:.--.
1
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
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
10 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
Review and Discuss FY 2004-2005 Budget
C
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
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
On Wednesday, June 30, 2004, at 10:00 a.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
workshop posted for the Commissioners Court this time and
date, Wednesday, June 30th, 2C04, at 10 a.m. Before we get
started by members of the Court, I've got a public
participation form here from Mr. Eller, who asked to address
the Court briefly prior to us getting started. So,
Mr. Eller?
MR. ELLER: Thank you, Judge. Good morning.
I'm Charlie E11er, '~08 Wild Timber. Now, there's a lot of
lip service paid to less government and more personal
responsibility and accountability. I believe it's time to
stop talking about it and take action to implement that
concept. Once again, taxes are being increased from 10 or
13 percent through property valuations and taxes on new
construction. This allows the Court to claim they didn't
increase taxes, while increasing spending at several times
the rate of inflation, and certainly more than anyone's
increasing income in this town. Commissioners Court, you
25 ~ and only you increase county taxes. Nobody else. I ask you
c-3o-u~ ~,v~:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.....,.
25
3
to limit spending to the same level as last year, but
decreasing the tax rate 10 to 13 percent. That still gives
you new taxes on new construction, of which there's an awful
large amount in the county. I further ask you to go through
the budget and reduce spending by eliminating unnecessary
expenses for excess motor vehicles, outdated positions,
social spending that serves only a small, special-interest
number of the people. I ask you to perform the proper role
of government and let the people fund other activities and
services through their generosity as they see fit. When you
take money from me and give it to charity, you're not only
taking my money; you're taking away my right to a tax
exemption. Let the people do that. And I ask you to ask
yourself, "If I had to pay for this myself, would I do it?"
Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Eller. The
listed item for the workshop this morning is review and
discuss the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 budget. And, as indicated
in last Commissioners Court meeting, the format that I
suggested that we follow and which seemed to be permissible
was to get some general thoughts, ideas, comments,
philosophies, whatever, from each of the members of the
Court initially, and tY1en we can look at some of the
so-called big-ticket items, and I'd asked the administrative
assistant/court coordinator to prepare a summary of all of

1
-- 2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
those Capital Outlay items. There may be some others that
are not or_ there, and hopefully we'll develop that as the
day goes by. But, in -- in line with that -- with that
format, Commissioner 1?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: What do you have for us this
morning?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have some thoughts,
some ideas, and just -- they're very general, and -- and
they're going to be very brief. The first thing I want to
talk about are salaries. It seems that we have been doing
the 2 and a half percent COLA for everyone for a number of
years, and about three years ago, we had -- the
Commissioners Court at that time had talked about trying to
get a little bit better, solid thinking, in that when we
were doing the 2 and a half percent COLA's, that is just a
number that we pulled out of the air. It had no basis to
it. It's just a nice number we pulled out of the air. So,
the previous Commissioners Court talked about tying the COLA
to some kind of index, and we had agreed -- not by court
order, but we found in the minutes that we had agreed that
we would tie it to C.P.I., or -- I can't remember exactly
what index it was; i.t was a federal index. And I still
think that we should do that because of the fact that the
C.P.I., as an example, looking at it on the computer this
6- ~0-04 wok
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
morning, in this last year, federally, it -- or nationally,
it rose -- things like housing rose 2.4 percent. Energy,
15 percent, and automobile fuel rose as much as 70 percent.
Of course, we aii know that. But milk and bread and diapers
and medication and all those kinds of things have risen as
well.
So, instead of us -- when we get around to
talking about the COLA or a salary increase for the -- all
of the employees, I hope that we do not just pull a number
out of the air; that we base it on something that is -- that
truly -- really and truly affects the salaries of our
employees, including elected officials. You know, several
years ago, we had the Nash study come through, and we
adjusted some salaries to fit that. Some of the elected
officials, last -- last year, we adjusted to get to a level
playing field with one another. And we did that, but the
Commissioners Court did not -- chose not to receive that
salary increase. I want us to think about that, and it
would be only fair for it to be our time. I go to H.E.B.
and I buy bread too, and I buy gasoline for my cars too.
And I buy -- recently, I've been buying more and more
medication. I don't know if -- is that something to do with
age or not? I don't know, but it's getting a little
expensive. But I just want us to consider those kinds of
things.
c 30-~i ~ is}.
1
.•-- 2
3
4
5
6
i
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
6
As was stated in the paper, this work truck
the Sheriff has that hauls around the prisoners that do work
not only at the courthouse, but other nonprofit
organizations around town, blew up, and I understand that
they -- they put one -- requested one in the budget. But,
to me, that needs tc be put on the front burner, acid I'm
sure be dealt with in a -- in a Commissioners Court agenda
item, and I'm sure that it will land there very, very soon,
but I just wanted to make you aware of that. I noticed on
this Capital Outlay expenditure sheet we have here -- ir. my
mind, the budget process has begun by this meeting today,
and I'm seeing here that. there are -- here's one, an amount
for $45,000 for a capital expenditure with no description.
I would hope that we get that cleaned up. I mean, what if
we were going to deal with that today? We would have
absolutely no information to go on. So -- so, I'd hope that
we get that straightened out pretty quick.
It is my belief -- and this is going to be my
last point. It is my belief that our county has grown more
than we think it has. We all -- or at least I go around
talking about Kerr County having 40,000 people in it. I
think the 9-1-1 report we had in here recently, he used the
figure 43,000 or 44,000 people that he's actually contacted,
so I -- I would think probably that our numbers are even
higher than that, which is a pretty good growth in the last
r- 30-0~ `,~}
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-~
25
7
few years. Along with that growth are services, and
specifically I want to talk about the County Judge's issues
of -- of juveniles and State Hospital, probate, and those
things that he does outside of the Commissioners Court. I
don't know this; I haven't talked to him. I haven't talked
to you, Judge, and I haven't looked in any paperwork or
anything, but I'm just thinking that our County's grown, so
your workload has grown as well. The numbers have
increased. That's the way life is. When you get more
people, you have more people to deal with. Bottom line is,
I would -- I would love for us to sit down and talk about a
part-time person to do some of your work, a secretary-type
person. That's been talked about around here for a number
of years, but I think we have -- in my opinion, I think we
have reached that point to where we really need to have that
conversation in a serious way. That's all, folks.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 2?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Judge, I'm
cranking a little number here. Just -- be right with you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're supposed to
have done that last night, Bill.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I -- my computer
broke.
COMMISSIONER. BALDWIN: Costing the taxpayers
h-~c,-~~ ~;~:
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
COMMISSIONER WI:~LIAMS: I see this list has
about 390 -- $339,000 worth of proposed capital
expenditures. As we've done in the past, we've taken -- we
list these things and we look at them, and we talk to the
various department heads about them, knowing that they
believe firmly -- and I am convinced that they do not try to
put things in here that they absolutely don't need. But we
talk about new revenues coming into the county. That's all
well and good; we do get some new revenues, but we also get
new requests for additional expenditures every single year.
Some of those are the result of expanded services required
because our County's growing, as Commissioner Baldwin noted.
Some of them are required because the federal and the state
government lays things down nn us that we have no control
over.
I think the Sheriff's Department this year is
a pretty darned good example, in which federal regulations
are going to require him to spend a considerable sum of
money on improving surveillance at the jail. Where we
thought we had built in pretty darned good surveillance when
we built the jail, we found out that somebody on some high
plane someplace thinks we need to do it better. So, we face
these things every year. Our employee base group needs its
health care, and it needs to be taken care of,
notwithstanding the fact that this is an added expense every
6- 3 0- 0 4 w }c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
single year and it grows exponentially, and there's not a
lot we can do to control that. I think we're going to have
some discussions about how, perhaps, we can curb it. I'm --
I don't know whether that's gcing to lead us to any
significant conclusions or not. There are some things
that -- however, that I think I'd like to see us take a
good, long look at. In addition to the ones that my
colleague here mentioned, I've got about three or four
things that I want us to take a serious look at, and I think
are necessary.
We're going to be -- Commissioner Letz and I
will be presenting to the Court the documents that came from
our task force werking on airport governance and operations
and maintenance. We've been working on that now for a long
time, and we finally have documents that are going to be
brought to Commissioners Court and the City Council for
review and hopefully action. The product of that effort on
our part, however, requires the County to pay its
significant portion of the operations. We own 50 percent of
the airport. It's our obligation to fund 50 percent of its
operation, with the goal in mind that that airport will
become self-sustaining. And here's one commissioner that
believes that it will, over time. So, we have that
obligation to balance -- to balance our relationship with
the City in terms of a -- of a major economic generator in

1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1i
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
Kerr County. It can be viewed no other way than a major
economic generator for Kerr County. So, I want us to be
able to look at that seriously when we get started.
