened is they're wrong-sized, a lot of it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Speakers are drawing more off the amp than the amp can supply? MR. HOLEKAMP: That is correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that what is causing the -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- cut-outs all the time? COMMISSIONER LETZ: When there's three people near each other, none of them can talk. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That happens over in the arena more than it happens in the pig barn. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only one person is talking in the pig barn. In the arena, where there's three sets of microphones -- 8-24-04 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- it's just total shutdown a lot of the time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The problems we -- I understand. We talked about that. What we encountered in the hog barn last year, and year before and the year before, had to do with just flat cut-outs. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that's because those speakers are -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- require more amperage than those amps can provide, and just bottom out. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I'm kind of at the same on the speaker system or sound system as where Buster is with the roof; that I want -- if we're spending $7,400, this thing better work everywhere. I mean, or we need to get a new system. I mean, it's -- 33,000 is a whole lot more than 7,400, but if 7,400 doesn't truly fix it, I'm not in favor of spending it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does it fix the arena problem that the Commissioner is talking about? MR. HOLEKAMP: According to Sound Distributors, the professionals, yes, it will. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. As long as they -- 8-24-04 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 MR. HOLEKAMP: And I did ask him when I was talking to him, I said, you know, if -- if, for some reason, we make some changes, can we take those speakers and use them later? Absolutely. JUDGE TINLEY: Are those weatherproof speakers? What if they get wet? MR. HOLEKAMP: What do you mean? Raining on them? JUDGE TINLEY: Or leaking on them. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are they bell speakers that you hang or that you got to imbed in that suspended ceiling? MR. HOLEKAMP: I think they're hung bell speakers. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're already hung bells? MR. HOLEKAMP: I think so. I haven't studied all of this. I've just -- everything is in this package. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Glenn, can you tell me, give me a ballpark -- maybe the County Auditor can -- of how much income you've taken in on renting the facility out? MR. HOLEKAMP: I don't have it with me. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just a ballpark. MR. TOMLINSON: It was actual -- last year 8-24-04 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 was 25,000. We're at 25,000 currently. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 25? MR. TOMLINSON: 25. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much of that -- that's a gross number? MR. TOMLINSON: That's net. JUDGE TINLEY: Net? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a net number? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's after what we give to the livestock show? Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Year-to-date is 25 this year? Is that what he said? MR. HOLEKAMP: Mm-hmm. We should go above last year. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. MR. HOLEKAMP: Based on those figures. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we look at that operation as being two pieces of business; one's the youth livestock show, and that's -- I view that as an obligation that the County has, the reason the Ag Barn exists, and then the rest of it is a convenience to organizations in the county, some of them profits and some are not-for-profits, I wonder if it makes any difference if we -- if we lose customers. For example, on the roof issue, it might suggest 8-24-04 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 24 that taking the tiles out so that they don't fall on people and letting the roof leak would be a solution. I don't think that, for the livestock show, it makes any difference if you're under a leaky roof. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the problem, as I see it, is that the stock show is good and we need to take care of the stock show, but we also have -- 4-H uses that facility, and that's a county function, and a lot of kids participate in 4-H. So, I mean, it's not just a -- and you may -- I mean, your analogy may be okay; let them leak on the 4-H kids, but it's -- there's -- you can't just -- I mean, going in the direction of shutting down the facility except for the stock show doesn't work unless we do something else somewhere to make room for 4-H and other county functions. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was at the stock show, I reminded everybody last year, that the ceiling collapsed on top of the bidders. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: And there was an incident of that sort; a lady got hammered by one of the ceiling tiles, I recall. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. We change them -- we change them out as we notice them getting wet, as fast as 25 we can, but -- 8-24-04 wk 47 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: If they don't get too wet, they don't get heavy enough to fall. MR. HOLEKAMP: That is correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When they get heavy, they fall. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're really having this conversation? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds like it's time for a new building, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER LETZ: With the -- taking those acoustic tiles out, is there a way to address -- I mean, what's up there is really ugly. Could it be made to look like a lot of new construction that has -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's ugly. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a good question. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause there's a lot -- you can -- more and more, new construction is -- let all this stuff be exposed. A good example is Tivy High School. Every -- all the vents and everything up there is exposed, and it looks okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pretty hard to make a party barn out of it now. Once you take that ceiling down, it will not be a party barn at all. 8-24-09 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'm not saying take it down and leave it. I'm saying take it down and do something else to it; get rid of the tiles, which I think are a problem in that type of facility anyway. JUDGE TINLEY: You want your name on that, Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. We need a new roof. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A lot of new construction looks that way. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Convention Center in San Antonio looks that way. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Increases the heat and air-conditioning. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's true. If you don't design it properly, it does increase utilities. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, about this time every year we try to put some lipstick on this pig, and then we come back in next year; it's just as ugly as it was the year before. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pig needs a new barn. Been saying that for a long time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't disagree with that, Commissioner. 8-24-04 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So does the goat, the COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going back to the roof one more time, I mean, Commissioner Baldwin's pretty convinced that we can't repair a flat roof. I don't know. I mean, is there -- if we fix it or patch it, is there a guarantee that goes along with it? MR. HOLEKAMP: Not unless we go really extensive, peeling everything off. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Glenn, as a Maintenance Supervisor, would you recommend a flat roof? MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, no, sir. No, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely not. MR. HOLEKAMP: But when you're talking -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the long haul, you're in the maintenance mode all the time. MR. HOLEKAMP: No, sir, and I know what you're asking me. But you're asking whether Kerr County should spend 60,000 or 50,000 to patch -- to keep the water from coming in, or spend a quarter of a million to put a roof over that thing. I don't think, as a maintenance person, I should make that recommendation. I'm -- because that is a large amount of money. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 8-24-04 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 MR. HOLEKAMP: And I understand you -- what you're looking at is a long-term fix. By putting a roof over that thing that would -- if I had the money, I would say yes, it probably would be a smart thing to do. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you get a cost on a new vaulted -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do this. (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- a new roof like this in the next week? I mean -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- a budget-type number. Not necessarily a bid number, just a -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just on the front part of the Exhibit Hall. MR. HOLEKAMP: Exhibit Hall, yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then, while you're out there, get the cost for the walls that go with the new roof. MR. HOLEKAMP: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I said then, while you're out there, get some costs for the four walls that go with the new roof. 8-24-04 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 MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: And the heat and A/C to more efficiently heat and cool. MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just deal with the roof. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah, because if the roof goes away, those air-conditioners are going to have to go away. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, why don't we just make it open-air? Everybody can enjoy the sky. MR. HOLEKAMP: See, there's several issues here that it's going to -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Look at repair -- I mean, get an idea what the cost of a -- to truly repair the Exhibit Hall. MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: New roof. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Holekamp. MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: We're running about 20 minutes behind here. Next item is Juvenile Probation. It's going to get us to Page 53. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hello, Kevin. MR. STANTON: Morning, sir -- afternoon. JUDGE TINLEY: This budget was approved by the Juvenile Board, I believe. 8-24-04 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 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, it was. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page are we on, Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: 53. MR. STANTON: August 12th of '04. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. We're in favor of it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, we're in favor of it. Let's move on. That's an old county budget cheer, guys. MR. STANTON: Somebody ask me a question. I get to come up here every time. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that a new tie? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, it is. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nice to see you. MR. STANTON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have a clear understanding of the Juvenile Board. Clear understanding. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you explain -- here's a question. Explain why Alternate Housing is going up about 45, 000. MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, I can. We're -- we're actually detaining and having to place more kids. This last budget year, we actually -- it's something that 8-24-09 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 we've tried to do every year, but this last budget year, just so the County Commissioners will know this, the Juvenile Probation Department was able to secure an extra $85,936 from the State of Texas to use for residential placement of kids outside of Kerr County, on top of what's budgeted in the county budget, along with the other state budgets that we use for alternate housing. And because of increased detention rates -- or not increased detention rates. Because of the -- the amount of kids that we're having to place and the amount of kids we're having to put in detention for longer periods of time, our costs of alternate housing has gone up. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much did we get from the State? MR. STANTON: Last year, above and beyond our normal budget that we require from the State, we got an additional $85,936. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under -- JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry, go ahead. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Isn't the figure this year for Alternate Housing a substantial increase from the year before that? Didn't we go up, like, 50,000 last year also? MR. STANTON: I believe it went up a little 8-24-04 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 LETZ: 20,000. MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, it went up a little over 20,000 last year. This year, we're -- we're right on the edge of looking at what we -- we were last year, and it just -- we just seem to -- our referral rates have gone up as far as the kids. The number of kids that we have to deal with each year has increased by about -- from last year to this year, we're going to be at about -- about a 5 to 7 percent increase as far as the number of kids we're having to deal with. And, for some reason, we're having to detain more of those kids; we're getting a lot more severe criminal offenses that we're having to detain kids for a longer period of time, to make determinations of whether or not we feel and the Judge feels -- or the County Judge -- or the Juvenile Judge feels that, at that point, whether or not that child can be successfully released back into the community based on his needs and based on the needs of the community. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much -- that's you, right? I mean -- JUDGE TINLEY: That's me. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Is the -- as I recall, last year your feeling was that -- I guess you were more pro-incarceration, and were more -- or I guess it was a different -- I guess you weren't -- I know we increased your 8-24-04 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 budget. You had some reason that you wanted to, I guess, be harsher, possibly to try to get them to deter repeat offenses and things of that nature. Or did I dream that? 'Cause you're looking at me like I'm -- JUDGE TINLEY: Like it's the first time I've COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, 'cause it doesn't sound familiar. I -- the alternate housing that we had, '02-'03 actual was shown here at a hundred -- almost $169,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it came down? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I don't know that I have a -- a hardline stance or a not so hardline stance. It depends solely on -- on the particular case. We've had a rash of cases where there were a number of serious felony-type offenses, and I've just got to take what comes. You don't have much control over it. I do know that the numbers are generally up. And if you saw the total numbers that he deals with, it would scare you to death, because when it comes to a lot of the medical and diagnostic, there's a lot of state funds that come in, a lot of the placement funds that come in. He's got, what, three -- three or four different sources of funds outside of the Kerr County budget now, I believe. 25 ~ MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. We have our state 8-24-04 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 Community Corrections budget. We have our state -- State Aid budget. We also have our Title IV-E money that we receive, and we also have Level 5 funding that we receive and small-county diversionary funding we receive. Small-county diversionary funding and the Level 5 funding, the kids have to meet a certain criteria to -- to be able to access those funds, and that was the 89,000 that I was talking about last year. Those -- that was the money that we got from the small-county diversionary, Level 5 funding. Those are diversionary funds to keep kids from going to the Texas Youth Commission. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are those dedicated funds, or can they be used for just general purposes? MR. STANTON: No, sir, they have to be used for residential placements, alternate -- some type of alternative from T.Y.C. Our -- our Title IV-E funding, which is something new we just started this past year, that -- right now, we've got $37,000 in that account. That money we can use for non-secure residential treatment. We're also using it to do -- we're using that money to do a lot of our preventive -- preventive programs, along with our parenting education programs, our Transitional Living Program, and different things like that. We use that money to pay for our Probation Assisting Education teachers, that 25 I we -- now we've had to employ three Probation Assisting 8-24-04 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 Education teachers because of the number of kids that we're dealing with. Tonight, if you stick around after 5 o'clock and come downstairs, hopefully you'll see about 20 to 25 kids down there in tutorial services this afternoon. go into what he does that you don't see there, and there's some pretty significant numbers. So -- but it -- it fluctuates, and you just got to take what comes. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, what I think gives rise to the question, for the last year and a half, these costs have been a whole lot more than they were the previous four years, and is it just coincidental that there's a different judge that's ordering this alternate housing, or is it attributed to increases in the number of children we have to take care of? JUDGE TINLEY: I think he could give you a better answer to that than I could, 'cause he's been there through both. MR. STANTON: I believe -- I don't think it has anything particularly to do with the Judge. I believe that it's more of the severe offenses that we're having to deal with. And the -- the one thing that I've noticed this past year is that we're -- we're dealing with a lot of kids that have multiple, multiple referrals. I mean, we're 8-24-04 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 dealing with kids that have been referred to our department on the verge of six to ten times for felony offenses, and we're having to get to the point where it started. If you -- if you want to get to county judges, it started with the original -- Judge Henneke when they first got referred, and now we're having to deal with them for the fifth or sixth time, and it just happens to be that Judge Tinley's the judge at this point. And, at this point, we're having to look for different solutions for these kids. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Kevin, there's just one line I'm just curious about, 553, Contract Services. MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You had it at 10,000, and the Judge is cutting it to 2,500. Is there a reason, and what's that all about? MR. STANTON: From my understanding -- and Tommy might be able to help me with this one. From my understanding, that money was money that was originally in the county budget. Not in my county budget, but in the county budget that was contracted to give to Big Brothers and Big Sisters. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got you. MR. STANTON: So -- and so they've moved it back out of my budget and put it back in the County's. 8-24-04 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 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? I like your tie. MR. STANTON: Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank y'all very much. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thanks, Kevin. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Adult Probation. That one's pretty straightforward. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that 216th only? MR. HOLLIMON: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's the only one that is administered through here. Page 55. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 65? JUDGE TINLEY: 55. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 55. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty clean. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Here, again, Howard has a whole lot of things in addition to what you see here that goes through his office. If they saw all the numbers, it would probably scare them to death, wouldn't it, Howard? MR. HOLLIMON: Yes, sir. My total budget's $1.6 million. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much? MR. HOLLIMON: $1.6 million. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whew, that would 8-24-04 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 scare me to death. JUDGE TINLEY: You got any questions for him on the 52,000? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I like the 52,000. MR. HOLLIMON: Yeah. Actually, the -- the budget, gentlemen, for me to spend is $42,640. There's 10,000 in there that's actually something that Tommy Tomlinson will have to explain to you. It's a bookkeeping thing, but that is money that I pay the County. That's money that we have a contract for a drug offender program, and it's here in the budget, but that's money that I pay Kerr County, that $10,000. So, what I'm asking for is $42,640, which is up a total of $300 from last year, for which I apologize. JUDGE TINLEY: The equipment -- I think I cut your equipment, didn't I? Looks like it. MR. HOLLIMON: Pardon me, sir? JUDGE TINLEY: Looks like I cut your equipment request. MR. HOLLIMON: Well, the year-to-date expenditures is zero, and next year at this time it will still be zero. I put in $500 because I'm required by the State to seek financial aid from the County in buying furniture, this type of thing, and I always finagle around, 8-24-04 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 find some other way to do it. So, I put $500 in there, and I have no intention of spending it. JUDGE TINLEY: I wasn't going to let you, apparently, at least not but half of it. MR. HOLLIMON: Right. But -- JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: None I wish to ask. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. MR. TOMLINSON: That $10,000, there's an offsetting revenue. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it's a wash. MR. TOMLINSON: We -- the County actually has a contract with -- with the instructors on this D.O.E. program, and basically, the program is paid for by the students. MR. HOLLIMON: Well, actually, I pay the County, and then the students have to pay to attend the program, and that's actually a profit for Kerr County. MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. MR. HOLLIMON: So, you break even on furnishing the program and make a few hundred dollars profit. I don't know what the profit is. MR. TOMLINSON: It's not a large amount. MR. HOLLIMON: It would be a couple thousand 8-24-04 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 dollars, I would imagine. But, at any rate, it costs you nothing to provide the program, because I reimburse the County, and then you get to keep the tuition fee from the students that take it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sounds good to me. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Howard. I appreciate you being here. MR. HOLLIMON: Thank you very much. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's see if we can't go ahead and get the Health and Emergency Services and Collections out of the way quickly, and then we'll take a little break. The Health and Emergency services -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: 60. JUDGE TINLEY: Is that where you are, 60? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's going in the right direction. Looks like we left some things out. JUDGE TINLEY: Now, there's a -- okay. The First Responder budget that you see there, there's a separate breakdown on that. I don't know where y'all -- I don't think y'all probably all got that. There's -- it appears to me that it's less than half of what it's been previously. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's that number. 8-24-04 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 Don't we have to add the coordinator back in? 501? Don't we have to -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who's the coordinator? That falls under Ray Holloway, right? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it's -- I don't remember the guy's name. MS. MITCHELL: Maloney. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. He was here yesterday. MR. TOMLINSON: Eric Maloney. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Eric Maloney. Yes, we pay -- this is half of his salary. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we should have 96 -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: City hasn't told us, right, Bill? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: City hasn't told us. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the same as the EMS contract, because the City hasn't told us either. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know -- you answered the question I was about to ask. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, just for the Court's edification, when that question came up here about three weeks ago, mas or menos, I did write a follow-up letter to my earlier request for information relative to joint City/County projects, and asked that they furnish us with 8-24-04 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 that financial information data as soon as possible. As of yet, I've not received a response. I don't guess anything came in today, did it? MS. MITCHELL: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have -- probably ask Kathy -- contracts on these issues with the City? MS. MITCHELL: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I suppose -- I mean, maybe we'd get their attention if we send them a breach of contract. I mean, I don't know how you get their -- how we can get their attention, and we need these numbers and they're not giving them to us, and we've asked them in writing twice. JUDGE TINLEY: May want to operate in the driver's seat there. Rather than send them a breach of contract notice, just don't send them any money. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the problem there is, you -- then we're hurting the -- the county citizens potentially by -- I mean -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, until they get another number, just plug in the old number. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's what I would recommend. 'Cause the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Your First Responder 8-24-04 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 Coordinator is really and truly out there gathering up a -- I was surprised that they had a First Responder at the Y.O. Ranch, and that's exciting to me that there's someone in there. But they're increasing those numbers across the county and training them at nighttime for the first time and getting them certified, and we're beginning to see really how important the First Responder program is. It is huge. It is very important, saving people's lives. So, I -- I would hate to play with this too much. I would -- I'd plug in exactly what's here, though. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9675 for Coordinator. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then EMS contract? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What does the EMS -- 19,000, what does that buy us? JUDGE TINLEY: I think what that buys us is our portion of the subsidy of -- of the difference between the revenues and the costs to run the system. I don't know that, but I just strongly suspect that to be true. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe some kind of an administrative oversight charge. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you've got the medical director, but I'm thinking that's over in another -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's -- JUDGE TINLEY: -- budget. 8-24-04 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, isn't this -- the health officer's salary, isn't that the medical director? JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't? JUDGE TINLEY: I think that deals with the -- the food inspection and things of that nature. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, maybe. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whoa. Whoa. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would think -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where does the health director inspect -- do food inspections in the county? MR. TOMLINSON: We don't pay him. We don't pay for that. JUDGE TINLEY: You don't think we pay him for that? MR. TOMLINSON: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the health officer's salary is probably the medical director over at the hospital? That's part of his salary for -- or our part for him in this First Responder program? MR. TOMLINSON: This doesn't have anything -- this salary doesn't have anything to do with EMS. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who gets it? Do we know? MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- I don't know who 8-24-04 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 it is. I don't recall. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe if we delete it, we'll find out who didn't get paid. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Delete that one. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What say ye, Sheriff? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I was just -- we subsidize EMS? The County does? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way it looks. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 19,000 this year. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yet they bill us for 27 and 800 every time they go to the jail, too? Both? COMMISSIONER LETZ: They work on city residents? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, some of them are. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Wouldn't matter. The jail's the one that pays -- the County's the one that pays those ambulance costs. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need to go pull that contract up. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's what we need to do. 8-24-04 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Take a peek at it. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got it on my desk if you want to look at it now. You want to -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say it again? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I have the contract on my desk. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm kind of curious as to what we're buying. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we flag this whole section and bring it back? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: When we get more information where this is going. The City's obviously not going to give us a budget. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Alford? Are you ready to go on yours? MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page are you on? MR. ALFORD: First page. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page are you in my book? MR. ALFORD: I give up. MR. TOMLINSON: 15. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You give up? You're not in my book, then. Good-bye. 8-24-04 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 2~ MR. ALFORD: Sounds cheap enough to me. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks like it did last year. MR. ALFORD: It was at first. It was pretty much the same as it was until we -- JUDGE TINLEY: There's some increased costs in there due to when they discontinued the D.P.S. warrants program, and some of those collections are now being -- from J.P.'s are going over to the Collections Department. It increased some of his admin. costs. I think he was -- MR. ALFORD: I think I originally had, like, a $300 increase. Now we've jumped up to $3,000. JUDGE TINLEY: Postage, telephone, and -- MR. ALFORD: You have postage, office supplies, search programs, and telephones. JUDGE TINLEY: Searches is the other one I was looking at, yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That we've actually done some budget amendments on recently. MR. ALFORD: Already, yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because of the program. MR. ALFORD: And we'll have to -- I'm asking for -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a 8-24-04 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 70 correlation between credit history report, and nothing -- zeroed out, and search programs, you know, in there for 2,200? MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. I probably ran three or four credit records a year, and thousands of search programs. So, this line item was already here, so I thought, just for housekeeping purposes, put it where it really goes -- majority of it goes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to ask you about the program itself. Are all four J.P.'s participating now? MR. ALFORD: No, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are there three participating now? MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And are you being able to collect some of the moneys? MR. ALFORD: We think so. The J.P.'s do not have the tracking abilities that we have here at the courthouse. It's mainly by word of mouth. "Are you getting money?" "Yes, we are." "Is there any money coming in?" "Yes." "Are you receiving the phone calls?" "Yes." But as far as putting the dollar amount, there's just no way. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Which J.P. is not participating? 8-24-04 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 MR. ALFORD: Yours. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Why? MR. ALFORD: Don't know, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the year-to-date collections number? JUDGE TINLEY: How's it compare against last year, year-to-date? MR. ALFORD: Gee, how did I know you were going to ask that? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just did. MR. ALFORD: Right now -- right now, as of the '02-'03, which they're still paying on, we collected $717,024. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's '02-'03? MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. Okay. As far as this year, in County Court at Law, collected 232,000. Last year, same date was 259,000, so we're about $30,000 down. We're actually a few percentage points ahead, because we're dealing with a whole lot less money, so you're getting a bigger piece of a smaller pie. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much do we still have outstanding more than five years old? MR. ALFORD: I don't have -- haven't run it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we still -- MR. ALFORD: Well, I mean, what I can tell 8-24-04 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 you is, like, for '01-'02 years, we should probably be pretty much through with those in County Court at Law. What we haven't collected is probably on warrants. Now, we have -- we're looking for them. We're at a 90 percent collection rate on those. Now, then, when you open up your District Court, that's a whole new can of worms. Our collection rate in District Court right now is only 28 percent, where County Court at Law, we're around -- well, 90 percent, 96 percent, and 75 percent, just depending on which year you play with. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, County Court at Law, since we've created the department, we're basically -- after a three or four-year period, we're getting up to 90 -- MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- or higher? MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. Probably as high as we're going to get. I hate to say that. That's why, on there, I had made one just for me. Now, I have a bunch of these wrote down as still paying. DWI's, for example, they can get as long as two years, whereas we shoot for 10 months, but that doesn't mean horseshit sometimes. There's exceptions to the rule. So, I'm hoping -- like, the 96 percent, it's probably bottomed out. The 90 percent, I foresee it going up. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can anything be done by 8-29-04 wk 73 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 your department to increase the collections in district courts? MR. ALFORD: No, sir, I don't believe so. JUDGE TINLEY: Without legislative action. MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. I believe Ms. Uecker has been checking on it. I know she tried last year, year before last. I believe she's working on it again with some other district clerks. JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else got anything for Mr. Alford? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to go back to -- one of the J.P's, J.P. 4, I mean, just doesn't like the program? He doesn't like -- he's mad at D.P.S. or doesn't like you or doesn't like me, or what -- what kind of reason? COMMISSIONER LETZ: All the above. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All the above. Why would someone -- a department not participate? I don't -- I don't get it. MR. ALFORD: I'm unsure of that. We originally -- when we started this, when we talked that day in Commissioners Court, we contacted all the J.P.'s requesting warrant information, and we got it from three of them. We finally gave up and got with the Sheriff's Department and got their active J.P. 4 warrants out of their 8-24-04 wk 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 system, and we sent letters to those, which we kind of contacted some people we shouldn't have. We had felons contacting us wanting to know, you know, why are y'all looking for us? Well, you know, they give us a number; we find out it was felony cases, and we're like, "Oops." You don't really like to talk to those people on the phone. We kind of went overboard with them. I've asked since then. Last answer I was given was that they will submit them to us the same time they submit them to Omni. And we still haven't seen anything, so I don't know if they haven't submitted to Omni yet or -- I don't know. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much does Omni charge? MR. ALFORD: We'll, I've researched that at the Judge's discretion, and I believe they charge $6 plus some other $30 deals, but nothing is due until the warrant has been collected, is my understanding. JUDGE TINLEY: No up-front costs? MR. ALFORD: No up-front costs. JUDGE TINLEY: That's your understanding? MR. ALFORD: I have a copy of this; I'll let you read it and see if we're on the same page, 'cause -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought the -- our idea was to give them to you for 30 days before we gave them to 25 Omni. 8-24-04 wk 75 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. ALFORD: Well, it was. That was our now, Commissioner Letz, is the J.P.'s -- the and, Sheriff, I don't know if you were aware but the J.P.'s are issuing warrants; they're giving them to the Sheriff's Office, and the giving them to us and the constables, so you different entities trying to locate the same exact same time, and we felt like that was a dollars. Why should we all three be looking same time -- of this or not, immediately y're immediately have three person at the waste of tax for the same guy? So, what we're doing is, to kind of get in this 30-day bracket, we're taking these warrants and putting them on the shelf and waiting 30 days, 45 days, and then we're checking on them, 'cause I just don't see why we should all be looking for the same guy at the same time. Historically, law enforcement uses the state database to come up with information, driver's license, and we don't. We use private industry to do it. I talked to one of the constables. Whenever the Sheriff's Officer gets warrants, they go run a driver's license check on this guy, and I believe this is where they're mailing the letters, unless they have a newer address. The constable comes in right behind him; he mails a letter either to that same address or new address on the 25 ~ driver's license. So, basically, you have the Sheriff's 8-24-04 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 Office and constable's office using the exact same address. That doesn't do us any good, so we like to come in six months -- 30 days later and run our programs, come up with a totally different address. Then we're shipping out letters, right? Kind of, sort of. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else for Mr. Alford? Thank you, Mr. Alford. Why don't we -- why don't we stand in recess for about 10 or 15 minutes. (Recess taken from 3:12 p.m. to 3:25 p.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay let's come back to order. We'll resume our workshop on Fiscal Year '04-'05 budget matters. The next one is Environmental Health. Page 61. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Afternoon, Miguel. MR. ARREOLA: Hello. Good afternoon. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought we did this yesterday. JUDGE TINLEY: Not this. There were a number of places that I annualized some costs and came up with a different figure than Mr. Arreola, so he might have some dispute with some of the things I did relative to what he requested. MR. ARREOLA: Well, I'd like to talk about postage. In our monthly reports, County Judge is right, we didn't show the actual cost, the actual cost of postage, and 8-24-04 wk 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that probably is partly my fault. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Actual cost of what, Miguel? MR. ARREOLA: Postage. Basically, stamps. We're using -- we do a lot of mailing through the Clerk's office, but we do also a lot of postage -- of postage stamps, and a lot of it was bought with petty cash. Later, I was told not to do that, and we fixed the problem already. We sent memos to the Treasurer's department and the Auditor's department, and it's been fixed, but some of that cost didn't show on our monthly reports. The real cost that we should have in there, it's an average of 75.52 per month. And I have some handouts here for you. JUDGE TINLEY: Comes out to just over 900. MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. So, I'd like to request $1,000, is what I thought it was sufficient for a year. JUDGE TINLEY: Your actual costs are running about $76 a month. That comes up to over $900 for a year. MR. ARREOLA: Uh-huh. JUDGE TINLEY: So -- MR. ARREOLA: I'd like to round it out, if possible. If not, that number will be fine too. JUDGE TINLEY: If we need to put a little float on so we don't have a budget amendment, I don't have a 8-24-04 wk 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, $1,000? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Then I think the next one is uniforms and boots, you got a question about? MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. The next one is uniforms. I have some figures here that what -- what we need to use or what we been paying. We getting billed an average of 20 -- let's see, I got the number here -- $25 per week right now, and we have only one -- one full set of uniforms. And, myself, I'm just getting shirts. For next year, I would like to have a full set also, so that cost will be two full sets, with all the charges that the uniform company give us, about $916. We're planning on having one more employee in that department, if we go that way, and I would like to provide shirts for that for about six months -- or nine months, excuse me. Nine months for that. I calculated the cost, about $171. The company does a surcharge of 390 per year, so we got about $1,500, more or less, in uniforms. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe we ought to talk about the employee first, then. MR. ARREOLA: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: That would seem appropriate. 8-24-04 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 MR. ARREOLA: So, that will be the number COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. What's the plan with the -- the Solid Waste portion in your department? MR. ARREOLA: Okay. I have numbers of activity we have. It's been busy; we have been doing a lot of cleanup. We have done some big cases, but we need more assistance. Mr. North's working real well. He's doing a real good job two days a week. I believe the County needs more time devoted to -- to cleanup. We have a real good response from the citizens. I have very good complimentary phone calls, letters. They're happy, but they need more. They're calling and, you know, now there's here, now there's over there, so we need to go and look at them. O.S.S.F., it's -- it's fine, but if we devote more time for this, O.S.S.F. might get hurt a little bit. That's why I'm looking to get a part-time person to make the other three days of Solid Waste. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why not get one full-time person? MR. ARREOLA: That be fine, too. Either way, as long as we have five days a week person to work in Solid Waste. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, if the decision 8-24-04 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 of the Court is that we need that extra half person, I'd rather have a full-time person than two part-time people. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'd hate to see us take a man off who's doing the job, and his health is okay. There was some question about his health. MR. ARREOLA: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I saw him today, and he's out there on the job. As a matter of fact, he had two messages on my voice mail when we took our break. I'd like to see us add three more days. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just think -- I think it's more efficient -- I mean, I understand you're terminating a part-time employee, but I just think it's -- you know, and we could offer him the full-time position. We all know he won't take it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He can't. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. But I just think that it's -- we have to look at what is more efficient from the County standpoint. I think it's more efficient to have one person on the job rather than two part-time people. I just think it's -- it makes more sense. MR. ARREOLA: We're not paying any benefits for this two-day employee; it's just basically salary. The other person might get benefits; I'm not sure. If we get the right person, they might get benefits. This person's 8-24-04 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 not getting any benefits. It's just costing us a set amount of salary. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the other person's going to -- going to have to get benefits, 'cause it will be 24 hours. MR. ARREOLA: Well, it will be 24 hours. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unless it's a two-day position. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm a two-day'er. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two twos make -- you know, make not a bad operation, and you're not going to have the overrun. MR. ARREOLA: Two part-times. JUDGE TINLEY: Don't have a lot of rollup costs. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Miguel, we don't provide any services for Ingram, do we? MR. ARREOLA: For who? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ingram. The city of Ingram. MR. ARREOLA: No, sir, we don't. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Solid Waste or O.S.S.F.? MR. ARREOLA: No, sir, not yet. 8-24-04 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is -- on the personnel side, Miguel -- MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- Inspector's Salary, which is 8,640. That is Mr. North; is that correct? MR. ARREOLA: That's what he's making right now, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And you're asking now for something -- it looks like 14,000 more. What is that? MR. ARREOLA: That's based on a three days a week work. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a three-day position for Solid Waste? MR. ARREOLA: Correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Frankly, I'd like to see two pairs of two, and not have the overrun. JUDGE TINLEY: Inspectors? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Miguel, is there any revenue associated with Solid Waste? MR. ARREOLA: Not yet, sir. The plans are to get some. We're getting to the point that we are actually issuing citations; we're going to court. We're going to have a big court next month that might bring some revenue. 8-24-04 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 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I wouldn't -- I would like for you to -- and Animal Control and the Sheriff and constables, everybody else, to take a look at the -- at the fee schedules that we have, that Commissioners Court has authority to set, and see if we need to adjust those upward to move closer toward a user-pays concept. MR. ARREOLA: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And not just you three. Other departments that collect fees, if there's -- we have the flexibility to adjust those upward. And if they haven't done that in a few years, inflation has taken it over. We ought to be taking a look at it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the recommendation is to hire another part-time person for two days a week? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my recommendation. JUDGE TINLEY: I think that was your thought too, wasn't it? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, it is. But I would like to know what the difference in the cost would be for two people that are under 19 hours, as opposed to a 40-hour full-time employee with benefits. We would be better off with the two part-timers, would we not? Financially? MS. NEMEC: Yes. 8-24-04 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 MR. TOMLINSON: Depends on what you pay. I mean, he's a law -- he's a certified law enforcement, so you'd have to have -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't have to be. The one we currently have is, but doesn't have to be. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the original grant said that we had to -- was geared toward -- MR. ARREOLA: We're not on a grant no more. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I understand, but originally it was geared toward law enforcement, but that's out the window. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: With two part-time, you wouldn't need another vehicle? MR. ARREOLA: No, sir, we won't. We -- even if we get a three-day person, we're okay with vehicles. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can't give a three-day, 'cause that's a full-time person. I mean, from a benefits -- COMMISSIONER on the basis of six hours. could stretch it over three MR. ARREOLA: COMMISSIONER MR. ARREOLA: the hours are the same. WILLIAMS: Well, you could do it Anything less than eight, you days. Yeah. WILLIAMS: Your key is what -- The hours are the same. Yeah, 8-24-04 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 BALDWIN: Under 19 hours a week? MS. NEMEC: It's actually -- I believe what the retirement book says is 960 hours annually -- or 900 hours annually. JUDGE TINLEY: 960? MS. NEMEC: It's either 960 or 900; I'd have to doublecheck on that. JUDGE TINLEY: 960 is 18 and a half. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 18 and a half hours a week. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, under 19. MS. NEMEC: So, yeah, that's probably where we get that from. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you could schedule three six-hour days for a new person. MR. ARREOLA: Yes, we can. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Get the job done. MS. NEMEC: If they happen to go over the 19 hours or the 960 in a year, as long as -- as you did not schedule it that way, you didn't budget that way, and something happens within the year that they had to work a week more or whatever, then we're okay. But you can't set your budget on if they're going to work over that amount. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You have enough support personnel to handle the inside work for -- 8-24-04 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 MR. ARREOLA: I think so. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the hourly rate that Mr. North is getting? MR. ARREOLA: I have it right here. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is Eddie's salary in here? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's this 8,649. That's it. MR. ARREOLA: He is about -- about $10 an hour, is basically what it is, if I have the right figure here. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, pretty close. MR. ARREOLA: About $10, 10.30, something like that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's 9,370 a year. You've got 8,640 now, on an 18-hour basis. JUDGE TINLEY: Should be 16. MR. ARREOLA: It's 16-hour. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, 16. Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: 10.80 based upon 800 hours, 50 weeks a year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it could be -- if you go with 18 hours for three days for six hours a day, it'll be a little bit more than Eddie. 8-24-04 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 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. We're doing hourly rate, which is somewhere around 10.50. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what's that number need to be, then? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why did you use 16 hours? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Two eight-hour days. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three six-hour days gives you 18 hours. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's 180 times 50 weeks? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does it make any difference if he works 18 hours? Does it make any difference? COMMISSIONER LETZ: He can work two nine-hour days. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right, doesn't make any difference. $9,000. JUDGE TINLEY: A raise still, according to what we -- the existing one's being paid somewhere around 10.50. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, so it would be -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 9,000 on top of the 8-29-04 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 8, 640. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Additional 9,000? 17,640? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Add -- plus nine in here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Then the clerk position doesn't go up, correct? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what he said; her position stayed the same, 36. JUDGE TINLEY: Unless there's a mandatory -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: There's going to be some one-year increases there, aren't there? MS. NEMEC: That should be included already in the salary figures. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, that's a good figure we got. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 56,621? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 56,691? Oh, 21, I'm sorry. Wait a minute; he asked for 70 -- okay, I got it. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's what I'm having a problem with. 70 -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's coming down. While the Judge is looking, Miguel, tell me about Line 435, Public Education. 8-24-04 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 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You plugged in about 6,400 bucks last year and spent zero. MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. Haven't -- we're about to start this program probably three weeks from now. I kind of let it run a little bit to be able to do it at the end of the year and run it with the next budget also, one shot all together. What we plan on doing, it's an informational video. I've already spoken with a local person who does that -- that type of business to provide it all around the county; put some -- part of that video in the local TV, and also putting some information on brochures. That's about to start in about three weeks, and whatever we have in there, we're going to make copies of that video and -- and use it also on the newspaper, but basically it's going to be -- the main thing is going to be the video. What we want to do in there is explain to the community what we do, why we are here, and what the purpose of us doing this regular maintenance on their septic system. We're going to attach also -- solid waste is going to be -- the whole department's included in there. It's going to be a live, recorded video, so it's going to be a good-quality product, and we plan on using what we have there to do that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will that just be limited to O.S.S.F., or also include solid waste? 8-24-04 wk 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MR. ARREOLA: No, we're going to put solid waste in there too. Household materials, illegal burning, all that's going to be included. Informational. Just informational for the county. So, that's going to be used, and I haven't contacted U.G.R.A. yet to see if next year they're going to give us also -- going to match the funds. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They matched it on this 8 ~ year's? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ARREOLA: They did. If they do next year, then we're going to have a pretty good number. If they don't, I'd like to have at least our part. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Nemec, for some reason, my position schedule only has Mr. North on the Environmental Health. I don't know whether I ended up with a blank page or what the deal was. MS. NEMEC: Okay. No, I updated it since you got that one, and I gave it to the Auditor, so the figures are included in his budget. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Have we taken out -- MS. NEMEC: Here's a -- JUDGE TINLEY: -- the additional part-time individual of -- that 70,000 figure that was requested? So that we're just dealing with the -- the two clerical people that are there right now, plus any longevities that are due 8-24-04 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 25 to them? MS. NEMEC: Let me show you. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. NEMEC: I don't keep track of their part-time or anybody's part-time. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's what I'm wanting, is to pull that out. MS. NEMEC: This is what's in there, unless -- Tommy was given that information, and he changed it, but that's what I gave you. JUDGE TINLEY: He's got all these three people on board now? Sure looks like it, doesn't it? Okay. MR. ARREOLA: Three people under the 105 should stay the same. JUDGE TINLEY: Is this additional? MS. NEMEC: That's with the longevity. JUDGE TINLEY: Is this an additional copy? MS. NEMEC: Oh, yes, you can have that one. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the 70,000 is a good number? JUDGE TINLEY: 70,712. It includes the longevities. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's for the three. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, yeah. 8-24-09 wk 92 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: 70,712? JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is a good number? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it's right here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: For both -- all new employees are there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Well, where was the part-time rollup before? MR. ARREOLA: It was on the 103. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh? MR. ARREOLA: On 103, Inspector Salaries, basically. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see. It was in the 20,000 number that was requested. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, I see. Okay. MR. ARREOLA: The top part. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. Now it's 17,640. Got you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Started midyear. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now can we go back to uniforms and boots? Spurs that jingle, jangle, jingle? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Letz, is that -- on the manager's salary, is that the salary we originally set this at? We set a salary; then we took some 8-24-04 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 25 out for training. Does this restore that to what we originally said? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was hoping you remembered that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that what you remember? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't remember. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, I'm glad you asked, 'cause I had it on my list to ask. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we did do that, as I recall. We -- I'm not sure if Miguel was around when we had those discussions, but I think that's correct. We had a higher salary for you, and then put it in training, which is 27 -- didn't we have $2,700 for you to get some management training? MR. ARREOLA: Something like -- no, it was 2,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2,000? I think we took that back. So, it would be right to put -- that 2,000 should go back into the manager's salary this year. And that's an increase, but it's not -- I mean -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we ask the Judge where that 31,710 came from. JUDGE TINLEY: You'll have to ask the -- ask the Treasurer where that came from, because I didn't plug 8-24-04 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 94 gave me, that includes a November '04 one-year longevity, which is going to be a -- a step. But, off the top of my head, it looks to me like -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wow, you're making over a million dollars. Congratulations on the big raise. JUDGE TINLEY: Should be 714. So, I think what happened is that the 2,000 got added back, and then the 700 got added back too. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: So I think the 31,710 restores the 2,000, and gives you the step increase. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: That's what it appears to me, 'cause the step increase would be about $715. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MS. NEMEC: What I did with his salary -- and I don't know if I did it right. What I did was I took his last year's annual salary and figured 2 and a half percent for his step longevity increase, and then took that amount and only divided it by 11 months, because he only had -- in October, he's still not here a year. He completes his year in November. So, from -- for the first -- for October, the 8-24-04 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 month of October, he's still going to be making the salary that he's making now, and then from November September, he's getting 2 and a half percent could have been an adjusted salary, since he November. I don't -- I don't know. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think taken his -- his salary, restored the $2,000 on through more. But that started in we should have that was taken for training, and then computed the step there. Which would be -- I get 31, 333. MS. NEMEC: And then 2 and a half percent on top of that. JUDGE TINLEY: No, that includes the 2 and a half, but that's 2 and a half for the whole year. MS. NEMEC: Oh, okay. Then I have to adjust -- JUDGE TINLEY: That's -- that's 2 and a half for the whole year, so it's going to be, you know, 31,250 or something. It's -- what I'm getting are just rough calculations. If we restore the management dollars and then give him his longevity -- and, of course, this is without any COLA or anything. It's just the mandatory longevity. MS. NEMEC: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: But we may want to take a look at that. I'm going to put a circle around it and a question 25 ~ mark so that can be properly calculated. 8-24-04 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 MS. NEMEC: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now we're back to boots, Buster. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. MR. ARREOLA: You have more questions on the uniforms? Basically, what I'm asking is 1,800, is what I have on it, and 1,600 is what the recommended was. And my figure came to -- what did I do with it? 1,500. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1,500? MR. ARREOLA: 1,500. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Uniforms and boots? MR. ARREOLA: Uh-huh. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that where we are? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1,500, okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. ARREOLA: Okay. The next one that we -- that I would like to talk about is telephone. I got my monthly charges right here. And we're doing -- it's also on the form I gave you. I'l1 get that real quick. JUDGE TINLEY: Based on the figures he's submitted, $130 a month, it rolls up to 1,560 a year. MR. ARREOLA: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1,560? JUDGE TINLEY: I gave him what he asked for. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you asking for -- 8-24-09 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 JUDGE TINLEY: Looks like he just asked for too little. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess. MR. ARREOLA: You got the figure there? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1,426 is what -- MR. ARREOLA: Should be 16 -- 1,600. Do you have that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. Calculates out to about 1,600. MR. ARREOLA: I found it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We got it. JUDGE TINLEY: 1,600 in 420, Telephone. MR. ARREOLA: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. ARREOLA: And the last one I have, Capital Outlay, I was recommended to do 2,800. That's for a computer and a program that we need, ArcView program software. And I just checked with Shaun this morning, and that price was good for this month only, so seems like we're going to be buying it next month or after that, and it's about $200 more, so I need about 3,000 instead of 28. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Which line item is that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 570, Capital -- second 8-24-04 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 page. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you want 3,000 instead of 2,800? MR. ARREOLA: 3,000 instead of 2,800. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's -- JUDGE TINLEY: So, that's an increase in that Capital Outlay item. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the story on on-site council fees? MR. ARREOLA: On-site -- oh, that's the fee that we collect that we're supposed to turn back to the State, and I think the Auditor made a special line for that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a mandatory fee -- MR. ARREOLA: Correct. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- of T.C.E.Q. or something? MR. ARREOLA: We have to collect for them. (Whispered discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Miguel, did you -- let's see. When you reported to us yesterday -- MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- did you give us the anticipated -- your revenue figure for the year? MR. ARREOLA: No, not yesterday. I included 8-24-09 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 it in my budget presentation, and I should have it somewhere here. We calculate anywhere around $100,000 to be our revenue. About $100,000 is what we -- we think it's going MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if we -- just trying to put it in context, 100,000 revenue plus 64,000 that we would have been paying to U.G.R.A., shows that compared to a budget that'll be somewhere around 195,000 or so, I guess, we show that we need -- if we were going to follow the user-pay concept, that we need to raise fees to produce $30,000 in additional revenue. MR. ARREOLA: Additional revenue. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's an observation; that's not a mandate or expectation. It's just something -- I think we ought to think about it. We need to. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's why I kind of wanted to bring that topic up. It ought to be a self-sustaining department. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further for Mr. Arreola? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. 8-29-04 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 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that all you got for us, Miguel? MR. ARREOLA: Well, I don't think my salary got real clear to me, but I don't know if we need to talk about that later or -- I'm not sure exactly how you calculated that. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, what I did was add -- and I just did a quick -- I was adding back the 2,000 that was taken; I assume that's the figure -- different figure that was taken for training purposes off of salary last year. Add that back, and then on top of that, add the appropriate longevity increase, in accordance with our policy, whatever that turns out to be. That's what I expect it to be. And then, if there's a COLA given to the employees on top of that -- MR. ARREOLA: I might be wrong, but I think my salary right now is what we have on that sheet -- she left already -- that she provided. And I think that should be -- whatever you got, it should be added to that. But I might be wrong. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll check that. MR. ARREOLA: Yeah. Well, we'll need to talk about it later. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Looks like the next one 8-24-04 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 we've got is Animal Control. MR. ARREOLA: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Allen. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 63. JUDGE TINLEY: Boy, you're good. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's what I do. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Looking ahead. Looking ahead. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to be surprised if this man has any beefs. MR. ALLEN: Beefs? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. MR. ALLEN: Well, actually, we're doing -- we're operating pretty good with what we got, but there's a few things I'd like to have. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, maybe you should have requested it, 'cause I think I gave you virtually everything you requested. MR. ALLEN: Well, under what I submitted, there was a Capital Outlay item for a new computer, but we've talked that over -- we can talk that over, and we can probably make it another year with what we've got. All we do is store information on it. With the new registration, it's filling up, but I think we still got a ways to go 8-24-04 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 before we have to have that. And then there was an item as far as a -- under Operating Equipment, for a high-pressure sprayer for help with cleaning the -- the kennels. We get a lot of buildup on the walls from the oil from the dogs, and you got to scrub, and it takes time to get all that off. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much -- JUDGE TINLEY: That's a $500 item. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's $500. That's in here? MR. ALLEN: Yeah, and we were talking about that, 'cause I can get an electric-powered one instead of a gas-powered, 'cause we're -- we'd be inside the building. You don't want to run a gas-powered inside the building, and that's really what we -- where we need cleaning done. I guess you could run it outside, but you'd have to get some extension hoses and all that. And -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the electric ones aren't very strong, are they? MR. ALLEN: Yeah. Yeah, they -- Ken Hausman makes a pretty nice -- it's not real heavy. We could tote it around pretty easy. JUDGE TINLEY: What kind of pressure? Does it develop consistent pressure? MR. ALLEN: It'll take the skin off your fingers. 8-24-04 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 NICHOLSON: I bought one 200 p.s.i. here a few months ago, and first thing I learned is you don't use it to -- to knock the grass off your bare feet, 'cause it -- MR. ALLEN: It will -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- it blows a hole in the top of your foot. MR. ALLEN: Yeah, they're pretty powerful. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only do that but one time. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It still hurts. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we anticipating any increase in the cost of services extended to the city of Kerrville? MR. ALLEN: I turned in the budget. I know I gave y'all a copy of the City budget, which it did increase somewhat. It was -- $76,344 is what we submitted to them this year, and that was with the proposed raise. You know, 'cause we have to have it in by July 2nd, and we really didn't know what was going on. But, I haven't heard any grumbles back from them yet either, so -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's good. We haven't heard anything at all. JUDGE TINLEY: That contract expires at the end of this coming budget year, September 30, '05. I 8-24-04 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 believe we looked at it, and that's when it expired. MR. ALLEN: Right. So, we need to probably start renegotiating as soon as we finish up this year; find out what our numbers are looking like or get something rolling on that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Marc, help us remember to give proper notice next year that we want to -- we may require 60 or 90 days notice. MR. ALLEN: Right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We don't want to be late on that. MR. ALLEN: I believe we do have to -- there is a grace period there, but I'm not -- I'm not sure exactly when it is. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, they're -- they pay 76 -- plus or minus, 76,000 of the 205,000 total. MR. ALLEN: Right. What it comes out to is 40 percent of what it costs to house the animals from the city, and then 40 percent of the actual animal control, where we're going out to the city and picking up the animals. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much does Ingram pay? MR. ALLEN: Ingram pays $250 a month, and they're not allowed to bring us more than 11 dogs a month. 8-24-04 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 But lately, they haven't been bringing us more than two or three a month, so we're doing pretty good with Ingram. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Kind of interesting. MR. ALLEN: Right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And they do some MR. ALLEN: All our contract was for was just to house what animals they pick up, and they weren't allowed to bring in more than 11. Now, if me and my crew went in there, we could clean house and bring in probably 250, 300 real fast. But -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, they bring in -- 3,000 a year that we get from Ingram? MR. ALLEN: Right. And we house maybe 40 or 50 animals a year at the most. I mean, that's not very much. They don't bring us a whole lot. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Have they brought in any feral chickens? MR. ALLEN: Not lately. I'd probably get in trouble for shooting them, but... One item I would like to -- for the Court to consider is, under Animal Control Officer, I have one officer that's been there for eight years, and -- actually, I have two officers; one's at a -- 8-29-04 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 let's see. I've got one that he's at a 15-2, and then this one officer that's been there for eight years is a 15-3, and she's letting me know how important it is that -- I mean, I bring in a green officer right under her; she's got six years more experience than he does, and she's not getting paid a whole lot more than he is. And she is a very good officer. asking for? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So what are you MR. ALLEN: I don't know if it would be right to -- to try to reclassify her job as -- as to a senior animal control officer. I'm fixing to lose this one officer; he's going off to be a police officer, so I'm going to bring in somebody else, and they'll come in as a 15-1. But, you know, still, even just two grades above, if I can get maybe an extra two or three steps on them, I can probably make her happy. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, there's a -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you agree with that? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- huge possibility that your words will land in the newspaper, and she's going to read them. MR. ALLEN: That's okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay? 8-24-04 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 MR. ALLEN: I've been working with her nine years. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What a blast for his employees. MR. ALLEN: I got to fight for her. I think she's worth the money. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "Keep the little lady happy." MR. ALLEN: Well, she -- I think she's worthy of it. I've got a whole stack of "atta-boys." Of course, it only takes one "whoa, boy" to kill all those. She's a good officer. She -- I've taught her how to think right. I've got her trained. (Laughter.) SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What helped her is, she don't follow one thing you do, Marc. MR. ALLEN: Well, actually, that's the whole idea, is just to get them to follow rules. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think you want that last quote in the paper. MR. ALLEN: Well, I've got her trained. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What could you do different? How could things be -- how could you operate differently and not replace the officer that's going to leave? MR. ALLEN: Our service would suffer greatly. 8-24-04 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 I know that e-mail I got from the Court about the other counties we were compared to, we called all those counties and all those cities, and they don't do half the service we do. They either do Animal Control in the city and not the county, or they don't have a registration program. There was one city I think was real comparable to us. They brought in the same amount of animals, but they only adopted two a month. I don't know if our city's going to go for that, honestly. I mean -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. That's -- MR. ALLEN: And, actually, we're just -- we provide a really good service, and it's like more -- more people are catching on to what we do, and they're -- we're working for them. We're out there. We're on the street, were burning the gas, we're picking up the animals. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Barbara, the issue we're dealing with is -- has got to do with an animal control officer who's been there eight years or so and got a lot of experience -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner, she's not hearing you. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ms. Treasurer? MS. NEMEC: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're dealing with an issue here of an animal control officer who's been in 8-24-04 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 service in the same place for about eight years, and makes only a little bit more than an inexperienced animal control officer. Is there any process or precedent for reclassifying that job upward to a senior animal control officer or something like that? MS. NEMEC: That could be done. They would have to have a separate job description than what's in place now. And if you do that, then you -- you can reclassify that job description. And I think she's a 15 -- MR. ALLEN: She's a 15-3. MS. NEMEC: Maybe put that -- the only thing is, because she is -- because she's been in that position longer, if they're doing the same identical job, then you don't reclassify the job description. She should have been moved up through the merit process. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: perform any coordinating or supervising functions that -- that a rookie officer MR. ALLEN: Well, I know doesn't like to take direction from her (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Marc, does she or administrative wouldn't perform? the rookie officer But -- Just digging this hole deeper and deeper. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems to -- the 25 ~ simplest thing is to maybe give a two-step increase. 8-24-04 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 MR. ALLEN: To me, that would be the simplest step. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rewrite the job description if you hire a new person, you know. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. MR. ALLEN: She does make decisions when I'm gone, which isn't all that often. But recently -- I just took eight days off, and she did a wonderful job; I came back and there wasn't hardly any problems. So -- JUDGE TINLEY: Things were better off than when you left, huh? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think that's justification for a two-step increase. COMMISSIONER LETZ: She's been around a long time. MS. NEMEC: Yeah. And I had discussed this with Marc, and I told him I'd back him up on whatever, 'cause it does seem like that's not quite the way it should be. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two steps? JUDGE TINLEY: Plug that one in. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two steps? MR. ALLEN: That's all the gripes I have. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sell those tags. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much do you -- 8-24-04 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. ALLEN: We're doing it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much from registrations? MR. ALLEN: How much? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Revenue. MR. ALLEN: Oh, that we brought in to-date? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, what are you estimating for next year? MR. ALLEN: I'm going to go out on a limb here. I'm going to -- because we didn't start selling tags until January 1st. So, really -- I mean, we didn't bring in much revenue from October till January 1st. I'm going to go out on a limb and say I can beat the 15,000 mark. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 15,000? MR. ALLEN: Yeah. 'Cause my goal was to go -- to beat the 10,000 mark and have 2,500 tags sold, and I'm almost at 2,500. I already beat the 10,000 mark. So -- and it's going to just get better; it can't get -- can't decline. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it looks like that department's running real well. MR. ALLEN: Well, that's something that I did that's actually working. Doesn't make everybody happy, but it's working. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8-29-04 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 NICHOLSON: That's good. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. ALLEN: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. MR. ALLEN: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Walston. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 66. (Discussion off the record.) MR. WALSTON: How are y'all today? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good, Roy. MR. WALSTON: And I hate to tell you that I got off without the copy that you sent me that had your recommendations on it. So -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Uh-huh. MR. WALSTON: -- I'm winging it the best I can. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have your figures; we'll use ours. How's that? MR. WALSTON: I looked over it. It's close enough. JUDGE TINLEY: I think probably the big item that we need to talk to the Extension people about is there was a requested Capital Outlay for a vehicle and all the insurance and maintenance and fuel and everything that goes with that, and it rolls up to about $30,000, if memory 8-24-04 wk 113 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 serves me correctly. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that the 28,5 that's in the budget? MR. WALSTON: 28,5, yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How -- how -- on a monthly basis, how would that compare to reimbursing you and Laurinda, primarily? MR. WALSTON: We don't -- actually, Laurinda's the only one that gets reimbursed. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Laurinda's the only one that does? MR. WALSTON: Yeah, that's the M.C.S. position. And, myself, the travel is all tied into our salary. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't make much money if you figure all your mileage. MR. WALSTON: It's got pretty expensive here the last couple months. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who would primarily use the vehicle? MR. WALSTON: It's -- what we would do is, it would be a county vehicle that -- between the three of us. I mean, really, it would be for the two agents and, you know, we would have to set up a prioritization where the 8-24-04 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 agent or somebody that's going out of town or youth -- you know, we'd have to set up a prioritization as to what it's being used for, how we allocate it out. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would -- how much is Laurinda's travel? Do you have any -- a month? MR. WALSTON: It's 2,500 a year, is what her total yearly travel is, I believe. JUDGE TINLEY: We've got a reimbursed travel of 2,500, that's correct. MR. WALSTON: That's it, yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where? JUDGE TINLEY: And stock show travel of 2,500 also. MR. WALSTON: COMMISSIONER MR. WALSTON: reimbursed is her travel. COMMISSIONER MR. WALSTON: Yeah. WILLIAMS: I see it. Stock show's my travel, and WILLIAMS: Yours is stock show? I do get reimbursed for stock show travel. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, how would those numbers fit in with the acquisition of an Extension Office vehicle? MR. WALSTON: The -- with the vehicle, we've got -- we've got 26,000 for the actual vehicle. We allowed 8-24-04 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 25 about $1,500 a year for the fuel, and 500 for maintenance and 500 for inspection and insurance. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess my question, Roy, is would these travel allowances remain, even if a vehicle is acquired? MR. WALSTON: That's -- that's the way I've got it set up right now. With that fuel allotment and those -- those additions, that other $2,500 or $2,000 -- $2,500, that would be enough to where we could leave the travel as-is. JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't understand it, either. MR. WALSTON: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: I think his question was, if we do the 28,5, which includes a $1,500 fuel, insurance, et cetera, do the two 2,500 travel items -- MR. WALSTON: They stay the same. JUDGE TINLEY: Reimbursed, and they don't evaporate? MR. WALSTON: No. They would -- they would be -- the 2,500 for travel reimbursement would go towards my stock show, which I don't use any mileage on that; that's strictly motels, restaurants. And then Laurinda's will be the same way. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, I see. 8-24-04 wk 116 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. WALSTON: Or we wouldn't be using mileage. We're using -- actually using out-of-pocket expenses. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. But right now, Ms. Boyd takes some mileage reimbursement out of her Reimbursed Travel? MR. WALSTON: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. WALSTON: And that's why she runs out in about June. And so that would basically provide us a -- where we wouldn't have to use that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What kind of vehicle? MR. WALSTON: Suburban. COMMISSIONER LETZ: A Suburban? MR. WALSTON: We felt like that's something that we can all use, and it can be something that can help to haul -- haul people. And it'll be a three-quarter ton Suburban, is what we got lined up. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the -- this is -- I guess it's a -- y'all haul kids quite a bit? MR. WALSTON: A good bit. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. WALSTON: And we have to allow parents, which -- you know, parents are part of the program, and we want them to -- but sometimes it gets to be pretty tight 8-29-04 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 trying to find enough room to get everybody in. And, like I say, it's not -- it's not going to be used -- you know, the other agents are still going to be using their own vehicles in addition, so it's not, you know, 100 percent. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who are the other MR. WALSTON: F.C.S. and -- with all three positions, we'll be using our other -- other vehicles in addition to this one at some time or another, so we can't all rely 100 percent on this vehicle. So, that's why, you know, we still need some travel. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I'd rather about this for other people that use vehicles quite a bit. That's -- that, to me, is a better way to go, because I just see we're not getting rid of a whole lot of personal usage, and I just think that I'd rather try to go that route. JUDGE TINLEY: You're not solving the whole problem by acquiring a vehicle. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. JUDGE TINLEY: You're solving a piece of the problem. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Might even create a problem in terms of who's going to use it and when. 8-29-04 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 MR. WALSTON: That's -- that's right. That's -- I've -- I've got kind of -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you had to estimate, just on your own, how much out-of-pocket are you at right now on official business travel? MR. WALSTON: Depends on how much you allocate on mileage. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, take the standard rate; we get 35 cents a mile. MR. WALSTON: Okay. I usually average probably 1,200 miles a month just on mileage. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: 400, 450. About 400 a month. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's $5,000 worth of travel out of your pocket. 5,000 bucks hasn't been reimbursed? MR. WALSTON: No, 5,000's not -- that's what my total estimated is. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, 25 from that; you're out 25. MR. WALSTON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Approximately. I agree, I'd like to take care of that. I don't want to see you out of your pocket. I think I see us creating another problem with a vehicle; allocation of its use. 8-24-04 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 MR. WALSTON: And that's -- you know, I -- with one vehicle, there is, and that's just something we'd have to deal with, set up, and manage. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But instead of just calling it "stock show travel," to me, I mean, it would be better to reterm that "extension agent travel." MR. WALSTON: I use it more than just -- JUDGE TINLEY: Agent Travel. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Agent Travel, or maybe even combine yours and Laurinda's into one. MR. WALSTON: I'd rather keep it separate. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Keep it separate. She'll use all your money. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you think she's out-of-pocket about the same amount as you? JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if she runs out in June -- MR. WALSTON: Yeah. I mean -- JUDGE TINLEY: -- that's about -- that's about three-fourths. MR. WALSTON: Yeah. And we're trying to reduce some of her travel down. JUDGE TINLEY: Hers should be about -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 35. JUDGE TINLEY: -- 33, 35. And you're trying 8-24-04 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 to reduce it? MR. WALSTON: We're trying to, you know, cut back on as much of it as we can for stock shows. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about 4,000 for agent and 3,500 for reimbursed travel? That's not all the way there, but it helps. MR. WALSTON: That would help. I mean -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take yours -- JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if you're going to pare him back, I think you need to pare hers back to at least 3,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 3,000, 4,000. JUDGE TINLEY: Four and three would probably be more on parity, wouldn't it, Roy? I mean, you're -- you're still absorbing a little; she'd still be absorbing a little. MR. WALSTON: Yeah. Yeah, that would be -- that would be good. JUDGE TINLEY: According to the way I calculated it, she wouldn't be absorbing any out of hers. Four and three -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see it that way. I mean -- JUDGE TINLEY: I mean, what you're saying -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't want to see 8-29-04 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 one not absorbing it and the other -- I want to make them whole, both of them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if you -- if you want to make them both whole, if you're using accurate numbers there, it's going to come out to about 5,000. About -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 3,500. JUDGE TINLEY: -- 3,350. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, 45 and 33. That work? JUDGE TINLEY: So, we're going to do 45 and 33. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And delete the 28,5. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And delete the 28,5. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. WALSTON: You can leave that in there. (Laughter.) JUDGE TINLEY: That's just going to be Agent Travel? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. MR. WALSTON: Did you say 44 and 33? JUDGE TINLEY: 45 and 33. MR. WALSTON: 45 and 33. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are extension agents' salaries supplemented by A & M? 8-24-04 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 MR. WALSTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Just wanted to be sure. MR. WALSTON: Yes, sir. We couldn't do it for that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the reason I asked. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, Roy? MR. WALSTON: The only thing that I didn't get to put in the -- in the requested request, and this is left up strictly to y'all, but our postage -- we've been cut the past year -- two years ago, we got cut. This year our postage -- we rely heavily on our postage getting the word out to our clientele, and hopefully we can come up with a little more money from the State. I mean, the State's the one that cut our postage from their portion, and if y'all can come up with $200 in postage, I know this year we were -- we've been struggling since probably 1st of July in having to try to move things around to make up that postage. So, we're trying to utilize technology and e-mail and some things like that to try to cut that cost as much as possible, but if -- if y'all could help us out there -- JUDGE TINLEY: Basically, your request doesn't take into account what the State cut you on that end? 8-24-04 wk 123 MR. WALSTON: Well, we're trying to make that up. That's what we're -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, postage -- JUDGE TINLEY: So you want to go to 750 on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1~ 1: 1~ 1 1 1 1 L that? MR. WALSTON: If y'all can. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right, sir. Anything else, Roy? MR. WALSTON: That's got it. I appreciate it. JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you coming in. MR. WALSTON: Thank y'all. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. County Court? JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I'm looking for. t 6 7 8 9 0 :1 ?2 ?3 24 25 You got it? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 12. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're awful quiet down there. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He knows these page numbers. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I'm the page finder. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The page guru. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, number guru. 8-24-04 wk 124 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS 1 Judge Brown. I see 2 him out there. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Judge Brown, do you want to 4 address these items, or do you want to let somebody that 5 knows what these figures represent? 6 JUDGE BROWN: You put me on the spot. I 7 think you're better off talking with the chief here. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you couldn't have 9 10 gotten away with that statement. Could not have gotten away 11 with that statement. MS. HOLMES: We -- we don't have any problems 12 13 with any of the recommendations. The only thing that we 14 would -- we're requesting that's different is that The 15 Software Group is going to be making some changes in some of 16 our programs, and we're going to all be required to undergo 17 some training, and so we're asking for some additional 1g funding for our -- for my training on that software program. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that conferences? 20 Or -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't have training. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: No, I've got a note here, and 23 I -- we need to include a training -- Employee Training line 24 item. MS. HOLMES: Mm-hmm, right. 25 8-24-04 wk 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1? 1 1_` 1F 1" 1~ 1 2 2 2 2 2 L JUDGE TINLEY: In that budget. MS. HOLMES: Yes. I talked to Jannett about it, and she said that, you know, I would be welcome to join whenever her office trains. I talked with Software Group, and they said as many terminals as we can set up, they can accommodate that many people. The more terminals, the better. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. MS. HOLMES: -- they'll just let me sit in on theirs. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: It's already in there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: In there, 2,000. MS. HOLMES: Okay. That's all we have. JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't realize I'd gotten that to you. I picked that up off my sheet. Didn't you -- MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, I did. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, good. ~ MS. HOLMES: And, you know, as far as our court appointments, we go from year to year, you know. It's 1 hard to outguess it. We do the best we can. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Take a shot and hope 3 it's right. 4 MS. HOLMES: Right. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. 8-24-04 wk 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1E 1~ 2C 27 2~ 2: 2~ 2' MS. HOLMES: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bye, Judge Brown. JUDGE BROWN: Nice being with you. JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate your input. JUDGE BROWN: Sure enjoyed our little get-together here. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Mr. Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not doing it. JUDGE TINLEY: Where do we go? County-sponsored. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Make fun of me and see where you end up. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Look up your own pages. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 65. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. Looks good. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go to the next one -- wait, I got a change. JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we take it in order? Commissioner Baldwin, do you have any thoughts on County-sponsored? E COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Stand by. ~ MR. TOMLINSON: The Item 425 -- 8-24-04 wk 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1° 2C 21 2~ 2~ 2~ 2` COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 445? JUDGE TINLEY: 25. I didn't have that figure. MR. TOMLINSON: 25. That -- that number is the -- is the benefits for the two people on the task force, so I'll have to calculate that. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: And it'll be approximately the same amount as it was last year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Getting us back up to the total -- last year's total? MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: That's -- that's the amount that we -- that the Court agrees on when they come in to ask for the match. That's Kerr County's match, or part of the match for the grant. That's for the grant. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. And the KCAD budget, that number's already been determined. I just didn't have it, so it's not plugged in here, but it's already been determined. MR. TOMLINSON: I didn't have it when the -- JUDGE TINLEY: Their budget has been approved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 8-24-09 wk 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1° 2C 21 2~ 2; 2~ 2. MR. TOMLINSON: What is that? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's been submitted. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, we -- Paula Rector will have it. She'll have it. She's chairman. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MR. TOMLINSON: I think, when I got your copy, it wasn't -- maybe you didn't have it. JUDGE TINLEY: No, it doesn't, because I didn't have that information available. But the number is a known number at this time. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: As Commissioner Letz said, I think the best place to check on that will be with -- with the Tax Assessor, because she's on the -- she's on the board over there. But we've already -- they submitted their budget, and it's been approved by the school district, and that was the end of that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all I had. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm cool. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 447, Water Development can go to zero. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Wow. 8-24-04 wk 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2~ 2~ 2~ 2` JUDGE TINLEY: Bring out the champagne. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We only do that every three years. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You guys have done your work, and you're -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we'll come back in probably three years. We're just very tight-fisted with that money. We don't need it every year. JUDGE TINLEY: What a guy. What a guy. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question. Dietert Claim. Isn't that the Meals on Wheels program that we help with? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the congregate meals and meals that they take out. And -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good program. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Excellent program. All of those services are good programs. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: After one more year of experience and wisdom, I continue to believe that county government shouldn't be in the business of taking taxpayer money away from taxpayers and giving it to social services. And if -- if I choose to make contributions to those services, I can deduct that from my federal income tax. And my other point is that when I look at the number of agencies 8-24-04 wk 130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1° 2C 21 2~ 2~ 2L 2` that are funded by -- by the United Way, there's three or four, five times as many funded by them than are on here. So the issue of funding services that shouldn't be funded by taxpayer dollars, we put ourself in the position of picking and choosing which of those social services will get funded, so I would, again, suggest that we eliminate the money that goes to Child Advocacy, Dietert Claim, K'Star, Crisis Council, K-A-S-A, and that's -- that will reduce our spending by $33,000, and give citizens the opportunity to support those organizations if they choose to. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the only comment I have is, number one, it's C-A-S-A, not K-A-S-A. But the way I understand it -- and this -- this is kind of what cleared it up for me. I used to be where you are. And our contribution is to help them match funds so they can go after grants, and that's all it is. It's kind of a start-up for them, or they -- they use our contribution to match the -- for grants. So, that makes it a little more palatable. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I -- I'd add on to what you're saying. And a lot of them perform services for us. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And in the case of Dietert, which the Commissioner brought up a while ago, 8-24-04 wk 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1° 2C 21 2~ 2~ 2~ 2` these dollars for congregate meals and so forth help them draw down their federal dollars; becomes their match for federal funding, and there's a considerable amount of money that comes in here as a result of that match. Considerable. MR. TOMLINSON: I'd like to add something to that. I know the -- part of these organizations the courts use, because they -- in a judgment, sometimes they will -- they will refer the person to these agencies. So we are, as a county, using their services. As far as -- as the Dietert Claim amount, there's a provision in the Constitution -- state Constitution that provides that a county can -- can use funds for that purpose. JUDGE TINLEY: I can speak to the -- the court's utilization. I know that CASA does home studies, investigations in connection with -- in connection with some juvenile cases that I do. They do them in connection with -- they have cases referred from Judge Brown's court and the District Courts upstairs in connection with family law cases. CASA -- excuse me, K'Star, I don't know about the other courts, but I know from a juvenile standpoint, we on occasion use them for temporary placement for children, and they don't charge us 83 bucks a day. So I can -- I can answer as to those. The Crisis Council, I know they get involved in some of the domestic violence programs. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, there's a couple 8-24-04 wk 132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1~ 2C 21 2~ 2; 2~ 2` of those organizations which I would say strong support for, and I can give a couple examples. K'Star is the first one. When we take calls with runaways or kids having problems at home or whatever, we can put them right then, immediately, in K'Star to give them a place to go, and it does not cost our agency anything. And an example of -- I'll also say this. When we run across a child that's a runaway -- and one -- I can give you a good example; he ran away from Rhode Island. We located him here. You know, you have to put him somewhere. He doesn't fit into the criminal justice system. You can't put him in juvenile detention; there's no crime as far as Rhode Island. We can't -- and years ago we used to have to have an officer in a little room with him, sit for 12, 15, 18 hours, whatever it took for the authorities to get here from Rhode Island to pick him up. And now we can place those kids over at K'Star, and that is a -- a large savings to us. Crisis Council is excellent. We will transport battered women and women having problems to the Crisis Council to give them a place to stay, let them help with counseling services. True, they do get some grant money from AACOG and different areas. I sit on the CJAC board, which we do -- Kids Advocacy Place is where we do most of our forensic interviews of -- of child victims as young as two years old for sexual assaults, and they provide a room to do those interviews. They provide the equipment 8-24-04 wk 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1° 20 21 2c 2~ 24 to have those professionally recorded, along with the tapes that we use them for. That's the ones I can vouch for. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Some -- some -- probably all of these provide some valuable services to the community. My quarrel is with using taxpayer dollars to fund them. And -- and two other points. One, I could make the same argument for a lot of other agencies we don't fund, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Hill Country Youth Ranch, 3-H Youth Ranch, a lot of other groups that provide valuable services. Buster's point about the matching funds is a valid point. It's a reality that you can't do anything about. It's -- it's another form of unfunded mandate, where we're -- county and local governments are blackmailed into putting this money up or these agencies can't get funds available to them from the feds and the state. I don't like it, but it's a reality, and I guess you just have to learn to live with realities. That's all I'm going to say about that. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. City/County operations. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did we make you mad? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yep. Make fun of me, buddy, you hurt my feelings. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: City/County. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Probably not in 25 here. 8-24-04 wk 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2~ 2~ 2~ 2` COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no numbers on them. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They should be all blanks. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 59. JUDGE TINLEY: You have lost your spot. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I guess so. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Where's the data? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The data is in the hands of the City Manager. Commissioner Letz and I probably will get a little handle on the Item 450, the airport operation, tomorrow. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me tell you how I came up with that number, the 141. As y'all recall, we were recently furnished some figures on allocations and so forth. I used those figures as -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: -- whatever those rollup costs were, and then took our half of it. That's how I got that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's going to be pretty close, Judge. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably pretty good. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The T-hangars can come out. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That can be deleted. 8-24-04 wk 135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1° 20 21 2~ 2~ 2~ 2` COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That line can go away, 465. JUDGE TINLEY: Recycle facility should not cost us anything. We own it. They are leasing it from us. They, last year, asked us to pay part of the cost for some improvements to be made, when the lease clearly said that any improvements they desire to make, they could make at their sole cost. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we left it that way. JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: A deal's a deal. So, we're -- the only one that I see that we've got to contend with is the -- is the airport. And -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Library. Where is it? JUDGE TINLEY: That's on a separate one. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Judge, what -- why don't we plug in your 141,022, and send it over there to them? Instead of us sitting around waiting on them to send something, let's send something to them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, under the new board, which is going to meet for the first time Thursday -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tomorrow. 8-24-04 wk 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2? 29 2` COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tomorrow? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tomorrow. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tomorrow, the board's supposed to have a budget number, so we should -- we should get a number there pretty quick from the Airport Board. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, this is just -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's pretty close. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can put 141 in there and then adjust it, but it's better than leaving it zero. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's pretty good. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Page 82. See, Buster? You could be replaced. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I guess. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leave it the same? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is another operation that -- that I don't have much confidence pays much attention to costs. I think they cost too much. I don't know how to get at that, other than to try to put them on a diet. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll tell you what, Commissioner. I will gladly surrender my spot on that Library Board to you. You can go after them. I've met -- I'm not being cranky about this, seriously, 'cause I have tried, you know, for four years running to get more 8-24-04 wk 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 detailed -- get behind the numbers, what I'm trying to say. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, you have. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And they stonewall you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- it ain't coming. So, you know, I'd be happy to let you get over there and you dig, too . COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Next thing you'll want to take Animal Control away from me. JUDGE TINLEY: As soon as you make chief dogcatcher, somebody gets in line for your job, huh? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I am serious. I -- I think they cost too much, and I don't have any data -- intelligence to back that up. I just -- I see that they tend to be big spenders on some things. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Big budget compared to a lot of other -- I mean, if you look at the library versus the airport, this is almost triple. It's hard to understand why the library costs three times more than operating the airport does. It's double -- low double, but either way... COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In this information age, the library's a -- I know it's heresy to say it, but -- I love libraries. When I was young, I spent a lot of time 25 ~ in libraries. Now I can get anything I want off the 8-24-04 wk 138 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 Internet. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Actually, Commissioner, it's actually four times the airport. This is close to 400,000. That's one-half of the budget. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's an $800,000 budget, and the airport's two, or two and change, so yeah. And I've talked to the Judge about it. Getting behind those numbers has been just -- I think I could get into Fort Knox easier. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Commissioner Nicholson has always been shown great respect by the City. Maybe we ought to see if he would -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- JUDGE TINLEY: -- want to take this task on. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we -- this is really not a motion here. I move that we put the 387 in there, and that's going to be a cap for three years. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like the idea. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Think about that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you can't -- how are you going to cap it for three years? Certainly could be a cap for this year. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You could -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To do that. 8-24-09 wk 139 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: Well, maybe we put it at 350, and say, "You didn't give us a number; that's all you're getting this year." COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's what I've got here on my note. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think it's 350 that you got, though, is it? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I said cut it 58,000, 15 percent. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And tell them we didn't -- our budget's done, you know. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's it. Send it to them. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I gave the Judge what I had, and what I had was -- I guess was this number, but it did not take into account year-ending fund balances, whatever they might be. And they have operated this past year, as they have in prior years, without a full complement of employees, so there are fund balances. It doesn't take -- the numbers that I gave the Judge didn't take into account fees and fines, and we're supposed to get our proportionate share of that as well, or credit to our -- to our contribution that way as well. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think 350 sounds about right. And -- 8-24-09 wk 140 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: Okay, I've written 350 in mine. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER over; say, "Okay, our budge COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sounds good to me. BALDWIN: And we can send this is done." LETZ: Sorry. BALDWIN: I like it. Jon, you are brilliant. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just want to go home. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. JUDGE TINLEY: That's what we're going with? 350 is what -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 350. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: See where it takes us. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the reason I mention that is, 85 percent or a 15 percent decrease would be 329,103, if you want to have a scientific number rather than a shot in the dark. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the 15 percent is still a shot in the dark. JUDGE TINLEY: Sure it is. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's take a seat-of-the-pants number, 350, and see where it takes us. 8-24-04 wk 141 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: 15 percent, among statisticians, is known as a just notable -- noticeable difference. If you change -- you have to get to 15 percent before you notice a difference in many things. So, that's more than a shot in the dark. JUDGE TINLEY: I think we ought to go with the 329,103. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't make any difference. Let's put 329 -- can we round up to 330, though? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're not going to get any more flak for 329 than we'll get for 350. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Another thing is, if we use odd numbers, it sounds like you know what you're doing. JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly right. Next thing they'll be wanting to buy a copy of her transcript. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 329 what? JUDGE TINLEY: 103. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, I like the 103. Why don't we add 50 cents onto that, too? JUDGE TINLEY: Auditor says we deal in whole dollars only. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God, this is good 8-24-04 wk 142 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 stuff. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We got any more of these? COMMISSIONER is what's happening. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER JUDGE TINLEY COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: LETZ: Wha NICHOLSON: Okay. LETZ: How WILLIAMS: We're getting giddy, else? Only ones I see. about fire? Fire. Fire in the well. JUDGE TINLEY: Fire in a crowded theater. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fire is a couple pages before that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I saw it a while ago. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to get off schedule? JUDGE TINLEY: 72. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 72, Fire Protection. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: At least we're waiting for KARFA to come back and tell us if -- JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think the suggestion was that we create a line item in there of 15,000 for -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 13,000. 8-24-04 wk 143 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: Well, the anticipation was that it would -- it would go to 150 this year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I understood Mr. Feller to say. Isn't that what you understood, Dave? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we ought to put it in for now, and they need to provide us with a little more detail about how it's going to be used and how it's going to be spent, and I'll try to get them together on that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd also like each fire department to individually sign off that this is what they really want. Because, I mean, I don't -- this is in lieu, in my mind, of giving all of them an annual increase. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You want them all to sign off on this? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That they -- that this is what they want their money spent on this year, is on this tower. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that makes sense. Because we're -- they could have had a raise otherwise. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: U.S. Forest Service grant match, new line item, 15,000? 8-24-04 wk 144 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: Commissioner Letz, I -- the ones in the western part of the county, I'm pretty sure -- I think would sign off on that. Do you have a feel for the ones in the eastern and southern part? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I haven't talked to them recently, but I -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I haven't talked to Center Point or Elm Pass. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I can. I mean, I can talk to them pretty easily. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understood the KARFA president to say that they would. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, he thought they would. COMMISSIONER talked about it, but I -- I COMMISSIONER put to them in light of, Do Yes. Would you like this i it may be -- NICHOLSON: Yeah, I know they've wasn't in attendance. LETZ: I'm not sure if it was you -- would you like this? nstead of more money? Well, then COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: May be a different answer. COMMISSIONER LETZ: May not be yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I misunderstood him, then. I thought they said yes to that question. 8-24-04 wk 145 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 he said he thought they would. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on City/County? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We whipped through that bugger real quick, didn't we? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 2. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Must be Commissioners Court. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Page what? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two. JUDGE TINLEY: Two. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Help me understand the secretary salary numbers. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because the estimated actual, I'm guessing -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Had Thea. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- had Thea in there, and she was at a higher grade. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I thought the original -- the current budget was Thea at the higher level. Would that be correct? The current budget, when we plugged that number in, the 29,402? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. 8-24-04 wk 146 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: The position schedule shows her going to one-year longevity in April, which would -- I guess for adding that portion of a year for the balance of it, 27,639, according to position schedule. That sound right? MS. MITCHELL: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. MS. NEMEC: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes is the answer. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say it again, now. The annual -- JUDGE TINLEY: The one-year longevity comes into play April '05, so from that point on, she'd be going to a 19-4. And, taking that into account, the Treasurer's calculated that the total for next fiscal year would be 27, 639. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MS. MITCHELL: Okay, I'm confused. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. MITCHELL: Because how did you come up -- how did you come up with that amount? MS. NEMEC: What I did was I took the salary for 19-3 from October 1 through April 15th payroll, and that's what you'll be getting paid from -- for the October 8-24-04 wk 147 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 -- from October 1 through April 15th. And then, for the end of April, because the policy said it becomes effective the following -- following the pay period of your anniversary date, so therefore, the end of April through the end of September, you'll be paid at a 19-4. MS. MITCHELL: Okay. MS. NEMEC: That's why, when you see the salary amount under the salary column, for those that have two step and grades, you can't tie that back into the position schedule, 'cause I've had to go and -- JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MS. NEMEC: -- figure it one way, and then figure it the other for the remaining. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. It's a portion of a year they're at one, and another portion of a year they're at another step, so yeah, I understand that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if there are those among us who might want to make some improvement to this salary, how do we do that? JUDGE TINLEY: Probably just like we did that -- that animal control officer, because of having pretty good command of her job duties and job performance. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which I would like to see us all do this. 8-24-09 wk 148 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: That's why you have this form. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to see each one of us sit down with her and do this before we start plugging in any kind of new numbers. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with Commissioner Baldwin. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, that's a come-back item. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are bonds -- is 355 sufficient for two Commissioners? JUDGE TINLEY: I think so. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's your question? MR. TOMLINSON: I think they were, like, $170 per person for a four-year bond. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bonds, okay. Well, I mean, I just can't remember what they are. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you going to deal with this one? I've got it highlighted here. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is it? Line 108? Is that part-time? No, it wouldn't be, Judge, would it? JUDGE TINLEY: That's -- that's in the event she goes on vacation; we need somebody to fill in. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, that's that. 8-24-04 wk 149 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 good. JUDGE TINLEY: You remember how we did that last year, don't you? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: You took it on Monday, I took on it Tuesday, Bill took it on Wednesday. Something like that, wasn't it? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's essentially what we did, wasn't it? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, last year. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's county mileage? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County mileage? JUDGE TINLEY: Out-of-county. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Out-of-county mileage. JUDGE TINLEY: That should read "out-of." COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Out of. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County travel, that 35. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you sure it's 35? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it was 35. What is it now? 8-24-04 wk 150 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 MS. MITCHELL: It's gone up to 36.5. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I'm getting from my association. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 36.5. Need to plug it in. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I wish I was getting that to drive back and forth to work. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to go back up to 108, if we can, for a moment. Have we talked about adding -- 'cause we talked about adding a part-time clerk on a regular basis to assist in this office to take care of the -- some of the extra responsibilities that are due to the County Judge by these -- his other responsibilities. Do you recall that discussion, Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: I remember Commissioner Baldwin mentioning -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: -- some sort of a part-time administrative assistant or something. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, a clerk. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was thinking of bringing it up under the County Judge's budget. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. Oh, okay, fine. That's fine. That's probably better yet. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just the way I was 8-24-04 wk 151 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 thinking. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was hoping y'all had forgotten all about that conversation. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we need to talk about it and see where we are in it, that's all. The Judge is -- JUDGE TINLEY: That's called, "Let him get his hopes up, and then knock the props out from under him," I think is what that's called. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Judge is the one that's going to have to do the talking. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We talked about Line Item 500, Commissioner Letz, you and I, about putting a -- changing that from county map to surveyor, and putting some dollars there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What does that mean? COMMISSIONER LETZ: County survey. It's just survey work that Commissioners Court comes across that needs to be -- it's kind of related to Road and Bridge, but it's for some of this -- like the stuff on Lane Valley right now. Every year, we have things of -- someone comes and wants to deed land back to the County; we need to do that survey work. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I thought it might 8-24-04 wk 152 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 be something different. And I'm probably getting us off subject a little bit. We don't pay the County Surveyor? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We don't pay him? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't pay him as a regular -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: He gets paid -- he bills us hourly when he does work for the County. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Why does a person take -- run for and accept that job? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, because he's the official surveyor by -- of record. And, for example, here just this week, his services were used by our outside engineer on the sewer project for easements. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So it does bring him some business? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Brings him business. He bills us his rate, and we -- but we could hire another surveyor under Professional Services and do the same work for whatever -- the same line item. We don't have to use the County Surveyor. We just tend to, because that way -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we're using the County Surveyor. 8-24-04 wk 153 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: My real question is, are we taking advantage of him or not treating him fairly? And I don't -- I'm not suggesting we are. I just didn't know the answer to it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We haven't treated him poorly. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. Moving on -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We just haven't treated him -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm saying it is somebody that we can call and ask a question, and he probably doesn't charge us. He doesn't bill us all the time. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I like his work a lot. COMMISSIONER much money? County Survey? COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER was 5,000. Is 5,000 too mu COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what's the -- how BALDWIN: 500. WILLIAMS: What we talked about ~h? LETZ: No, not too much. He's not that cheap. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think it's too much, either. I just did two easements -- contracted with an engineer for two easements; it was 3,000. It's not too cheap. 8-24-04 wk 154 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: Where are we paying COMMISSIONER LETZ: It comes out of -- either we make Leonard find it somewhere, or we use Contingency. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, it's not really a new cost; it's just getting it classified and identified. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it is if we want to do some things, right? It's -- aside from Road and Bridge. And the one I'm just maybe making reference to is paid for by the grant money, so -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's instances also of some of the survey questions, where it may not be technically Road and Bridge, and it's dedicated funds you have to use for certain purposes. 5,000 is fine. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Change that from County Map to County Surveyor? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, County Survey. And -- surveyor, that's fine. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Survey? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't care. JUDGE TINLEY: County survey work. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County survey work. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't have any computers? Are you not purchasing a computer as a capital outlay item? Oh, you're a County Judge. 8-24-04 wk 155 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: I think so. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What happens if one of ours does blow during the year? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Comes out of that -- that Contingency item in Nondepartmental. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Mine's been thinking about it -- about blowing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mine's older than yours. JUDGE TINLEY: How do you tell? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You just try to work on it; it gets slower and slower. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 1? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. No, no, no, no. JUDGE TINLEY: Nada, nada, nada, nada, nada. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, are you not buying a computer in Capital Outlay? JUDGE TINLEY: I took it out of there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You didn't flunk the course, did you? JUDGE TINLEY: No, no, no, no. That was before the District Clerk said that I might be in position to pull one out of -- out of her jury -- her jury -- not jury, but -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Law Library fund. JUDGE TINLEY: -- Law Library. Because 8-24-04 wk 156 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 all that I'd use it for to any degree would be research. That's all. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, do you want to talk about your part-time thing? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: I guess first question is, where are we going to put somebody? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Before that, what would the person do? Give us some examples of how that -- JUDGE TINLEY: Same thing that person right over there is doing right now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tell us what you would funnel off that the Judge funnels on you. MS. MITCHELL: Actually, I think that we could do without a part-time person. I think that it'll -- it would work fine just with me. I mean, everything's been working fine. JUDGE TINLEY: She can handle it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That takes care of that. JUDGE TINLEY: I keep trying to find things to keep her busy. She occasionally gets a little slack, so I have to come up with something. (Laughter.) I tell her that frequently. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8-24-04 wk 157 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: No, so far it's -- it's been doing okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know why they're coming in. Elected officials' compensation is the last thing on the list. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is that why you're still here too? JUDGE TINLEY: We're just about on schedule again. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You guys -- aren't you three guys back there supposed to be catching bad men or something -- bad guys? (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You need to take a little break, Kathy? Yeah, okay, we're going to take about a 10-minute break here. Then we'll come back and wind up. (Recess taken from 5:47 p.m. to 5:58 p.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We are back in session now, budget workshop. We're down to elected officials' compensation. I'm not sure how everybody wants to run with this, but -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I -- I'll get the ball rolling, if you want me to. Or do you just want to go down -- start with the County Judge and start zeroing out 8-24-04 wk 158 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 until we get down to -- to mine? (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's one line. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's one line. COMMISSIONER LETZ: First let's go over what we did last year. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Do you remember how we did -- oh, what we did last year? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What we've done the last two years is what I'd like to hear. MS. NEMEC: Would you like me to -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're probably the only one that knows. MS. NEMEC: Okay. I gave each of you a copy of this the other day, and I can explain exactly how to read this. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. NEMEC: On this, if you'll start with the page that has 2000/2001 on it, -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. MS. NEMEC: -- make that your first page. Right there, that was the salary that everybody was in the 2000/2001 budget. For instance, I'm just going to use the 8-24-04 wk 159 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 County Judge as an example and go on down the line, and that's how everybody's will be figured. 2001/2000 -- 2000/2001, the salary was 32,528. $600 in travel for that year. The cost-of-living came out to 813, which was a 2 and a half percent cost-of-living. There was an increase in 2001/2002 budget for all elected officials, and those numbers that you see down that column is the increase that each elected official got for that budget year. You go down to the next column which says Salary, 2001/2002. What I did there was I included the increase plus the cost-of-living, plus that was the year that we combined the -- that we combined the travel into the salary, so that's where you see that. Then we started doing the budget for 2002/2003. That year, there weren't any elected officials that got increases. We did get a 2 and a half percent cost-of-living, which is reflected on that sheet. And so the total, last column is what the salary was for 2002/2003 budget year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. NEMEC: You go to the next page, you start off with the 2002/2003 budget salary. Then we added a cost -- a 2 and a half percent cost-of-living. And why that salary's on that -- on the Judge's, that's wrong. I should have just put -- that's what the total came out to with the cost-of-living, not what the cost-of-living was. I have 8-24-04 wk 160 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 less adjustments on there, because we did make some adjustments to some proposed salaries at -- during that budget year. And then the next column is proposed increases for -- or were the increases for 2003/2004, which I believe every elected official received an increase except for the Judge and the Commissioners. And then, of course, County Court at Law, because his salary is a certain percentage of what the District Judges' salary is. So, the last column is what everybody's salary is now. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, last year all the elected officials, excluding Commissioners Court, got a $1,000 increase. Correct so far? MS. NEMEC: Some got a little bit more. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know. MS. NEMEC: But, basically. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Basically 1,000. MS. NEMEC: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the Sheriff got a $4,703 increase. MS. NEMEC: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. What was the deal with the Constable 4? MS. NEMEC: Constable 4, we were wanting -- we were wanting to bring him up to what the other constables were making. 8-24-04 wk 161 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: Okay. MS. NEMEC: We did that during that year. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excellent. Excellent. MS. NEMEC: So, basically, 2001/2002 budget year was the year -- the last time that every elected official received an adjustment. And then 2002/2003, there wasn't any adjustments. Last year, everyone received one, excluding Commissioners Court. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: '01/'02. '01/'02 is the last time it was across-the-board for elected officials? MS. NEMEC: Right. That's correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: One thing -- I think that there are -- and I think Paula Rector was the one that brought this up first, but there are some elected officials that use their -- well, no elected officials get a reimbursement for travel inside the county, but a number of elected officials use their vehicles, and there used to be a separate travel line item; it was combined in the salary. I think those that do drive a fair amount probably should get some sort of adjustment from the gasoline standpoint. And I'm talking maybe $300, something like that, not a huge amount. But I think that there is an adjustment there, because those people are -- are having to spend more. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're speaking of 8-24-04 wk 162 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 adjustment in base salary? Not reinstatement of -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we rolled $1,200 in -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- for us, 600 for others. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think that there's just -- I think there's just, you know, a -- the cost of travel has gone up, as reflected by the state mileage rate. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No question about it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think those that use personal vehicles should get adjustments, and maybe come up with one number that fits all, or maybe you figure out two categories based on, you know, drive a lot, drive a little. But I just think this should be -- it's something that should be adjusted, because I think our -- my view has been people shouldn't go backwards. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I -- I think your thinking is good, and I would support doing that, so long as we rolled it into base salary, but I don't think we ought to go back to trying to reinstate the travel allowance. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I don't want to have a travel allowance again. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Part of our base, for 8-24-04 wk 163 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 example, was this $1,200. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER long ago. So you're really particular segment of the s COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was a long time ago. WILLIAMS: Yeah, was established saying, in effect, increase that Mary? LETZ: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whatever. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I know -- Sheriff? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not mine on travel. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. But while we have elected officials here, if anyone wants to make a compelling argument why they want a salary increase, now is probably a good time. Or later. I mean -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're speaking of an increase in addition to the COLA? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, you've heard from the Sheriff and you've heard from me on the reasons to -- to get parity -- equity between us and the City on law enforcement salaries, which would -- which would require a substantial increase for the Sheriff, on the order of $28,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The whole thing that you had put together, I think, was something like 236,000 8-24-04 wk 164 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 bucks, something like that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's probably about right, I think. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My view -- JUDGE TINLEY: Does that include the rollup? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My view is that I'm not that concerned about parity. I am concerned about number two people in any department making more than the head of that department. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Elected official. And I'm not -- and the Sheriff very well may be in that situation again. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I will be in that situation by a little over $3,000 if everything that we proposed had gone through. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Effective October? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Effective October 1. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: New budget year? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. I was in that position the first two years. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think that should be corrected. I just don't think that, you know, it is 8-24-04 wk 165 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 right for Rusty or Barbara or anyone to have their chief deputy make more than they do. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, and I handed you this 'cause I do -- and I haven't tried to ask -- y'all have adjusted my salary a couple times, like last year, to keep that from occurring year-to-year, but really, I think that the position of the Sheriff is drastically underfunded when you compare to what other department heads and what other officials make in this county, and that's the ones I have to be concerned with. I don't -- you know, if you really want the keep qualified people running for that position and in that position, and with the responsibility that the Sheriff has -- I know the Judge mentioned one; Howard Hollimon stood up here. There's so many other things that go into his stuff, and Howard said he runs 1.5 million -- JUDGE TINLEY: 1.6, I think he said. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $1.6 million budget. The Sheriff, regardless of who it is right now, is going to be running a 6.1 to 6.5 million dollar budget, and I think that's a very large part of the County's budget, and a very large responsibility on the person that's in that position to control that budget and take care of it. The Sheriff is also the one on the lawsuits and everything else that come down, and I think you need to be able to get good, qualified people. When you have the type of parity in this county 8-24-04 wk 166 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 alone, I -- I truly think it's not fair to the position. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- there's an argument that can be made for many elected positions in that area. I think that there -- you know, and it's just the nature, to me, of County government or elected government. I mean, I -- I think that if you take Barbara or any of these people that run these departments that handle a lot of money and financials, they're equivalent to vice presidents or vice presidents of banks. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The salaries -- as you can tell, the salaries I gave you is not private world. I wouldn't even try to compare law enforcement/government to the private world. I don't think any of that would ever work for any of us, but I do think it needs to be -- to be looked at in the government world. And the thing is true -- there's an old history along with sheriff's departments that sheriffs just never made much; Sheriff's Department never made much. But I think this county has got a Sheriff's Department that's extremely professional, extremely dedicated group of people. We're cutting down turnover, and if you don't take care of -- of that department and keep it up to where it -- my salary, unfortunately -- or the sheriff's salary doesn't raise and get up there a little bit better, it's kind of like you're holding down the whole department. Nobody else can. You look at just police 8-24-04 wk 167 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 department lieutenants on there or anything else, and I think it needs a -- a drastic jump to take care of this -- of the problem in this county along with sheriffs. When you look at just those basic responsibilities, you know, the Juvenile Detention person running the jail over there -- running the Juvenile Detention Center, you know, $15,000 above what the Sheriff makes, I think -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not a budget -- or a salary that we can set, Rusty. That's out of our control. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It is out of four of y'all's control. It's -- I know the Judge sits on the Juvenile Board along with the District Judges. I understand that, and I don't want to confuse that. But there are -- you know, your -- your Road and Bridge Administrator, that's 10,000 -- 9,000-something dollar difference, and that is a budget y'all control. There's just a lot of things in there that I think this county needs to -- to -- and I know last year, y'all did try and take care of a lot of the officers, and took about half of what was recommended last year in the Sheriff's Department. I'd like to see the second half done. But on elected officials, I'll leave this with you and just ask that -- that Commissioner Nicholson's request be considered. I wouldn't quite go that high, but I wouldn't go much lower than that, either. I would -- I think about 8-24-04 wk 168 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 25 of that would be more accurate. I'm not saying get us totally equal, but I think it does need to be taken seriously. And about 10, 15 years ago, that was offered to the Sheriff in this county; a one-time jump then of 15,000 was turned down because it was an election year. It's a hard time for sheriffs to look at it, doesn't go across well. But each year it's just gotten worse and worse, and I think it seriously needs to be looked at. I'd appreciate y'all's consideration on that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much -- how much does the -- is the Sheriff's salary right now? chief deputy? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That on there, Buster. MS. NEMEC: $51,735. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $51,735. And the COMMISSIONER LETZ: 49,705. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 49? JUDGE TINLEY: 705. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's before a COLA for the ensuing year would be applied? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, of course, COLA would, at least in theory, apply to all elected officials too. 8-24-04 wk 169 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: Sure. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Then we also asked for the $1,500 across the board for the officers. Well, that really got out of whack, just to let you -- during that Nash study. That did not take in elected officials; that took in all the employees, and under that study it upped that chief deputy salary so much, and elected officials didn't change that year. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it looks like he's $2,000 below you. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: With 1,500 and a 3 percent cost-of-living, it would put him at -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What 1,500? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's asked for. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm not dealing with that. I'm dealing with where we are today. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's why I said that when I presented that, Buster. I said if it went through. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have -- we're not operating on the same foundation here, I think. What is wrong with a goal of creating equity, comparability between the two law enforcement agencies in the county? Is there any rationale for us paying so much less than the City? Can they afford more, or they deserve more, or their 8-24-04 wk 170 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: Well, I'll give you my theory on the thing, is -- is the way that -- the difference between the way we fund things and the way the City funds things. The City, for years, has used E.I.C. money, Economic Development money, for things that should be in their regular budget; i.e., the street right out here, Jefferson Street. They did all those improvements, major expense, out of E.I.C. money, so that frees up their regular budget, and they can use their regular budget money. In -- in my mind, that's how they do that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bought fire engines and fire stations, too. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And frees up a lot of money over there. We don't have that ability. Number one, we don't break the law like that, but we don't have that ability. We don't have the E.I.C. money to do those things. I mean, that's the way I see it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: it. I think the other part of it by law, has to have a lot more th They have a staff over there. We District Clerk and -- I mean, all I think that's part of is that county government, an city government does. have to have, you know, a the courts come under us, jail. You know, there's a lot that comes under us that they don't have to deal with. They don't have to fund a jail. 8-24-04 wk 171 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: Tax Assessor. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tax Assessor. We have to fund a jail. They don't fund anything there, and that's -- that's half of the Sheriff's Department, basically, or close to it. So I think there's a lot of difference. And you start looking at employees, start looking at salaries, start looking at taxes, and many feel like it's -- the county tax rate's too high already. And to get in parity, you're going to have to almost say, okay, we're going to pay the Sheriff's Department like the police department, and then we have to add the jail in on top of it. And then you just can't -- the ends don't meet. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is this -- does this tend to counterbalance those arguments -- they sound legitimate to me. It's good -- good arguments, that to pay for their police department, they can tax 24,000 or so population to pay for a police department. We can tax 45,000. Doesn't that argue that we ought to be able to afford to pay our police department as well as they pay theirs? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, if our rate was the same as theirs, we'd have money coming out our ears. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the city rate? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tax rate's twice -- 8-24-09 wk 172 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 twice ours -- more than twice ours. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it really? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah. Much higher than our tax rate. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I never paid any attention. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought somewhere around 80 cents, isn't it, Barbara? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought 54 cents. It's a bunch more than ours, anyway. Look at the -- MS. NEMEC: Little higher than that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Considerably more. If you want to take ours up a quarter... (Laughter.) I don't think anybody wants to do that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I think that we have moved -- in the last few years, moved that way, and I know it's way too slow for you and way too slow for Rusty, and it's way too slow for me, but we have kind of moved in that -- in that direction of -- and I don't -- I don't ever see county government being in parity with city government anywhere. But you can certainly keep chipping away at it, keep trying. But we're dealing today with elected officials' compensation, not Clay Barton. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have some recommendations? 8-24-04 wk 173 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: I just wanted to, you know, make sure that the Sheriff is making more than his chief deputy, and he is. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the last time Treasurer, was, what, 'O1 -- '01-'02? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last time all of them did. A bunch of them did last year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Last time everybody got one across the board. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Last year they got -- everybody got $1,000 generally, except for the Constable 4 and the Sheriff. And this Court did not take it. So, first off, I think that we -- it's our turn. I think that this Court should get a raise. And it would be the $1,000 just like we gave everybody last year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, at the least. I also think other elected officials deserve a raise. I don't think we can be -- I think it's -- it's not fair to be selective in how you pass them out. We're singling out the Sheriff because of special considerations that we're doing something for the Sheriff, but we're going to pass up so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so, and I think that's -- selective increases is not -- is not good policy. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, what do you think? 8-24-04 wk 174 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: Well, let me go to the issue of J.P.'s, if I might. If you'll recall, last year I initiated a program whereby the J.P.'s that did mental health cases -- we created a separate funding vehicle for them, and we did it by imposing a matter of costs on the cases that they heard. And there were special orders entered in each and every case appointing them as masters, and assessing a cost for that. It's my belief that those J.P.'s who hear those cases should receive those funds over and above their regular salary, number one, because they're not obligated to hear them under the law. They're hearing them because they're taking a load off somebody else. And it was done in such a manner that if the -- if the percentages still hold, and I think they're fairly -- fairly true, 80 percent of those costs are being paid by the other counties. And that was the reason it was done that way, because you could recover those costs, rather than Kerr County paying those costs directly, 100 cents on the dollar. So, the J.P.'s that are hearing those cases I think should be entitled to receive those special master's fees. And I think, under the law, they -- they may actually be entitled to them without offset, so that would be one recommendation that I would make. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't they do that? The way the schedule -- J.P. 1 -- all the J.P.'s salaries are 33 8-24-04 wk 175 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; one's a little bit different. And the mental health hearings are added on top of the salary for three of them. JUDGE TINLEY: But those aren't -- those aren't the fees that are assessed for the compensation of those J.P.'s. MR. TOMLINSON: You need to look at the budget to see what -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What? JUDGE TINLEY: Those aren't the -- those aren't the fees that are assessed. MR. TOMLINSON: The amount you see on the position schedule is the total of both. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But on this -- this thing that Barbara gave us, it has a salary that the County funds, and then a mental health, and J.P.'s 2, 3, and 4 make $2,050 more than J.P. 1, who doesn't do the hearings. JUDGE TINLEY: The special master fees that are assessed in those cases are approximately two and a half times that amount. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the -- the amount budgeted -- or the amount should go up for that 2,000. It's not the -- the system isn't wrong; the amount's wrong. JUDGE TINLEY: That's my feeling. That's my feeling. They shouldn't suffer any offset because of their 8-24-04 wk 176 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 hearing those cases. And they -- and they're not getting paid those special master's fees that are being ordered to be paid to them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're being paid half of it, basically. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, less than half, I think. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, I -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a difference in the special master's fee you're talking about and this mental hearing line item? Is that a different -- two different things? JUDGE TINLEY: No, it's the same thing, except previously Kerr County was paying 100 cents on the dollar of that $6,000. I changed the system and appointed in each case a special master to hear these cases, and assessed a $25 fee. That's going to generate, instead of $6,000 for them, this last year probably somewhere around $16,000, but only 20 percent of that was paid by Kerr County. So, instead of Kerr County paying $6,150, which it shows here, Kerr County was paying 20 percent of the $16,000, which is $3,200. But the bottom line was, the J.P.'s who were holding those hearings were not receiving the $25 per case special master's fee that the Court was ordering that they be paid. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why not? 8-24-04 wk 177 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: Well, because -- because their salary was reduced by anything excess that that would generate over and above the $2,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- their salary wasn't reduced. MR. TOMLINSON: It was. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, it was. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I remember it was. And they raised hell with us about it. JUDGE TINLEY: And I think they should have. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, this isn't done right. This form must not be -- MR. TOMLINSON: Well, if you'll -- do you have your budget with you? Look on Page 25. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page what? MR. TOMLINSON: 25. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 45? MR. TOMLINSON: 25. JUDGE TINLEY: 25. That's J.P. 1. MR. TOMLINSON: That's J.P. 1. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Better go to 2. MR. TOMLINSON: So, that 33,856 is what -- is what was budgeted last year and this year. If you look on 8-24-04 wk 178 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the -- on Page 27, you'll see that -- that the budget for that J.P. is $2,050 less than what 1 gets. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The handout doesn't have the right numbers on it. JUDGE TINLEY: The bottom line is, I think we ought to fund the J.P.'s -- give them their regular salary, pay them all the same amount. The ones that are hearing mental health cases, they're not obligated to hear those cases. Pay them the fee that they earn under the order of special appointment, special master fee. And the bottom line result is, it's going to cost Kerr County less money, rather than the old system where Kerr County was paying $6,000 of Kerr County funds, $2,000 to each J.P., and I can pay those J.P.'s five times that before it costs Kerr County $6,000, because we're only paying 20 percent of it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, are these fees actually being paid in to Kerr County from the other counties? JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have any problem with that. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. They're charged -- that's why I changed the system to appoint a special master, impose a fee, because it's then charged as costs to the 25 I county that pays that bill of cost, so they're paying for 8-24-04 wk 179 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. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Now, I don't have any problem so far. Does that include you? JUDGE TINLEY: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In no way? JUDGE TINLEY: No. Not that particular item, no. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's right. But -- but it -- but that's exactly the same thing that we had talked about. JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly the same thing that happened to me on the judicial supplement that you've been collecting from all of these counties. It's the same principle. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's straighten out the J.P.'s. Then we'll straighten yours out. If -- what should then -- Tommy, what should a J.P.'s base salary be, the line item in this budget? 33,856? MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what it ought to be. And then what the Judge is talking about comes in over and above that. Then that's what I want to see happen. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me make sure I'm clear. Am I hearing that the J.P. who does not hear these 8-24-04 wk 180 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 mental health cases, his total compensation is the same as the ones who do? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, good. I'm glad I misunderstood that. JUDGE TINLEY: No, it wouldn't be. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But -- but his base would be the same. JUDGE TINLEY: Base would be the same. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Base of all four of them should be the same. But the three that are hearing the cases are currently getting a couple thousand more? JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And he had the opportunity, but he opted not to do it. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. What -- what exactly is your proposal? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're going to raise the base by some amount, 30 percent or something like that? Are we going to raise the supplement? JUDGE TINLEY: No, the supplement will take care of itself. Because whatever that generates, whatever's charged in the way of master's fees, that's what they get. Now, I suspect that those three J.P.'s may want to take that 8-24-04 wk 181 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 as a pool and say, you know, this month I may hear more cases than you, so to make it compatible for -- for the Treasurer's purpose, say why don't we just cut that pie three ways? And if I hear more cases, hey, so be it. If you hear more cases, so be it. I suspect that's what they're going to want to do. That's kind of how the system has evolved. But the point is, they're not getting paid for what's ordered to be paid for them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But then that amount isn't subject to retirement or anything else, I wouldn't think, because they're being paid a -- I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but it's not a salary then. They're getting paid a fee that they're charging. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's just like the state supplement that goes to the Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Supplement. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a supplement, just like his line item supplement. JUDGE TINLEY: Be the same thing, I would think. For -- I don't know. The Auditor knows more about that. MR. TOMLINSON: All the state supplements get 25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we apply benefits, we 8-24-04 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 25 182 have to pay. MR. TOMLINSON: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, see, I don't think that's right. I don't think, just because they're choosing to do these hearings that they're getting paid this fee, we're adding to their retirement and -- I mean, there's probably FICA and everything on something that is nothing to do -- nothing to do with us. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, can you set a certain amount of that fee that goes to them, and then the rest of the amount of that fee goes to cover the increase in FICA and all that the County would COMMISSIONER LETZ: Otherwise, we're sub -- we're beyo we're subsidizing them doing extra SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: have to pay? That's fair to me. ~d subsidizing. I mean, work. That generates 16,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's their choice, nothing to do with them being a J.P. doing that work. JUDGE TINLEY: Now, I don't know about the mechanics of it. If it's ordered to be paid so that it can be charged as costs, I'm not sure lawfully what you can withhold, is the problem. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy, can you address that? MR. TOMLINSON: No, I don't know. 8-24-04 wk 183 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: I mean, I think that MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, I know that -- that when there's a state supplement, when the Legislature allows a state supplement, that's been true with -- we pay a state supplement right now to juvenile probation officers, but the County -- the County pays the benefits for that. And the same way with -- with the County Attorney's supplement. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MR. TOMLINSON: He gets a flat amount of $33,900. We -- the County pays the -- the benefits, and it's part of the law, evidently. I don't know how that -- how that relates to what we're talking about. JUDGE TINLEY: This isn't a state thing, obviously, but I don' t know what the rules are on rollups on it. But, in order that it can be charged as costs and collected as costs so that these funds are being paid 80 percent by other counties instead of 100 percent by Kerr County, I've got to enter an order appointing them as a special master, and ordering that a specific fee be paid to them, and that's what I've been doing since last October. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I really don't see the difference between this and any other fee that we assess. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the biggest difference 25 ~ is, they're not obligated to do it. I can appoint an 8-24-04 wk 184 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 outside lawyer, far as that goes, to act as a special master. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, three of them. JUDGE TINLEY: I can solve that problem, I COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three of them COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just saying that the fact that we're charging a fee of $25, I don't -- doesn't, to me, mean they have to get $25 back. If we set the amount they're going to get back at 2,000 and they choose to do it, well, they can do it. If they don't choose to do it, well, they don't do it. I don't see -- it's like saying, well, all the fees collected by the County Clerk should go back to the County Clerk. Or -- you know, and I don't see the relationship between the fees that's collected by a service, and then have to go to that elected official. JUDGE TINLEY: If you want to pay 100 cents on the dollar, you can control it, I think. That's what you had been doing with the $6,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. What -- I mean, I applaud you for coming -- figuring out a way to get other counties to help pay this fee, and us paying a part of it back or -- you know, and I'm not saying we shouldn't pay more than 2,000, but I don't know that you have to pay 100 8-24-04 wk 185 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 percent. I mean, if you show that the -- for you to do what you're doing, making them special masters, that 100 percent of that fee has to be reimbursed to the employee -- or to the elected official, and then the County has to add all the retirement and FICA and everything on top of it -- JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- then we can do it. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't order the county -- I don't order the county to pay anything except the special master's fee that's assessed in each case. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But, Judge, wouldn't that special master's fee -- and this is just -- I'm not the attorney; you are. Wouldn't it -- it's billed by Kerr County to those other counties to reimburse Kerr County the costs of having that special master go out and do those hearings. Wouldn't part of that cost be the FICA, retirement, all the rest of that? JUDGE TINLEY: Not what the order says. It's not what the order says. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. I don't know how you -- JUDGE TINLEY: The order says they're 8-24-04 wk 186 1 period. 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 think that's what they ought to get, 25 bucks. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does that 25 bucks go into our treasury, or is it going direct to those judges? JUDGE TINLEY: It first is paid into Kerr cost. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I got the same question Jonathan has. What's -- there's nothing that compels us to spend all that money, give all that money back to the three judges. We can give them 2,000 back or 2,500 back. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think you can, when the order says that the special master shall be paid this amount. I think you're in violation of that order. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But then we can bill them for using the telephone, using office space of the county then, and deduct it by that amount. I mean, it's -- you're getting into, you know, an accounting mess, I think, if you start doing what you're talking about. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where I come apart on the issue is not -- is not giving them the fee, but set -- for the masters fee, I don't think we need to do the rollups 8-24-04 wk 187 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 on that. They earn 25 bucks, and give them the 25 bucks. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- that's a COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they're using anything that's owned by the County to help generate that $25, that's not right. That's like for me to use my office here to run my ranch out of. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are they using, Jon? They're going out to the hospital to do it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They have office space. They're using telephones; they're using something. It's against the law for them to use it for personal use. And that's what this is. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Judge, are there real strict guidelines on how you word that order? Can the order be worded that that fee is used to reimburse Kerr County the cost of appointing those masters? JUDGE TINLEY: It's a discretionary order on 22 my part. 23 24 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what I'm saying. JUDGE TINLEY: I know what the solution is. I'll just start getting me a pool of lawyers and appointing 8-24-04 wk 188 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 them, and that'll solve the problem. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then -- okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I -- JUDGE TINLEY: I just felt, you know, these J.P.'s who have been doing this work, I just think they ought to get compensated to the extent we can by the other counties. And -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you're saying -- JUDGE TINLEY: Heretofore, we've been paying 100 cents on the dollar for these J.P.'s to do the same thing that they've been getting paid. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you're asking us to pay 14 percent above the $25. The taxpayers of the county are picking up that difference right now. JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't ask you to do that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think we need to do that. I think give them that $25 fee and -- and let it go at that. Because if the alternative is that the Judge appoints a special master as an attorney, that's what he's going to get, a $25 fee, period. If you're going to do it for an outsider, do it for an insider. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can't we just send the $25 to Judge Ragsdale, just like we would send it to some outside attorney? JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 8-24-04 wk 189 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: Not launder it JUDGE TINLEY: Well, no, it's all collected the costs, that has all these other things with it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That -- if it's done, then it shouldn't even be listed in our salary schedule. It shouldn't be part of their salary at all. JUDGE TINLEY: That's fine. If you want to take it out of there, I -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But put those dollars -- you've got to have income coming in if you're going to pay out something. So, if you're going to pay out a supplement through the County, you got to have it coming in someplace. JUDGE TINLEY: I think so. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's no question about that. So, if this is not the appropriate place to put it, then put it someplace else, and adjust their salary the way it ought to be, up to 33,856, at -- before we do any COLA's, and treat it as a supplement. And I agree with you, we should not do rollups on it. I agree with that. 8-24-04 wk 190 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: And they can't use anything in the courthouse, and it's got to be clear to them -- I don't know what they use, but they can't use pencils, paper, computers. They can't use anything. MS. NEMEC: It would have to definitely go It would not be able to go COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whatever. Wherever it's appropriate. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then they get whatever they -- and they get their monthly amount that month, and that's it. And -- you know, or we do it the way we're doing it now, and it goes into the general fund and they get a good part of it. The rest of it goes to the County to pick up the rollup that was in there right now. And the use of the, you know, taxpayers' computers and office space and everything else -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if there's any residue from this fund, as the Judge says there probably is, then that does take care of -- of picking up the telephone or using a pencil or whatever it is. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if we just want to pay the full amount out, then there isn't any residue. The way we're set up right now, there's a residue, and maybe it needs to be adjusted. We're paying out 6,000 -- a little 8-24-04 wk 191 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 over 6,000, and there's 16,000 that was collected this year, so if you pay them out 4,000, then the residue kind of goes in there. They get a standard amount. I'm not -- JUDGE TINLEY: I think the problem comes in if I appoint a special master, if it's going to be charged as costs and I designate what that fee is payable to that special master, I -- I think that determines where it goes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then it goes to them, and they can't use any of the courthouse equipment. They have to use outside office, can't be billed here or anything else, because they can't -- you cannot use taxpayer funds for private business, and this is private; it's nothing to do with them being a J.P. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think it's private business. But -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: It is. You said you can do it to a private attorney. It's the same if you do it to a private attorney. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a great question, though. JUDGE TINLEY: Private attorney is going to have to come in here and get copies of all these records from the clerk. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the clerk will charge them for them. 8-29-04 wk 192 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: I don't think this clerk can. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, they're either treated as an employee or treated as an outside contractor. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're not a private enterprise; they're doing state business. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But a private attorney can do the same work. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that private attorney is doing state business. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It has nothing to with them being J.P.'s, though. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's state business. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I might get a traffic ticket doing state business, but I have to pay it. (Laughter.) MR. GARZA: I won't give you one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And your tax dollars are buying the administrative costs behind the ticket. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're not paying me anything. I have no problem with them getting paid justly for their work, but I just think it has to be clear-cut. I don't think that the other -- the taxpayers as a whole should subsidize them, and I see that happens if they're getting rollup. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know that they get 8-24-04 wk 193 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 rollup, and I'm not asking that they get rollup. I -- all I'm wanting you to do is do what the court order says. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's in their paycheck, they're getting rollup, and it's retirement and everything else into it. MS. NEMEC: I would think if we're going to do what the court order says, then they need to keep track of how many cases they hear, how many of these come in for their particular ones, and turn it in to the accounts payable and get reimbursed. It's a wash. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 25 times "X" number of cases. MS. NEMEC: That's right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have no problem with that. MS. NEMEC: Keep track of it. They turn it in as accounts payable, and that way they can get 100 percent of what -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $25. MS. NEMEC: -- they're supposed to be getting. MR. TOMLINSON: That's the only way we can do a 1099 on them. MS. NEMEC: They would get a 1099. They'd be 8-24-04 wk 194 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 responsible for their taxes if it goes over $600. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. JUDGE TINLEY: Sounds like a simple enough solution to me. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. MS. NEMEC: So we're going to take the 2,000 out? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we're going to adjust their base salary to the original 33,856. MS. NEMEC: Okay. (Discussion off the record.) MS. NEMEC: Of course, they'll be upset because, you know, you start thinking about building up your retirement fund, and this is going to affect their retirement. But -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're also going to have to do recordkeeping. Any other thoughts, Judge? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's deal with the Judge's supplement. Let's kick him around a little bit here. JUDGE TINLEY: Y'all don't want me to show up and put my feet up around here, suck in any cool air, huh? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, that judge's 8-24-04 wk 195 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 supplement, we could just probably give that to any attorney up and down the street. JUDGE TINLEY: You could. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Create a special pool of attorneys and divvy that up right there. JUDGE TINLEY: There's a saying, the pen is mightier than the sword. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Add all those numbers up, Judge. How much money do you make? You've never added them up. JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's less than -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Sheriff. JUDGE TINLEY: -- all these people the Sheriff's told us about. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: About 10,000 more than the Sheriff, at least. JUDGE TINLEY: I see. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: More than that, probably. MR. GARZA: 20,000 more than the constables. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Constables? What are they sitting back there for? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, no. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, give me a break. It's time to go home, Judge. 8-24-04 wk 196 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 (Discussion off the record.) MR. TOMLINSON: Judge, I -- JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? MR. TOMLINSON: Do the J.P.'s -- do they do anything at the State Hospital that's not, like, a medical hearing or -- JUDGE TINLEY: I do all the medical -- med petitions and the commitments. MR. TOMLINSON: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Are you talking about that? MR. TOMLINSON: I know at one time, they -- they did, and that's -- that's how this $6,000 was started. It wasn't -- it wasn't from doing the hearing that they had -- actually, it got started as a -- as a reimbursement for their expenses to go from their office to -- to the State Hospital. JUDGE TINLEY: My recollection is that's how it started. MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. And I -- so that's my -- the reason for my question. If they do anything out there that's not ordered by the Court. JUDGE TINLEY: The only thing that they might do is maybe on an emergency, very seldom. Occasionally. But insofar as actually holding hearings, no. Those are -- those are what -- notice of hearings and the appointment of 8-29-04 wk 197 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 special master. MR. TOMLINSON: This -- this started when we had -- when the County had a County Judge that was not an attorney, and -- and they had -- they were requested to do a lot of hearings out there. And there was a lot of expense incurred in -- especially when -- when J.P. 2 was in Center Point, they were having to make trip after trip from Center Point to Kerrville to the hospital to do hearings. They weren't -- and that's -- I just wanted to make that clear as to why this $6,000 was there to start with. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's give all elected officials a $1,000 increase and go home. JUDGE TINLEY: What do you want to do with that $4,000 supplement? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one? Yours? JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: He ain't going to let us go home. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we're on the County Judge now? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We never got off him. Does the same principle apply? JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What we've been arguing about with the J.P.'s? 8-24-04 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 25 198 JUDGE TINLEY: Same thing -- same thing occurred in connection with that that occurred with the J.P.'s last year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we sign an order as a -- as a special deal that provides dollars for you? JUDGE TINLEY: Don't have to. The state statute says it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's it say? Refresh my memory. JUDGE TINLEY: That's on the supplemental -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: For -- I mean, what -- what are you getting paid in the supplement for doing? JUDGE TINLEY: For holdings hearings away from the courthouse. It's being collected by the County in each case on hearings that are held that I hold. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much is collected per case? JUDGE TINLEY: $10. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $10? JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On all cases? Or just those from out of county? JUDGE TINLEY: No, on all cases. All cases. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Handle it the same way, I guess. 8-24-04 wk 199 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: What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Or the geese. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do it the same way. Turn in a report -- JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, 1099. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got no problem with it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we delete that? MS. NEMEC: Are we deleting the four now? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Deleting the whole line. MR. TOMLINSON: Deleting all of 104? JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm? MR. TOMLINSON: We're deleting all of 104 in the County Court budget? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which line are we talking about? JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we got to have a way to pay it out. I mean, what's it going to be paid out of? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 106 in the County Judge's -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I think somewhere on all of them, we need to keep track of it so the public is aware where this -- JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- this money goes out. 8-24-04 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 25 200 But I think they just get whatever -- how many other things he gets. He does get $10 a hearing. Turn in a bill -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Change 108 to 106, add it in. Same thing. MS. NEMEC: So, when I do this schedule for elected officials, you know how we're supposed to list last year's salary and then this year's salary. Am I just going to leave off this $25 reimbursement and the $10 reimbursement? That's going to go through A.P. I'm not going to show it on here at all; is that correct? It's not a salary. JUDGE TINLEY: No. MS. NEMEC: Okay. I mean, we're not treating it as a salary. We're treating it as a reimbursement of a fee, right? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you're right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Supplemental fee. JUDGE TINLEY: But the four goes back and is added to the five. MS. NEMEC: Into 106; is that correct? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four goes back and is added to the five? What's that mean? As I see it, your salary goes down $5,716. JUDGE TINLEY: What? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you -- that whole 8-24-04 wk 201 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 line, right, is going off? That's going to be coming -- you're going to get paid that whole line -- JUDGE TINLEY: No, no. The 4,000 was taken off the 9,000; that is now 5,700. So, that needs to go up to 9,716. The 4,000 needs to come off. MS. NEMEC: And we're going to put the 9,716 together through Accounts Payable. JUDGE TINLEY: 'Cause that was deducted last year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Your salary's going to go up, and then you're going to get a -- a fee on top of it? MS. NEMEC: He was getting paid 5,716 already, and then the 4,000 was -- JUDGE TINLEY: Carved out of the nine. MS. NEMEC: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was nine, and it was reduced by the four. So, what will your supplement be? COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, with your proposed supplement, your last column is going to say 40,665? JUDGE TINLEY: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then the first state supplement is 10,000. JUDGE TINLEY: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The County Judge other supplement's going to be nine thousand -- 8-24-04 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 25 202 JUDGE TINLEY: 716. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 716. Then your Juvenile Board's 11 -- 1,200. JUDGE TINLEY: That's it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we delete that last judicial supplement? JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, that's correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then you're going to get a 1099 for whatever your -- JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- other things are. So, you're getting an off-the-table raise. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm getting paid for what the law says I ought to get paid for. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just different ways of phrasing the same thing. And your 1,000 for all elected officials, Buster. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only thing I would probably say, I think that the -- just to keep it -- try to keep some parity in it, those that drive a lot, maybe add 200 more. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who are those people? The County Clerk? The County Tax Assessor/Collector? COMMISSIONER LETZ: J.P.'s. How much do 8-24-09 wk 203 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 J.P.'s drive? AUDIENCE: A lot. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the J.P.'s drive a lot. MS. NEMEC: That's -- all the money goes here, so I have to go to the bank. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I drive a lot, I can tell you that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Nobody drives more than I do. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's very much -- it's everybody except the judges and anyone that has a car. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you ought to take -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean a -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many oats can we buy for our horse? COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- County car. A County vehicle. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That damn German. I'm telling you, man, if you own a car, you can't get paid. MS. NEMEC: Unless it's -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can get some 8-24-04 wk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 204 travel money, but you can't get paid. I think that'll be three -- used to be 12. Maybe we ought to make it 15. And that's barely an offset to the cost of fuel. JUDGE TINLEY: But when you were saying "judges," are you including County Court at Law? District? Or are you including me? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was not including you. Actually, in that, I was including the County Court at Law and the District Judges. JUDGE TINLEY: The District Judges receive state funds, so that will take care of that. And, of course, Spencer's right here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Why are we giving elected officials a raise in addition to COLA? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you saying yes, or -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: He said "why." COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Why. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why? Why not? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that Commissioners didn't get one, and I think that you get to a point of -- you know, everyone should be treated the same. I think every -- virtually every study I've seen is that 25 ~ elected officials in this county are median or below in 8-24-04 wk 205 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 almost every position. Elected officials as a whole are not paid -- I've always been somewhat indifferent to pay raises for elected officials, but I certainly don't oppose them, 'cause I think they're -- they all do a lot of work. MS. NEMEC: I think in the past, the reason that we have given a COLA to elected officials and then raised their salary, one was because we discussed it; that cost-of-living increase goes across the board. Every elected official, just like an employee, has cost-of-living increases. So -- and then the salary is just an adjustment to try to keep getting the elected officials up to where they should be. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And there's nothing in MS. NEMEC: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you'd like to turn it back, you can sure give it back. MS. NEMEC: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cost-of-living is to continue to give you the same buying power with your dollars, as we all know, this year as you had last year. That's what that's all about. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And I -- I buy bread at H.E.B. just like the janitor does. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got you. 8-24-04 wk 206 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 there -- I mean, and it's not in any way -- not uniform, the disparity in elected officials' salaries in this county versus others, but when you go in and try to adjust one and not the others, I think you end up with more problems than trying to do a little bit of adjustment across the board. MS. NEMEC: That was also the reason the Court at one time had gone to a -- just a flat $1,000 or whatever, rather than a percentage on cost-of-living and then a percentage on an increase for what you make, because then you're really getting everybody off, because they're getting more, those who get paid more. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I believe, and I think I'm right, that since I've been a Commissioner, that $1,200 is the only -- or whatever it was, that -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There was an increase in '01-'02. increase. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: '01-'02 was a large COMMISSIONER LETZ: The 20 -- $3,200 increase is the only increase since I've been here in eight years. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Other than COLA. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Other than COLA. And a COLA, I don't think, is a pay raise. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either. 8-24-04 wk 207 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: As small as ours have been, it's been, you know, a pay reduction almost. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: COLA is exactly what it is; it's a cost-of-living adjustment. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This Commissioners Court -- and the reason the Commissioners have gotten far fewer raises than any elected officials is because we take the heat for doing it. We chose not to take the heat a lot of times, and I think it's just -- it's not right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you saying $1,000 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I understand. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We could do more. JUDGE TINLEY: Seems to me like we've got three different elements that we're dealing with. One is the disparity that we talked about a little bit ago of last year when all the elected officials got an increase, and I think Judge Brown -- of course, that's tied to a different standard. This Court did not. So, we got -- the second element is the -- the travel, the moving around requirement and the cost of doing that. And then the third is the across-the-board that you were talking about, and I'm not sure I understand which one, or more than one, or all three that we're talking about here. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't know how 8-24-04 wk 208 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 do the -- the travel issue official does travel. I mean Almost every elected something on county business. And I -- JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you travel in your private car and go out and meet with constituents and go out and look at road situations and all that sort of stuff. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do a whole bunch of mine, but I think the ones that don't, or shouldn't be -- if that's a -- that item is a consideration. Any of them that have -- constables, they have vehicles. The Sheriff has a vehicle. They shouldn't get any kind of a travel allowance adjustment, because they're -- they have a gasoline and a maintenance line item in their budget. So, everybody -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't we take care of it last year? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Except those who have cars -- I mean those that have county vehicles. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Barbara, who all had -- who all had the 1,200 that got rolled in, like -- I guess I can see it right now. Can you look back on this sheet? She prepared this back in the '00-'01 -- MS. NEMEC: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can see where they were that got rolled in. Is that correct? 8-24-04 wk 209 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 MS. NEMEC: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All of those. Some had six, some had seven. MS. NEMEC: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Some had 12. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some had 18. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's the Tax Assessor, Treasurer, County Attorney, J.P.'s, District Clerk, County Clerk, Commissioners, and County Judge. And the constables did, but constables were given a county -- MS. NEMEC: I think it's hard for you to determine -- you know, like Ms. Rector was saying that she does more traveling. I don't really know how you can determine that she does more than anybody else. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think do a flat rate for all. MS. NEMEC: If we're going to increase our salaries because of the travel, then it should be equal across the board. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree for all -- for those -- if that's a component, a separate component, I think it should be. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. 8-24-04 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 25 210 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I would say all those should get $200 for the travel for using personal vehicles -- or $200 or $300. I don't think it's a huge amount. And then I just think, you know, if you want to say every elected official gets a $1,000 increase, then everyone gets $1,000. So, those that use their personal vehicles would get $1,200 or $1,300. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In addition to the COLA. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm cool with that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does that make sense? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm fine with that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Baldwin looks perplexed. JUDGE TINLEY: He's studying. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ciphering. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ciphering. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ciphering. MR. TOMLINSON: Am I not hearing a COLA for elected officials? COMMISSIONER LETZ: COLA for everybody. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. That -- I didn't include that in the numbers that I just did. COMMISSIONER LETZ: When you rerun this. 8-24-04 wk 211 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. TOMLINSON: I was thinking that it was just -- the COLA was for employees only, so I can adjust that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've done it up and down last year and every year, top to bottom. MR. TOMLINSON: That wasn't what I heard at the last meeting. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what the intent was. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me try this one. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is brand-new in here. Give the Commissioners Court the 1,000 that we missed out on last year and start there, and then put the rest of the program in place. JUDGE TINLEY: The rest of the program being? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Being the COLA and $1,000 for all the elected officials. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's too much for the Commissioners. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would be a $2,000 increase a year for each one of us. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does that include him? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Except for the Judge. 8-24-04 wk 212 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: What? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You just gave him four. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I said, does it include you? No, I'm just wondering. I'm not being derogatory. JUDGE TINLEY: You need to fill out new forms, sorry. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I can't explain that kind of increase to the taxpayers that pay my salary. I can't -- I can't say we voted to give ourselves a pretty good pay increase. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think 1,000 is okay -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I could -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- to catch up. We lost it. We didn't do it; we missed that opportunity. So I can go with what we talked about, the original one plus COLA and adjusting what used to be travel. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Travel. $300 in the travel? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three is -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the number I heard -- last number I heard. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I said 300. That's -- I just tossed out a number. 8-24-04 wk 213 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 MS. NEMEC: So, when I redo this schedule, I'm going to take last year's salary, add 2 and a half or 3 percent cost-of-living, add 1,000, plus the 200? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 300. MS. NEMEC: 300 for -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Travel adjustment of three. JUDGE TINLEY: Do you add the raise and then put the COLA on top? Or do you -- MS. NEMEC: No, it's a cost-of-living on what you're making now, then COLA, then the increase. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's -- I think that's defensible. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's fine. MS. NEMEC: I'll provide y'all with a new spreadsheet so that y'all can see it and make sure that it's -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're about done today. I think Friday is our next meeting. I think that Friday we need to look at the Nicholson plan for the Sheriff's Department, and see what that does. And I still think that if -- if we do make an increase there and someone gets above the Sheriff, the Sheriff needs to get above that person, but I'm not in favor of giving the Sheriff -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, for the sake of 8-24-04 wk 214 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 time, why don't we ask them to run those numbers and have them ready for Friday? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So that we can -- we can see that we're going to have to raise taxes 18 to 25 percent to pay for it. So we'll know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we need to know. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- and have -- have all that ready Friday. And we know how much income we have? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: You got -- I put the latest thing in your -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got it in my box, yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the latest? JUDGE TINLEY: That's the latest I got. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're just in time to get over to City Hall for -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you going to go hear the U.D.C. discussion tonight? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, I'm going to go 8-24-04 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 25 215 home and eat pizza and drink beer. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This evaluation, if you get it back, Buster -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They're not -- second page. JUDGE TINLEY: Not applicable? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second page is not -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's an exit interview. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I looked at that and I thought Kathy had already quit. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You got two of them. (Low-voice discussion off the record.) MS. NEMEC: I believe Tommy is going to do the overall numbers, and I'm going to update -- JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. NEMEC: -- the schedule. Is that correct, Tommy? JUDGE TINLEY: Just so you guys will be on notice, before we get through here, I've got the Treasurer working up some numbers on our reporter here, and I'm going to have some ideas on that, and I may even ask the Auditor to plug them in before it comes back to you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. NEMEC: 'Cause I can pretty much tell you, the only increase that's been given is the 8-29-04 wk 216 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 cost-of-living. There hasn't been any merits, so y'all might want to do the same that y'all were talking about. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What are you plugging in for jailers? Deputies? MS. NEMEC: I don't think we've been given direction on that. MR. TOMLINSON: There's nothing in there -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was your proposal? The Nicholson plan. I like the way that sounds. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. MR. TOMLINSON: As far as the jailers and the Sheriff's Office employees, they're -- on the numbers we have today, there is nothing in there -- there's no change from last year, except for the -- the longevity. MS. NEMEC: And COLA. MR. TOMLINSON: COLA's not in there. MS. NEMEC: Oh, COLA's not in there for deputies? MR. TOMLINSON: 'Cause I didn't -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mine was 3,000 for deputies, all -- all certified police -- whatever you call them, and 1,500 for correction officers. JUDGE TINLEY: 3,000, deputies? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And 28,000 for the Sheriff. 8-24-04 wk 217 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: Better get you a new chair. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We need to plug something in so we can see the impact. Sheriff has got a little bit different formula than I do, but we ought to plug either my formula in or the Sheriff's formula in. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My formula was 1,500 for deputies and 2,000 for jailers, and then 3,000 for clerical and secretaries. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, that's the numbers I would like to see. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's the ones that -- you know, and then a cost-of-living. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what he wants. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Plug Rusty's numbers in, please. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, isn't that what he -- I mean, that's what he's saying he desires. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what I'm saying. It will put the deputies a little over 1,000 less than what the Kerrville Police Department is, but Kerrville Police Department doesn't have vehicles, and I think that actually -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty? Rusty? Rusty, just give them the numbers. 8-24-04 wk 218 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: Well, I'm trying to justify -- clerical would be all secretaries and clerks. MS. NEMEC: And you're wanting 3,000 for each one of them? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Across-the-board, and the cost-of-living. And if that's -- if the Court doesn't decide on that, I agree with what Buster -- the 12 -- the 12 step has to go. Those people that are all 12's, whether in my department or anybody else -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that point. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- is ridiculous. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's plug in what Rusty's scheme is, and we can negotiate away from it. MR. TOMLINSON: What I'd like to have -- I mean, I only have one day to do this, so I -- JUDGE TINLEY: You're going to be busy. MR. TOMLINSON: 'Cause I'm going to be gone Thursday. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This retirement thing has already kicked in, hasn't it? MR. TOMLINSON: So I need -- I just need a number, and not have to deal with -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You got those, Rusty? 8-24-04 wk 219 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: Yes, we'll give them to you. I have a number, total of each one. MS. NEMEC: Add 3,000 to clerical, too? I don't -- I don't see how that can -- I don't see the reason behind that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's what we'll talk about Friday. MS. NEMEC: I know -- well, for every other department, I don't see the reason for the clerical being moved up that much -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't either. MS. NEMEC: -- in one department, unless it's a reclassification of a job description. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it came from -- and I -- I kind of -- I think I agree with you, but I think it's more of a county move to get away from the 12 positions and move it -- you know, but it kind of pumps everything up, I know. But, at the same time -- MS. NEMEC: So you're talking about reclassifying, not just -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, the way we propose, just to make it simple on proposing, was the 3,000 across the board. Now, some of it may be better suited in a reclassification, especially the 12's and some of the 14's, whether that be county-wide or whatever. You know, it's -- 8-24-04 wk 220 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 just that -- and I feel, as a whole, the -- all clerical secretaries and clerks in the county just have really not been looked at strongly for a long time. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that it, gentlemen? COMMISSIONER LETZ: My last comment, I would just -- I would not do the clerical, and let's do a clerical discussion on Friday. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we're going to -- we're going to plug in -- JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we will stand adjourned. (Budget workshop adjourned at 6:12 p.m.) 8-24-04 wk 221 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 7th day of January, 2005. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter 8-24-04 wk