I have some safety issues and concerns with
respect to our -- some of our recreational facilities. I'd
like for the Court -- and I don't have the numbers today,
but I'll get them. I'd like for the Court to take a serious
look at how we clean up one of our major attractions, which
is Flat Rock Lake, and make it a safer place for people to
use recreationally. By the same token, we have a need to
finish some of the things we did at Flat Rock Lake Park;
notably, our restroom facilities, and begin the planning
process for how that facility can be more better and
efficiently used by the constituents in Kerr County. The
third thing I want us to take a look at -- and I haven't
spoken with Barbara Nemec, but I know that Barbara has
probably received some of the same phone calls I've
received, and that is how we can take a serious look at a
cost-of-living adjustment for our retirees. I've had
several phone calls about that topic. I've indicated to
people, while I don't know what the cost is, I'm sure
Ms. Nemec can ficure ou*. what that is in terms of our level
of funding into our pension system, which would enable our
retirees to have some modicum of improvement from time to
time in terms of a flat -- of a cost-of-living adjustment.
5-3G-U4 wY_
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
And, lastly, special road projects. I know
Leonard's going to be talking to us about that, but I have
some that I want to make certain get funded, if at all
possible. They have to do with Fall Creek Road, and also
not just the road itself, but the fact that when we get
heavy rains like we got right now, we have a lot of people
who get stranded our there and can't get across the Turtle
Creek Crossing. So, we're going to take a serious look, I
think, at how -- how that, perhaps, can be improved so that
people have the ability to come and go from their ranches
ar.d their residence on that road. That's all I got for
openers, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner 3?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a whole lot.
Mainly, I think -- well, I agree with a lot of what
Commissioner 1 and 2 said on the airport. I'm in agreement
with Commissioner Williams that, you know, it is going to be
an increase in our budget and ~slhat we fund out there, but I
think that the direction the airport is going under the
current Airport Manager and the way -- and, I guess, the
involvement -- the County's, I think that will well pay for
itself. That additional expenditure will come back in
additional revenue pretty rapidly. As an example, the --
well, the new planes that are being brought in here from a

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
business standpoint that are added to the tax roll right
away are millions of dollars already, and there's some
addition -- they are doing a better job of -- of realizing
all of those planes that are business planes, which are
taxable, and not just recreational-type vehicles.
The -- I guess cne of the new things that I
really want to look at is the administration side of Road
and Bridge. I've talked about it before. I think we're
really waiting on the County Attorney's office to give us a
little bit of guidance cn how that can be organized. With
the addition of Floodplain back in that department, where I
believe that department should be, if you add Floodplain
administration into the County Engineer's salary, you're
talking about basically a full-time engineer's salary and
pretty close to a -- a full-time position. And I think
that, if we're paying that amcunt, I would like to see
some -- possibly some -- we're going to look at changing
that organization out there a little bit and trying to, you
know, get a little bit more bang for our buck. It may not
be possible. It may be a two-year project to get that done,
but I really want to start to look at that now.
There's some road issues. I'd like to look
at some imprcvements, you know, in my precinct that we've
talked about for a number of years that have been pushed off
and -- you know, that I'm aware of in the Stoneleigh area
F, - ; r - ~; 4 ~,~ ~.,
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
and Lazy Valley, to get that back into the schedule. It
makes -- I think that it's been put off long enough. Those
are the main things. I really think that -- well, I do have
one other thinq I wanted to mention, and it goes back to
something -- a combination of what Mr. Bller said and what
Commissioner Baldwin said. When it comes to goods and
services, or.e of the problems we have in this county is
that -- I think Commissioner Baldwin said that he thinks our
county's growing faster than we see -- than we kind of tend
to think it is, at the -- 40,000 people is the number we
tend to use right now, or 45,000. I think he's very --
that's a very important point.
We have a huge number of recreational people
that live in -- that use Kerr County, that don't live here,
during the summer months and during the winter -- actually,
probably year-round at this point. You know, it -- I would
say we probably have a -- a population increase of
25 percent higher at times than our actual population due to
people coming in and using it on weekends. They may not be
residents. They are taxpayers; they pay tax in sales tax,
and also in property tax, many of them do, or through hotels
or other means. But the -- and this is something that the
whole -- that I'm really aware of because of my work with
Region J, that every county -- we have a big water problem
with the water -- you know, trying to balance everything,
5-30-~~~ wr_
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
,~
1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
because those people -- or that usage isn't really recorded
and counted when we do our balancing act on water. And I
think the same thing holds true when we're doing roads and
all the other infrastructure, 9-1-1, everything else. While
we may have a population of 45,000, we have a population
that's using the county of probably approaching 60,000, and
I -- and we have to have an infrastructure that meets those
needs. I don't really know how you tackle that, but I think
that's something that we need to be aware of, that we -- you
know, our usage in the county is a lot higher than our
actual population.
And I think the final thing I have to say is
that I think that the -- you know, because of what this
Court has done in recent years on some major capital
improvements, like this building, the annex and other
things, I don't see a whole let of big-ticket items -- and
I'm talking about million-dollar-ticket items -- on the
horizon, and I think that we have a real possibility of
looking at our tax rate and possibly reducing it. I think
that, if not this year, I think next year, we do have a --
the communications system, in the next -- in three years, I
think, will be paid off -- two years. The courthouse annex
will be paid off next year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think this year,
Jon.
c-3U-04 w}c
15
1
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This year?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think this year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, either way, we have
some things that we basically financed with tax anticipation
notes over a short term that we're about to pay off. And I
think that's -- we need to be aware of that, and I think, if
at ail possible, we need to refund that portion of the tax
rate back to the taxpayers. I think that it's a -- you
know, we're about at a kind of unique time with the growth
we've had and what we've been able to do in this county to
really sericusly look at lowering our tax rate, and I hope
we car. do that. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner 4?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want t.~ talk
mostly about people costs, but before I get into that, I --
I'd like to tell you that I lccked at my tax bill last
night. And I had a pretty good idea where my tax dollars
were going, but -- and like a lot of other people, I think I
pay too much in taxes, but I pay about almost five times as
much to my Independent School District than I do to Kerr
County. I don't live in Kerrville, and I'm not going to
because it costs too much to live in Kerrville. I see
that -- but I do represent some residents of the county who
live in Kerrville, and some oL you represent a whole lot
more of them than I do. And I see that, not only from the
6-?D-04 wk
16
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
i9
20
21
22
23
24
25
cost of local government; they pay county taxes, but they
pay city taxes, so the person that lives across the border
in Kerrville pays about two ar.d a half times more for local
government than I do, and that concerns me. And it concerns
me that perhaps I don't give enough thought to those
constituents of mine who live in Kerrville.
I want to talk about people costs, and I had
mentioned that I had worked -- done some work on a -- a
survey that Judge Tinley did a year ago, to -- to further
refine those numbers. And I want to acknowledge first that
it is -- it is year-old data. It's data that, one year ago,
compared Kerr County to four other counties, four peer
counties, counties that are similarly situated, that are
about our size in terms of population and other relevant
data. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this right
now, because I think you probably want some time to digest
it and study it, but if you will turn to Exhibit C, it's the
one that's got some color on it. Once again, taking
year-cld data that compares Kerr County to four other peer
counties -- Cherokee, Hood, Lamar, and Rusk -- I can see
that -- that there is reason to further study whether or not
Kerr County operates as efficiently as it could. And,
particularly, I think tre issue is -- is staffing levels.
Look in -- all the way over to the right-hand
column, which is budget dollars divided by population. You
5-3p 09 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,-.
25
17
can see that -- that Kerr County spent $426 per Kerr County
resident, and that is significantly higher than the average.
It's the highest amount in that peer group, and it's
?2 percent more per-citizen than Hood County. I've looked
at the data for several departments, and go back over to the
left side now and look at the Sheriff's Department and Jail,
and here we're dividing head count -- number of employees
into the population. And you can see there that we have --
we staff heavier in terms of total population than any of
the other counties staff; heavier in terms of rural
population than any other counties. We're about average in
terms of jail employees per jail bed.
Looking at the Tax Collector/Assessor's
office, you can see that, again, dividing employees into --
to relevant statistics, that we're the highest staffed in
terms of total population. In terms of registered voters,
we're the highest staffed. In terms of registered vehicles,
we're the highest staffed, and we're significantly higher
than -- than the other peer counties. Looking at the
District Clerk's Office, I see that dividing employees into
the number of cases, Kerr County is about average. As is
the case with any ~f this data, we'd have to look at what
kind of courts they have and tie ratio of criminal cases to
civil and things like that, but it looks like we're not in
too bad of shape on that metric.
-3~_~-0 9 ~ --
1

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
Rcad and Bridge, I see that dividing
employees into the area in square miles, that we -- we are
more productive than any of the other four peer counties. I
don't have road mileage data, but that would be very
interesting, a statistic that ~•re need. In the County
Clerk's cffir_e, again, dividing employees into total
population, I see that we're staffed the heaviest, and more
than twice as heavy as, for example, Cherokee County, which
is the best practice. I only use -- was able to use one
metric on our maintenance staffing, and that's the number of
employees per building. We do have some data on the size of
the buildings, so it's probably -- it probably provides some
guidance on that, and there we come out looking very good.
We -- we have more employees than the other counties, but
I'm presuming that they don't have a Youth Exhibition
Center. Maybe they do; maybe they don't. I don't know.
One of the thi_ncis I'd like to see us focus on
this year is how we can beccme more productive in all of our
departments, and how we can get more done with fewer people.
You heard me say before that I prefer to pay more dollars to
fewer people, and while cutting payroll costs and insurance
costs by doing that. That's the real way to save -- to be
productive and efficient on manpower count. There's not --
just make sure you don't have too many people, and make sure
you pay them well. I think there's opportunities in this in
h_~~_-u~ ,~~:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
y
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
19
a number of areas, and one of them would include working
with the City of Kerrville or the City of Ingram to find
ways that we can better serve, more efficiently serve the
populations that we serve by combining operations, or other
ideas about how to get work done better. And the one that
costs us and Kerrville the most, the one that's most
pregnant for savings is law enforcement.
And I'm going tc suggest that we -- that we
give serious consideration to merging the Kerrville Police
Department and the Kerr County Sheriff's Office. I can
think of no down side to it. We'll get better law
enforcement, because law enforcement will be seamless. We
won't have to worry about artificial boundaries. We'll get
better law enforcement because it will be more productive,
more efficient; we won't have two of everything, and it
would be win-win for the people who live in the county and
the people who live in the city, both. It's not something
that's going to be easy to do, and can't be done overnight.
I do believe it could be done by October 1, 2005, if both
governments were serious about it and willing to work at it.
Other than that, I agree with everything else the three of
you said.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner. With
respect to Commissioner Ba~dwin's' inquiry about my judicial
workload, I think it has increased. I was running some
r - ~ ~ - 0 4 w ::
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
numbers from last year, 2003, and on the tY:ree dockets that
I have, the hearings alone that I conducted in 2003 were
over 1,225 hearings. Now, that, of course, does not include
a lot of the routine housekeeping things that are done in
primarily the probate area, reviewing inventories and
routine applications and so forth, for which there are no
hearings held. But -- and there are a few other things with
regard to the ether two dockets, but that's just the number
of hearings that were held. Sc, I appreciate that
consideration, Commissioner Baldwin.
I, too, would like to be able to achieve some
increased efficiency and productivity through the budget
process, and I thin'. there are a number of ways that ran be
accomplished. If we can find equipment or machines to
perform tasks that people are doing, certainly, that's one
area that can be utilized. I know there are some
departments that have been right at the head of the column
doing that, use of new technology. There's technology
coming down the pike all the time in computer programming
and -- and other areas that can be utilized for that,
additional training and cross-training that allows people to
better cross over and perform their duties in a more
efficient manner, and to be able to do more than what they
had previously been doing, and restructuring of department
staffing and job descriptions, and all of these things get
c-3U-t'4 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
i2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
to the end result cf increasing the productivity and
efficiency.
The key to personnel management, in my
opinion, is to be able to accomplish the mission with the
absolute fewest r_umber of people. More people is not
necessarily better. In fact, oftentimes it can be worse.
The key is finding that minimum. number cf people and
utilizing that. But, by the same token, as Commissioner
Nicholson has said, those fewer persons accomplishing larger
results need to be rewarded for doing that. That's the
American way, and that's the way it ought to be in
government as well as on. the outside. And -- and I was
pleased last year, dur~ng the budget process, with the
cooperation that I got with a number of elected officials
and department heads on trying to restructure acid -- and
reposition their staffing levels, and we worked with those,
and those elected officials and department heads managed to
find a way to better compensate the people that they had
remaining to do the same job, but at a net cost to Kerr
County. So, it was really a win-win situation. I hope we
can have a similar or even better experience this year, and
that's what I'll be looking to.
As the budget process continues to develop, I
will again this year be talking one-on-one with each of the
elected officials and the department heads to try and go
6-30-04 wk
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
over each of your respective budgets so that your requests
-- so that I can understand what your needs are, so that you
can have what you must have in order to accomplish your
mission. And it's only after we have those discussions, I
believe, can we present a meaningful and effective budget.
But this is the start cf the process, and we need to knew
what you need.
I have one pet project that I'm -- I've got
in the formative stages, that I think will increase
efficiency and productivity, and it involves the judicial
area, primarily with our district courts. As most of you
know, our district courts are multi-county, and as a result,
our judges spend a lot of time on the road traveling to and
from these other counties in the district. I am working now
initially through the A & M Extension Service and with the
Office of Court Administration to possibly put together a
plan to use video conferencing. Now, the larger benefit
will probably be to the other rural counties in the district
initially, but the efficiency that we get by having our
judges available more, I think, will move the caseloads at a
better pace, and that will include Kerr County.
Also, I think it'll have an impact on what
the Ccunty pays in -- in indigent defense funds to lawyers
who represent those charged with criminal offenses who are
unable to hire their own lawyers. If we can cut down the
6-3i1-n 9 wk
1
- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
i1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
amount of time those lawyers are spending, we're going to
cut down the amount of money we're paying, and it's -- it's
a bottom-line item. But that's in the formative stages; may
not get it rolling this year. We may have some legal
obstacles. We're looking intc that now. But I've also got
some ideas of how to fur:d it without using taxpayer -- Kerr
County taxpayer money. It I can get there by being out in
front of this issue, hopefully we can -- we can have another
win-win situation. But I appreciate the comments of all of
the Commissioners, and it looks like we've got some -- some
pretty good conceptual thinking that's gone into the process
that's going to start developing, and I -- I look forward to
getting us a budget which is, number one, accurate, and
number two, workable, and number three, will get the mission
accomplished. And that's what we're here for, to help you
get your mission accomplished. Okay. I guess --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You said one thing that I
-- and I meant to bring it up. You mentioned the word
"accurate." And I think that's it's one of the problems we
have that I hope the public -- I just want to make sure the
public is aware of it, and the best example are capital
murder trials. You know, we have to budget for things that
we think are likely going to happen. We put in this year's
budget, I think, $150,000 for two capital murder trials.
They didr_'t happen this year, so we're going to have budget

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
for them again next year, because we think they're going --
probably going to happen next year, best guess. So, even
though we've kind of -- we budgeted for it once, our budget
was bigger this year, you know, we're going to have to
budget for it again next year, and when, in reality, we're
just -- because the money goes back into the reserves; we're
really not spending the money. So, you have to look at a
lot of expenditures. I mean, you have to look at the -- the
end budget is really a lot more reflective of what we're
doing than our proposed budget, and I think that's something
we always need to be mindful of, because at times we do have
to budget for things that er.d up -- because of the way the
budget process works, I think we always need to be mindful
of that one point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Accuracy brings to
mind one other little topic, Commissioner, simplistic though
it may be. I think we failed to list July 4th, Independence
Day, as a holiday for the County. And in this current
budget, you know, how do we do that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I already found the
answer out. I visited with our County Clerk. We gave an
extra holiday at Christmas. It was a conscious decision
that we made cn trie Court, whether good or bad.
MS. UECKER: I think I was even the one that
said, you know, I'd rather give up that 4th of July and have
-3n-U4 wt.
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
an extra day. Yeah, it's rmy fault.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good point, Ms. Decker. We
will now place all the blame squarely on your shoulders.
Thank you for volunteering for that.
MS. DECKER: But the extra day at Christmas
sure was nice.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's talk, if we might, about
the capital expenditure items. The first one on the list,
I'll raise my hand, is the possibility of getting a computer
system for my office this year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: If there are higher priorities
than that, certainly, we'll forego that, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can have the one in
my office.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't want it. I
said you could have the one in my office, but I don't think
you want it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm -- you should have made
that offer earlier.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll give you mine
and I'll get a laptcp.
COMMISSIONER NIC:HOLSON: This is an
amendment.
r" - 3 0 - 0 4 cv F.
26
1
-- 2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Records management.
Ms. Pieper had requested a plat cabinet, and that's out of a
dedicated fund that we really don't have much control over.
Those funds are utilized for those purposes, and those
purposes only. And I would note with some -- with some
interest that it appears that her expenditure is directly
related to records management, and not something like the
City of San Antonio attempted to do --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- here a few weeks ago that
suddenly caught a lot of media attention, and I certainly
don't think we want any of that. But it looks like hers is
directly related to her maintaining her records. Justice of
the Peace, Precinct 3. Judge O'Dell?
AUDIENCE: She just left.
JUDGE TINLEY: She was here a few moments
ago. We'll come back to her. Justice of the Peace,
Precinct 4, an item of $2,603, and the summary I have
indicates no description. Is there something we missed
there, Judge Wright?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's not 4.
JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Stop trying to steal
my --
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got her confused now,
r-,-?~:~- i- ca~_
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
don't I? I thought she was doing an impersonation of
Richard Nixon back there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The two that are on
here are not in here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, we had -- we had
three here moments ago. Nondepartmental, we've got $5,000
in there. Mr. Auditor, I assume that was more of a
contingency-type item, is it not?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Not a specific known. need?
MR. TOMLINSON: Not a specific one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Computer contingency?
MR. TOMLINSON: To replace things on an
emergency basis that --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- that fail.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ckay. Ms. Nemec has a
computer scanner and printer that she's requested this year.
Gentlemen., as I hit these items, if you got any question,
well, jump in here. Ms. Recto, a computer also for her
office. Now, to the Sheriff. $44,000. Anybody here from
the Sheriff's Office?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes -- no? No, sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's Justice of the Peace,
Precinct 2 there. That's not --
6- 3 0- U 4 w F:
28
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's not from the Sheriff's
Office. They're in the same building.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that the security?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The jail one may be
security.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 44 -- would that be
this truck that I referred to earlier?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think that's only
about $20,000, would be my guess.
JUDGE TINLEY: G^7ell, we're going to have to
be --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. That
was my earlier point. We're in this process now, and we
don't know what the hell we're doing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's early.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I knew the Sheriff wasn't
going to be here today, but he certainly could have sent
somebody.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: See if we can get an answer to
these items. I know at least part of it has to do with --

29
1
2
3
4
5
5
8
9
10
11
i2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with the surveillance system at the jail that's going to be
required as of either '06 or '07 under the federal law.
And, based upon some earlier discussions I had with him,
where he's losing some, he's, in essence, filling it with
these needs. So, I assume we can get an answer to that.
Constable, Precinct 1's, is the annual lease payment on the
vehicle, so that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't belong in
here.
JUDGE TINLEY: So it's really not a new
capital outlay item. Constables 2 and 3, a portion of those
are the vehicle lease payments of $7,200. The balance is
for the video cameras that they have been requesting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That's around
$5,000, isn't it, Judge?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $4,300 would be the
difference.
$4,300?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 43?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, 115 was now to
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.	I'm	assuming	that
the $7,200,	the lease payment, should be	the	same for	all
three.
correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is. That is
,-30-ii9 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
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm stowing 60 -- one of them
shows 65 lease payment; the other, $5,000 video. But I
think those lease payments are fixed at $7,200, if I'm not
mistaken.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think they are,
too. Aren't they, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't recall. I think
they're close to E5, 66.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The others are
insurance and related costs that are rolled in, possibly?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think we budgeted too much
for one -- one of the J.P.'s.
JTJDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: But I'm -- I'm trying to
recall what the actual payment is, and I think it's around
$6, 60C.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think the important
point for discussion purposes is that the major portion of
that is already committed on an ongoing basis.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, $5,000 for video
camera.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: On the video
cameras, I'm going to take a lot more convincing that that's
needed, rather than something that's just nice to have. The
example we heard that wa.s cited as a reason for having it
h-gin-., ~ ~~k:
1
.- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
didn't seem very compelling to me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The two that are -- I'm
not trying to defend that they need it, but I'm saying the
two that are requesting it are very much involved with
traffic stops, and primarily on the interstate. And I think
that it's -- it's their -- you know, that's the reason they
want it, is because of treat safety factor. And I think our
Sheriff's vehicles -- do they have them? They do, don't
they? So I think it's there -- I mean, to me, the way they
are operating as constables, they're acting much as deputies
do, and I think it's a safety issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is a safety issue.
It's a law requirement.
COMMISSIONER. BALDWIN: But we also want to go
back and remember the conversation that we had when we
bought the cars, and that was to work the school zones and
do neighborhoods, not Interstate 10 traffic and drug
interdiction. That wasn't part of the conversation at all.
It was -- and your neighborhood down there in Comfort was
the big one, right after the double murder, to make people
feel safer and -- and know that they had law enforcement
right there in their neighborhood. And the school zones,
that these guys r_an work the school zones so that deputies
that are out there doing police work could be cut loose and
go do police work. Well, we've -- within a few months,
6-30-04 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
we've gotten: completely away from it. Completely away from
that, in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Almost seems like
there's three different job descriptions for constables.
They've --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What they want to do.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- defined it
different ways. And that doesn't suggest to me what's right
or wrong, but it -- I wonder why it's not more uniform.
There's an awful lot of Interstate 10 in Precinct 4, and I
don't think cur constable's out there on Interstate 10.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yours is not. Mine
is, ar.d 3 is. And my -- and my constable's -- he shows the
continuing car lease at $6,500, which is about what Tommy
noted, and $5,000 for the camera. So, the cameras are
somewhere between $4,506 and $5,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- one more point
on that. I think it -- you know, the -- Commissioner
Baldwin's correct in his statement about the school zones
ar_d neighborhoods. I think Commissioner -- Constable 3 is
in the neighborhoods, out in the rural neighborhoods. I'm
not sure if he patrols city of Kerrville neighborhoods very
much, but the rural neighborhoods, he's out there a fair
amount. And I think that part of the nature is -- I mean,
~,-30-0 ~ wk
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
they -- while working the interstate, whether we wanted them
to do it or not, or thought about it, they're bringing in a
fair amount of revenue to the County. On their monthly
reports from those two, they bring in a lot.
COMMISSIONER. WILLIAMS: They do, and they do
a lot of work on Highway 27.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just something we
need to discuss.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: May be the right
thing to do. I just do notice that they go about the jobs
in different ways.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, they do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They do.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And we have a lot --
count them all uo. There's a lot of different law
enforcement agencies in Kerr County, maybe 10 or 11 of them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: More than you think.
Judge, let's go back to this -- this -- the number here on
Constable 2 and 3. If you take out the lease payment, you
have $4,300 left? Is that the number, Jon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought it was, but I
think it's closer to $5,000. They said it should be $6,500
b-30-i19 wk
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
G ~
24
25
for the lease payment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's going to be in
the range of $4,500 to $5,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, there is enough
there to buy a camera? That's my question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, with $5,000 or
$4,500.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll recall, there was
also some outstanding questions about those particular
camera items, video cameras being pooled into some sort of a
grant request that may be in the works somewhere.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We got -- they got
started too late. The funds, I think, had been depleted
before they got there. That's how the Sheriff got his.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is through grants.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. With -- going back to
the Sheriff, the -- the $44,000 is -- includes that new
inmate work vehicle and the -- the up-front cost for the new
vehicles on the vehicle program that was put in place, what,
three years ago now?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or four.
JUDGE TINLEY: Three or four, something like
6-3G-1i4 wl:
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
that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How many vehicles is
that?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have that. I suspect
it's probably going to be --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three or four. That's
what it's been.
CUMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Seems like in the
study, it recommended amour, I think. I don't -- maybe that
was altered after the study.
JUDGE TINLEY: Road and Bridge, Floodplain,
there's a request for computer hardware, $3,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is that exactly?
MR. JOHNSTON: That would be a computer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know what a computer
is, Franklin. I mean --
MR. JOHNSTON: I plan on --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it some kind of
engineering program that you can put -- put, like we
recently received from Bumblebee Creek, that kind of
information on there? Or what's -- what kind of program
does it do?
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, you could put that on
there, yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you want it
r- 3 G- 0 4 w k
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for?
MR. JOHNSTON: G7e11, the computer I have now,
it's about six or seven years old, and it doesn't handle
graphics software real well. And I'm looking for a laptop
that would be more suitable and more portable, that you can
take out to sites and h~.ve all that mapping information
available.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just look up above
here, and the Tax Assessor, $1,600 for a computer, and the
Treasurer wants a computer for $1,600. Getting a scanner
and a printer as well, same figure. And we jump to $3,000.
I just have that question, of what -- what's the difference?
But I guess laptop would -- would be the one of the key
words.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, maybe, too, the
software load, right? Does the kind of software ycu load on
it require a little larger capacity?
MR. JOHNSTON: It does, yes. Higher memory
than the normal computer would have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions on that
item?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nc, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Road and Bridge
Administration, $2,500. What is -- what is that item? I
don't have --

37
1
.~~ L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 ?.
23
24
,--~
25
MR. ODOM: That is also for a computer for
Barbara.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ODOM: And probably a printer. That was
in there last year; we had to take that out. And, so,
that's the oldest one we've got, to upgrade her in some
software.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Computer, printer, and
software?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ckay.
MR. ODOM: We'll be more than happy to give
the old one to Frank.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're all heart.
MR. ODOM: He can build it into his truck.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item, Road and
Bridge, is a pretty high-ticket item. And, Mr. Odom, if my
understanding of what you indicated to me is correct, that
figure, $190,600, represents existing obligations that you
have underway because of equipment that you've acquired over
the past --
MR.. ODOM: Over -- well, it is replacement of
some of this equipment, is what I've -- to be more explicit.
In the 611, what I'm trying to propose is our hand-held
equipment; that is, chainsaws, power -- the pole saws,
E~- 30-04 yak
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
weedeaters, that was 1,192. 8-yard dump truck, which is a
replacement to keep the trucks going. I still have trucks
from 1984 out there that were still running, and so we're
trying to upgrade that. I think that was $52,500. I have
distributor and chip spreader, which I'll note when I get
through with the other listed items.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ODOM: There's a broom -- a new broom.
The old one is -- stays down. They're wearing out. I think
the newest one I have is about seven years old, and the
other one I think is from the '80's. So, we want to get a
new broom, be able to maintain pulling edges, the roads, and
the sealcoat program, to keep it going.
JUDGE TINLEY: ~rlhat's the number on that one?
MR. ODOM: $27,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ODOM: 'Then we have a trailer for a skid
loader. I got a trailer last year, and I was told that my
gross vehicle weight was under 7,000 pounds. Well, that's
not true. That -- the skid loader's over 7,000 pounds, and
if you put the implements on there and then you put the
weight of the trailer on there, I need something like
10,000. So, what we've been doing is taking -- we've had to
use the bigger truck to haul the skid -- skid steer around,
and we put the broom or: that little trailer that we can put
b-3n-r9 w-:
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
behind a three-quarter ton or one-ton truck, and move the
broom around without having to use the big truck. So,
I'm -- I believe that's around $4,500 for that -- for that
10,000 g.v. trailer.
The tree chipper, which is a chip -- chipping
machine, we've had -- I have two. One's from the late
'80's. That was the old red one that we had. We still have
that one as backup, and I bought a Vermeer probably eight
years ago, and it's worn out; I mean, just totally fatigued
out. And we want to upgrade that to continue with our brush
chipping. That is around $48,000. And, believe me, I -- I
thought about keeping that, and the men say, as backup, they
want the old red one. They said that the Vermeer is just
totally worn out, just totally. And there's some new
technclogy and a new way to do it. We've already
demonstrated -- had that up here to demonstrate. It's a
drum-type; it just eats its lunch. I mean, it's productive,
really turns out the wood better than the old one that we
have. A tree shearer and forks. We found, with our skid
loader last year that we got with the grappler and all, that
we have the use of havinq an attachment to that that'll come
up to some trees and just whack them off. That goes in
tandem. with what we're doing witYl that grappler, and some
fcrks. We have been borrowing the forks from the Ag Barn,
but there's times that we just can't -- we can't get it. So
E-~~~-o ~a~:
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
i
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we decided that we would ask the Court to let us get the
attachment for the forks to add to that, `cause we can use
it in the shop there when we load and unload stuff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get a set of forks and a
tree shearer?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. And that was
approximately $6,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Most of that being the
tree shearer.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, around $4,500 to $5,000,
I believe. And, of course, you know, the -- you know, this
-- I've got a little bit in here, but with steel going up
like it is, what's been going on, there's no -- you know,
all these figures are trying to calculate what steel's going
for. I think roll steel is almost $600 a ton right now,
just roll. The products are just going up with costs --
with steel and aluminum, stuff like that. I see a figure,
but I'm just saying they're -- they're passing the cost on.
Things are not where they used to be. As a water truck, we
have gotten -- we have two tankers, those old yellow ones.
We car_not keep water in them; they leak out. Those are the
things that we use to back up the fire departments when they
ask us. It leaks out so bad that we have to fill it up with
the water hose, and that takes forever, even if the guys
call in at night. So, we're at the point that San Antonio
~,-Sri-0~ w}:
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
i
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is trading in some water trucks that are -- have very few
hours on them, and -- and they turn it over every seven
years. When I was in San Antonio, we set up that program,
every seven years or dollar cost. And they have some almost
brand-new trucks that they're trading in and we've looked
at, and that'd cost us around $27,500. They're 2,000-gallon
tankers. We would like to get that into the system, at
least have one that we know it's there if we're called out
at night or called out to help someone.
COMMISSIONER. LETZ: So, it's one truck for
$27,000?
MR. ODOM: One truck right now.
COMMISSTONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: Now, the total that I've mentioned
is $190,600. The distributor and chip spreader is something
that I've looked at -- you're sitting down. That's probably
running 231,000 to a quarter of a million dollars. But this
is also a distributor that was used by San Antonio; they had
about three or four of them they were trading in. This or.e
here has very few miles on it, I think 10,000 miles, almost
brand-new. That is going in. We want to try to pick that
up. That has the -- the ability to shoot out 20 feet. I've
checked around. I went over to Gillespie County. We've
called some other people, but I went to see theirs. They
love it. At first, they were hesitant, but they can take a
r"-30-04 wk
42
~,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
shot whether the road's 14 foot or whether it's 16, 18, or
20 foot. 'Whey can go and shoot one pass. They got a chip
spreader, and which will go out 20 feet. They had to add an
extension that they said one -- they suggested that I go to
something like out to 24. In other words, you can shoot one
pass. If you've seen us shoot in the past, we have to shoot
a 20-foot road -- even an 18-foot road, we have to shoot
9's. We have to ao up and back; everything up and come
back. This way, you can shoot everything at one shot. You
make one pass with that chip spreader.
I was talking to the operators over there,
and they have one particularly, and I asked him, I said,
"What do you think about it? Forget the salesmen. Tell me
the truth." He said, "Mr. Odom," he said, "for two days,"
he said, "when they told me this," he said, "I was adamantly
opposed to changing the old way, because it worked." He
said, "After two days of doing this, I would not go back to
anything else." I said, "What's your productivity?" He
said -- he said, "If we tried to shoot two loads with this
bar out, shooting 20 foot, and this chip spreader covering
what we shoot," he said, "well, we used to shoot two
tankers. If we try to shoot two tankers, we could do four
tanker loads a day." He said, "Your productivity is
unbelievable." So, that means less time. I can hit these
jobs a whole lot better.
F-30-G4 w~:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
~5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
We've got this laid out over the years of
trying to stay in an area. When we go through your
precincts, we try to put it all together. It makes
productivity, as far as maintenance, doing the work, getting
it ready, and stockpiling the rock instead of running all
over, spotting. So, that means our productivity would be
fabulous. I'd heed less people. It makes us hold what --
the numbers I've got. It makes it very -- very productive.
I have -- Mommy's here, so I won't put him in a bind, but I
did ask him -- we had a program several years ago that we
bought a trailer. I believe -- Commissioner Baldwin and
Commissioner Letz, I think y'all were here, or coming in
about that time, where we amortized that over a period of
years, and I paid for it. It paid for itself. It certainly
teas paid for itself. I don't have that end dump where I'm
worried about it turning over. We can go in and place it
where we want.
So, it -- what I'm saying is that,
financially, I think we could amortize this, whether the
Court would want to do this over a three- or four- or
five-year period. And my thought was -- is that it wouldn't
cost us anyth_ng now. Cf course, next -- my thought was to
have the payment due 1 October, '05. I could still pick it
up in October '04, have it in operation and phased in over
that period. The first payment would be lst of October each
F 30-04 wF:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
year. That way, whatever I spend in that it means is going
to be less for me. What is important -- very important is
to be able to -- I'm losing my train of thought -- is
rolling stock, my trucks. I have to keep those trucks in
there for less downtime. And so I can still have capital
outlays over a three-, four- or five-year period. I just
have to do less, and I've dcne that before. But each year
that I make a payment, I have a little bit more ability to
pick up another piece cf equipment. To me, it's -- it is an
cption. I ',~ncw Tommy -- we've talked about it when he was
over at my office. It's something that's there; it can be
done. It's legal. I just budget -- budget for it each year
that it comes about for that payment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Basically, designate a
portion of the taxes --
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- each year, or tax
anticipation. Okay. Leonard, what will this -- that new
chip spreader, what will that do to your sealcoat and
overall road maintenance program?
MR. ODOM: It -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, I guess, you know,
include -- yes, it's going to improve it, but can we look at
a comparison as to the 7- to 10-year schedule that we're on
now, as to what it would be under this -- if we bought that?
h-3u-o~ w~_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
MR. ODOM: Under that? The prior -- when we
were doing the 10-year -- 7-year program, it was probably
taking us -- I calculated, I think, around two, two and a
half months to shoot all that. That's the reason we would
start in May, hoping that we didn't get anything to disrupt
anything. When I got it down this year, when we went to the
10-year program, it looks like, just doing it the way we've
been doing, look at what it took us to do comparable square
yardage. It ~,aas going to run us about a month and a half.
You logically put a 30 to 40 percent time factor ir. there of
shooting these things and rolling, so that's going to put me
around 30 wcrking days, which will probably be logically 22
working days in a month; actual calendar time would be a
little bit over a month. That gives us more time to do
maintenance, spend a little bit more time after we're
through. `That's the key to the 10-year program, is being
able to -- knowing that the rcads are going to hold together
and that we can spend more time doing some of the other
things that we r:ever had the time to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you -- and you may not
know the answer. Dces City of Kerrville use chip seal on
their roads, or asphalt on all of them?
MR. ODOM: Well, the new -- I believe, under
theirs, the new roads have to have hot mix.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hot mix?

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
MR. LOOM: But the preventive maintenance is
the same as ours; it's a sealcoat on top of that hot mix
whenever they come up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- using the
Kerrville -- what I'm saying is that, if we get that
machine, could we not have basically an interlocal agreement
to do some of the City's work too?
MR. ODOM: That is -- that is -- if you're
asking me to volunteer for that, I step aside on that one.
But are you asking me, in a logical way, is that probable?
Then that might be prcbable. We have looked at that in the
past, but that's when we were on a 7-year program, and there
was absolutely no way to do that. And then, at that time,
they had 80,000 square yards, and so when that was
volunteered, sir, they doubled their -- they doubled what
they had been doing, and they -- they said if you're going
to do it, we're going to do 160,000. I said there is
absolutely no way to do that. They had 80; they wanted to
doable or triple that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's actually -- that's
more a question that the Court needs to ask the City, as
opposed to you, but it seems like it would free up --
MR. ODOM: Looking at it logically, it's a 30
to 40 percent savings in time. However, sir, I just had
three rises on your bridge down there in two weeks, and, you
F -37-.~ .a}=
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
...-,
25
47
know, I'd hate to -- I had 11 and a half inches of water in
45 minutes out in the Commissioner's area. It all came down
to your bridge dcwn there two weeks ago. So, I mean, I'm --
budget-wise, I'm hurting. But you never know. As long as
things are laid out and as long as they have things prepared
and they Piave stockpiles that are feasible, and maybe
helping with trucking or something, then that might be
something feasible. If they're willing to work with us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's another
element, Commissioner, as you and I know about. We haven't
eyplained it too broadly, and that is in the -- in the new
scenario for airport ownership management and so forth,
there are -- I think we've identified, there is probably
$70,000 to $75,000 worth of work that we could bid on.
MR. ODOM: I don't know what that work would
be. If it's hot miY, we don't --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. No, it would
have to do with road maintenance, airport --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Runways to roads out
there, runway maintenance. It's things that would basically
fit right into ~.ahat you do. It's whether or not --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can identify those
for ycu, but --
MR. ODOM: Well, I think if you --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- that's a
h-30-09 wF_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,,, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
possibility.
MR. ODOM: It is a possibility. I -- you
know, we need to see how large it gets and where that fits
in the scheme of things, but anything's logical as long as
it's -- we keep in mind that Priority 1 by this Court is for
us to maintain our sealcoat roads. Priority 2 is -- you
know, there's three priorities. And if you direct us to do
it that way, sir, we'll march ahead and we'll do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One more question,
Leonard, that I have. It's just -- back to Hermann Sons,
that you brought up how many times the water's been over
that again. It appears that that -- I guess next budget
year, God willing, the new bridge will be completed, which
will free up two and a half railroad cars. Are you aware,
in the -- the bid amount from TexDOT, is there anything in
there to get rid of those, or to do something with those
cars? I mean, I've been pretty adamant; I think we need to
take them out. I don't want them washing into the new
bridge, washing out the new bridge. So -- and so, anyway, I
think somewhere in your budget, we need to figure out what
we're -- how to move those things, certainly out of where
they are, and getting them out of the river. Hopefully it's
there in TexDOT's numbers. And I think there's a -- a
possibility at Flat Rock to use them. I mean, there's a
need for a bridge up there that you and I have talked about
F-~c• c,~ ,s~:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
before. But I think -- make sure this in your budget;
either in TexDOT's number or your number, that there is
enough to move those or to get the old temporary bridge out
of the river and those railroad cars out of that area.
MR. ODOM: I have -- my last discussion with
Mike Coward was in relation to that. We had been discussing
prior to that to make sure that at least two of those cars
were in there, and his last comment was that he put two cars
in there. But his question was, he did not know how
District 15 would go, but the way he has presented that to
Austin is that for them to move all three cars back to Spur
100. And I told him that whether -- that would be a
decision on y'ap's part; that I discussed that with you and
Commissioner Williams, and in relation to that -- and which
one or where is irrelevant to me -- that we might drop two
cf them down there. I have not put anything in the budget,
but I -- Commissioners brought this up. As far as special
projects, it's something we could talk about at another
time. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you answered the
question. So, demolition of the temporary bridge is in
TexDOT's --
MR. ODOM: In their projection for the high
water bridge. It's supposed tc be in there for the contract
to remove three of them.

1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
50
COMMISSICNER WILLIAMS: Which would include
moving them out of that area.
MR. ODOM: Triat's right, sir. And we would
be prepared to drop one or two, depending on our discussion,
at the park, and the other one -- one or two in our yard,
whichever way y'all decide to go.
CUMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ODOM: They're in agreement with us; they
don't want anything upstream from that structure, and we
don't either.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hope not.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I was
thinking about your comments about using technology to be
more productive, to get more work out of fewer people. I've
looked at Road and Bridge's use of machinery to displace
people. Just -- and I can see that they're productive.
They utilize machinery. I just looked at the data on
comparing Road and Bridge to Cherokee and Hood County, and
overall, they're more efficient than Kerr County, looking at
the overal~ cost of government, but we staff Road and Bridge
about 35 percent less than they staff it. And I'm just
pretty sure that part of that is investing in machinery and
technology. That -- so one person can do what two might
have to do.
25 I JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's been Mr. Odom's

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51
philosophy now for many, many years, as he's conveyed it to
me. How many -- how many -- what was the personnel count at
Road and Bridge when you came on board, and when was that?
MR. ODOM: I came aboard in April of '91, and
I believe that we were around 35 to -- I think around 35, 36
people.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And what is your
staffing level today?
MR. ODOM: Today, it is slotted for 27, and
in the new budget I'm giving up one position.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ODOM: So, that's 26 of us. That
includes a71 the office staff, Frank, me, Truby, and
Barbara. And if you look at that also for a minute -- I'll
brag on not me, but my -- my department and the supervisors.
97 percent of our roads are sealcoated. That's higher than
anybody else that we took the survey with, and they had a
whole lot more money than what we had.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's close to
500 miles of road.
MR. ODOM: That's right, sir. Over
1,100 square miles.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When you have 12, 15
fewer employees than the peer county does doing this kind of
work, not only do you avoid those costs of those salaries

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,--~
25
52
and insurance and benefits and taxes, but machinery doesn't
-- doesn't call in sick, doesn't use worker's comp, doesn't
get hurt on the job. So, it's -- there's a lot of good
reasons to get machinery to do people's work.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Machinery doesn't sit
idle, either.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: I say here -- I'm sorry, I depend
on Truby to -- to put this down. I think that I have
something in here also that's not shown, but it's part of
this 190,600. I think if we add this up, you'll see it
doesn't come out, but I had a roller to be added to this.
We had it last year. We added a roller, and the men
convinced me to go to a pneumatic roller. And I had a
pneumatic roller this year because of the sealcoat program.
Then the brakes went out on our roller and I lost it up in
the hills there in Upper Turtle Creek. And so, this year,
I'm trying to re -- you know, I made the decision; it's my
responsibility. I did what I probably should haven't done,
but I would have already had it, but I still would have
needed a pneumatic this year anyway. So, we -- that is
scmething I see that's not on here, and I believe that
doesn't change that number at all right there, 190,600.
When I was reading this --
COMMISSIONER LE`l'Z: With the roller on it.

1
._. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
MR. ODOM: I think it runs around $45,000,
$48,000. Now, some of this will be with trades. And she
did put -- well, I see some of this with trades and all, so
I have some of this old equipment sitting against the back
fence up there, and I'm trying to ascertain what that value
would be and put these in, into this. Sometimes it's
difficult with some of this, because I'd buy it at municipal
cost versus at -- but we're going to try to get some trades,
if we get those trades in there. Then I had a wish list of
some bat wings, but if I don't get that, it'll be next
budget year, and I'll come back with that for shredding and
more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you found -- do you
come out better off trying to trade this old equipment, or
declaring it surplus and auctioning"?
MR. ODOM: I've found that it's better -- we
get more money if I get the trade. That's not always true,
but it has been in my experience so far. They can go out
and find something. Where I may get a couple hundred
dollars or $600, I may get $1,000, or I may get $10,000,
$12,000 for something. But, then again, you know, you're
limited. When I -- when I go out to a big entity like Cat
or John Deere, they have a larger constituency than what we
have right here. Doesn't bother me one way or another, but
the bottom line is, can we offset our cost? And I think

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
that might be something like $0,000, $21,000 offset the
cost on some of these trades.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: You mentioned on the -- this
distributor and chip spreader, that would not be a new unit,
but rather one that's been in service on a limited basis.
MR. ODOM: One would be a used one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ODOM: One would be new.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ODOM: Be four-wheel drive. That was the
other thing that Gillespie County suggested that I get.
They said they got misled a little bit, misrepresented what
the abilities were with two-wheel drive, so we want to go
with four-wYieel drive with the hills that we have around
here, take care of that to make -- pull everything. So, one
is new, and the other one's a used one that we know that
it's been certified that it is going for a trade-in with the
dealer. And I'll have to go out to bid for that one -- with
that one, but that's the distributor, but we have the data
on that one. The vendor will have data on that, and we
would go that way. But one's used and one's brand-new.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have all these
itemized? If you don't, can you get a list, whatever you're
reading? Can you list each of the items?
c'-30-04 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
l~
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55
MR. ODOM: You mean like this? Okay. I
believe that she's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's in here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in here?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I finally found it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: 'Cause I remember last time -- and
even in the back is also contract fees, what we sent you, so
it tells you basically where we were trying to go with that
money. And then there's one thing that we did not do, and I
know it's beyond this, but just to say that -- also put road
district funds in here. That is something that we looked
at. We have $116,000. We haven't used that in some time.
Ball Drive is one o` them to use the funds, and the other
one's Ingram Hi11s. So, it's something to consider. This
is outside what I presented in the budget, but something I
thought I would put to you, because you can see it was
pretty tight on special projects.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard, I saw that
Ingram Hills. It looked like just -- I just got this last
night.
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I haven't been able
to study the thing, but I glanced at it and I saw -- looks
like there's some excess money laying there from Ingram
~~-3o-u~ W~_
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Hi11s, over and above -- is that nct what I -- that's what I
saw, wasn't it?
MR. ODOM: I believe so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How do you -- what is
-- how do you -- what do you do with that? I mean, isn't --
isn't that bonded money, comes from bonds that was
specifically for that road district?
MR. ODOM: Well, legally, I don't know what
the word would be, but there -- remember, I think you were
on the Court then, or coming into the Court when that was
set up, but that was --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We were here.
MR. CDOM: -- cne of those that they borrowed
the money from Road and Bridge. That was actual money that
came out of Road and Bridge, and it wasn't enough money, and
not all the roads were rebuilt. We have rebuilt everything
since we've been here, but we took those funds that were
earmarked for road districts, and that's what we used over
the years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ingram Hills? Are we
talking Ingram Hills?
MR. ODOM: Ingram Hills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I apologize to you.
I'm talking Ingram Lake Estates.
MR. ODOM: Ingram Lake Estates was the -- a
E-30-0~ w~:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
bond issue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
MR. ODOM: And those revenues go to pay that
bond.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. ODOM: We have never --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can't use that in any
way?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
something -- that's back up on top.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN
Ingram Hills is
Yeah, I understand. I
remember.
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry to get out of line and
take over people's -- I thought I'd throw that at you. It's
something to think about that's outside the -- the box. But
have I answered your questions on -- or confused you on --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
MR. ODOM: -- capital outlays? I don't mean
to.
	COMMISSIONER LETZ:	I have -	- not on capital
outlays, but	I have a question on	contract	fees.
	MR. ODOM: All righ	t, sir.	
	COMMISSIONER. LETZ:	Maybe we	can clear it up
here. Okay.	You have Fall Creek,	1.1 mile	realignment, in
place.			
h-3'.,-.~4 ,~~k
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
MR. ODOM: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the project you
were talking about earlier?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, two things I
was talking about. He's got this 1.1 miles, which takes us
from the almost to the end -- the end all the way down to
ttie bottom of the last big hill, and that's kind of a
rework --
MR. ODOM: That's reworking.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Requires some --
perhaps some additional right-of-way and so forth, and
that's what I was talking about. But there's another thing
that needs to be considered, and I'm not sure it can be
considered this year, but I just wanted to get it out there
for whatever it's worth, and that is that this crossing, the
low-water crossing at Turtle Creek onto Fall Creek Road, the
Turtle Creek Crossing gets inundated pretty bad, and that
probably needs to be looked at at this juncture. Probably
the engineering, as to what it would take to rework that
low-water crossing with box culverts so we could move the
water out of there and improve that low water crossing. I
don't think that's going to be in my budget for this year.
I've only spoken to Leonard briefly about it, but I just
wanted to reference it. But the 1.1 mile is in his budget,
and that's the tail end of the road, goes all the way up to
6-3~-~:4 ~,°k
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
the top.
MR. ODOM: Yeah. There's a section that
we've done it in -- in phases.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
MR. ODOM: And so this is the last phase in
there. It's real narrow and all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Last phase.
MR. ODOM: Yeah. I don't think we're going
to reinvent the wheel there, but that's -- some things got
torn up pretty bad in the -- in this flood, or the last
couple of months .
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it's -- the most
narrow part needs to be reworked.
MR. ODOM: And -- but that's something we can
certainly look at.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We will -- we'll talk
more about that.
MR. ODOM: I'm just reminding the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not trying to
work that into this year's consideration.
MR. ODOM: Because I still have an agreement
with the Highway Department in reference to Hermann Sons.
And I think that you will see in the special projects, Town
Creek in Commissioner Baldwin's' area, to look at some
engineering and all, and this is over a three-year period,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
and that three years starts from the time that they let that
contract. So, I'm looking at some engineering that I've
done several years ago. But this is the -- formalized what
I need, and if I need to get any land, and to look at that;
then the next two budget years after that, to take care of
that, to fulfil a $110,000 obligation amount.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what -- for those
that don't recall, er those in the audience, the County's
obligated to pay 10 percent of the cost of Hermann Sons
bridge. But we can, instead of spending -- giving TexDOT
cash for it, we can do services that they approve. That
would come under, you know, kind of a State/County project,
and that's the option we chose to do.
MR. ODOM: And we can do that over a
three-year -- we don't have to do it any one year, but we
can take a look at maybe doing the engineering, knowing what
it's going to cost us. Maybe the next year, buying
material, and then the next year, fulfill -- take any land
that we need to do next year. We can probably get that
taken care of in there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, do we
anticipate Hermann Sons will be let this fall? Is that what
we're talking about?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The last I heard, the
contract will be -- the bids are due back October 1, and it
~~-3_-04 ~~,~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1J
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
will be let within 60 days of that date. And, for
construction, you know, likely early next year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before they would
begin?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's about a six- to
nine-month construction window.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, this would take
us probably --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: About a year from now --
about a year from now, we should have a bridge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: On the in-kind contribution,
haven't we already designated that for the Town Creek road?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, we have. There was a
court order on that, up to $110,000 or whatever our
10 percent of that -- that bridge would be. But I --
they -- I think we're no more than 110; I think that was the
obligation that we went to. And we think that's a 900 to a
million dollar project right there, the bridge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: More like $1.3 million.
MR. ODOM: It could be now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last number I saw.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else for Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: `='hank you for being here
v- 3 n- n 9 w k
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
today. We appreciate this information. The next item on
the capital outlay summary is Environmental Health. We've
got $1,500, and there was r.o designation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anybody else see it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: N1r. Arreola, what was the
capital outlay item for $1,500? What --
MR.. ARREOLA: It's prcbably not specified on
that. It's for a computer for the Solid Waste Department.
JUDGE TINLEY: Computer, Solid Waste. Okay,
thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like your price best on
a computer, Miguel. It's cheaper than all the rest of them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Animal Control's
cheaper yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. The best is yet to
come.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Then the other item is Animal
Control, for a computer for $1,200. I would point out also
that there's one item that's not on the summary list, but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's two. I got
one to put on.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It was kind of hidden
amongst the Extension --
5-3v-09 w}:
63
1
2
3
4
5
0
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
..-,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COMMISSIONER NICHCLSON: Three.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- items. The list is
growing. The Extension Service was wanting a total of
$31,000, $~~,000 for computer hardware and $30,000 for a
vehicle and things that relate to that -- fuel, insurance,
and maintenance for that budget year -- which aggregate a
total of $30,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They do not have a
vehicle currently, correct?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: None that I'm aware of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's currently --
we're paying mileage, which is the same thing, just about.
Other ones?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to add one
to the list, Judge, if you're finished.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Get back to the Flat
Rock Lake and the park. I think -- I think what we need to
do there probably falls into three categories or three
elements. One would be a capital expenditure for a restroom
facility. I think -- Tommy, did you tell me we still have
about $15,000 of L.C.R.A. money, something like that? Or
15,000 --
25 ~ MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
6-30-04 wk
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have some FEMA
money that came to us as a result of the bridge between --
over Third Creek being washed away. I don't know. Can we
use those -- those FEMA dollars? Can we incorporate those
into the L.C.R.A. dollars and use them for a restroom
facility, or do you think they have to be separated?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- I don't -- I don't
recall any stipulation in the FEMA funds. It's just -- as
far as the insurance goes, I mean, the insurance would not
replace the bridge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it will not. And
they -- so they gave us what they thought the value was.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because we suffered a
loss in the flood. Okay. So, bottom line is, I think a
restroom facility -- and I don't have the numbers yet, but
I'll have them as we work a little more into this process.
Probably that restroom facility, to do it right, is going to
be somewhere in the vicinity around $50,000 to do it
correctly. Maybe we can do it for less than that, but we
cannot do it for the amount that we currently have, the
combination of the two, the 15 and the 7. It's going to be
greater than that, so somewhere between what we have and 50
is going to be a -- a suitable, decent restroom facility
conjunctive to that park. Secondly, the safety and -- items
F,-30-04 w}.
1
~,. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
on the lake itself would be not capital, but they would be
under the Parks Maintenance budget, and I have people coming
up here after the holiday to take a look at the lake in
person, to tell us what the -- what the estimate of costs
would be to clean -- clear out the debris and the stumps
that pose a safety issue to the lake. So, I'll have a
better understanding later. Thirdly would be the
footbridge -- or a bridge, not necessarily a footbridge. A
bridge that would take both vehicular and pedestrian traffic
from one section of the park to the second section. And I
think we can develop costs, but that won't be in this budget
year. But once we get those flat cars, I think we can
develcp some costs in terms of how we put those two together
to cross Town Creek, but that will probably be in next
year's budget.
JliDGE TINLEY: You had an additional item,
Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think that during
the budget process, KARFA will come to us and ask us to
support their application for a grant for additional
repeaters to cure some radio problems where there are dead
spots, primarily in the far western part of the county, but
also some in the eastern part of ~Yie county. I think that
repeaters will probably cost on the order of $100,000 to
$110,000, and they would ask us to underwrite the required
b-30-04 w};
1
2
3
C
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
2C
21
22
23
24
25
66
10 percent local government participation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would be about $10,000?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 10, 11, maybe 12.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that is -- that's
county-wide. That's not any one volunteer fire department
or anything. That'd be county-wide.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: KARFA would, yeah.
Of the several departments, only two or three of them are
affected by it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON
Correct.
The dead spots.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that mean that
we still haven't cured all -- ~~ae haven't cured all the dead
spots with the new communications system we put in from the
Sheriff's Department? Aren't they -- do they not use that,
too, those same wavelengths?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I'm
going to let the Sheriff speak to that. I hear anecdotal
examples of the Sheriff's deputies not being able to -- to
communicate back there. I don't know if that's true or not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But, certainly, in
EMS it's true, and it can be a dangerous situation where
they're out there and can't raise anybody on the radio.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are there any other capital
F,-30-09 w:~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
outlay items that ar.y member of the Court is aware of that
we haven't covered?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, the one that I
haven't. heard today, but I've heard about it anyway, is
voting machines. I thought that that was going to be an
item that we were going to have to deal with this year. Is
that not true?
MS. ALFORD: They have to be in place by
2006, so we have to get some kind of --
JUDGE TINLEY: January 1, 2006?
MS. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'd say that's this year,
wouldn't you?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, and I don't
recall -- I mean, memory tells m.e something like $50,000 or
something like that?
MS. ALFORD: I believe something like that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Isn't there a large
part of that obligation covered by federal dollars?
MS. ALFORD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so, but I think
we still need to budget the expenditure side of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. And the early
obligation is that you have to have at least one voting
apparatus for handicapped or disadvantaged or challenged
6-30-04 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
68
people; is that correct?
MS. ALFORD: Yes, in each precinct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In each voting box --
MS. ALFORD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- or precinct. If
you have a large piece of that --
MS. ALFURD: It has to be a D.R.E., a direct
recording --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: On this --
JUDGE TINLEY: At each --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- budget item,
there's a -- a thought here, 20 machines at $5,400 each,
$108,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's got to be it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's under County
Clerk's, right. Election Expense or whatever.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's each. The federal law
requires there to be one in each polling place.
MS. ALFURD: Yes. We have 20 polling places,
so we have to have 20; 21 including, you know, early voting.
But we have to have 20 for each on election day.
JUDGE TINLEY: Can that be done by
designating one polling place in each precinct as the voting
place for all persons who suffer from that type of
disability?
6- 3 U- U 9 w }.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
69
MS. ALFORD: That I do not know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Be interesting to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Surely.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- to get -- get an answer to
that question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a great
question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, because that's --
I mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: From 4 to 20.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or 20 to 4.
COMMISSIONER. BALDWIN: 20 to 4.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because that would
certainly -- it's hard to justify for some of our smaller
voting precincts, to --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- spend $10,000 for
machines that's r_ever going to be used.
JUDGE TINLEY: Fifteen votes cast, for
example.
COMMISSIONER. BALDWIN: So we're asking
people -- blind people to drive further? (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You said it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just wondering.
h- 3 U- U 4 w k
1
~., 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.-,
25
70
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hello.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you think they got it down
when they recited when they were going to their polling
place, as long as that hasn't changed?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Tommy, you had an item to
comment on that, maybe?
MR. TOMLINSON: I invited a company --
software company called Indigent Health Care Solutions to
come do an installation here in the courthouse on July 16th.
It's a Friday. And they -- they have a software program
that handles Indigent Health Care payments, as well as
payments for health care for inmates. That can include jail
and all the detention facility. But, from preliminary
numbers I've seed in Texas counties, there's -- they --
there's been as high as 70 percent savings in health care
dollars spent on -- on jail inmates.
JUDGE TINLEY: What about Indigent Health
Care? Same factor?
MR. TOMLINSON: We're already using that -- a
similar -- similar subcontractor for that right now, so I
don't see any significant savings there. But I do for jail
inmate costs, and costs out at tYie juvenile facility. So,
there could -- there potentially could -- I mean, if we see
that this -- this benefit to us, that then it will be some
F- 3 0- 0 4 w }_
71
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cost to purchasing that software. At this point, I don't
have any idea what it is, but it is something that -- that
we're going to look at in the next three weeks.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else that needs to be
on the capital outlay that --
MS. UECKER: Judge Tinley?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, ma'am?
MS. UECKER: I just wanted to mention that it
looks like there's a possibility of -- not a likelihood, but
a possibility of two capital murders, and then the Rufus
Smith case, it's been -- the V.A. shooting from years ago,
has now been declared competent, and that looks like that
trial may be coming up this year. I don't think that
that'll be a lengthy one. I'm. kind of even expecting maybe
a plea out of that one. But the other one is -- Feaselman
is the shaken baby case that is set for August, so -- of
next year, I think.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I think we had -- I
think we actually had two special trials --
MS. UECKER: Seard, we don't know, yeah.
JT7DGE TINLEY: One was --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seard.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the Seard case, and that
was 150. And then the other one is in the 198th, and I
think we actually had 75 for that one, I believe.
h-~„-„~ ~,~~:
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
?_1
22
23
24
25
MS. UECKER: That's Feaselman.
JUDGE TINLEY: That would be the other
capital, and it was in the 198th.
MS. UECKER: 198th, yeah. Smith, I don't
anticipate a real big expense on that one. He's the one
that's been --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He served 17, 20 years
or something.
MS. UECKER: Like, 17 or 2C years, and now
he's beer_ declared competent.
JUDGE TINLEY: He's been declared competent
by some medical authority, but not by the courts.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But he's in his '80's,
I think, or something like that. That's --
MS. UECKER: No, I think they did -- the
Court did find him --
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh.
MS. UECKER: -- competent based on that
medical testimony in the last competency hearing, 'cause we
have to have one every year.
JUDGE TINLEY: I knew that. Anything else to
go on the capital outlay items, gentlemen? Well, we've -- I
think we know what we're looking at on a broad -- broad
brush stroke here. It's going to be a challenge, to say the
least, but we'll get there. I look forward to talking with
n'-30-09 N. .:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
i6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
73
each of the elected officials and department heads
one-on-one about your regular budget items, and maybe giving
a little bit more information about your Capital Outlay
items as we develop tris. We'll get there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, have you
aggregated this capital outlay request versus what the total
aggregated capital outlay was this year?
JUDGE TINLEY: No. Have not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, do you have any
idea?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't recall. I think --
excuse me -- I think the total was about $270,000 last year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: About 270?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is considerably
up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
MS. NEMEC: Judge? Judge, may I share those
numbers with you on the retirement cost-of-living increases
that Commissioner Bill Williams was talking to y'all about,
so that y'all may have it for your consideration?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
MS. NEMEC: I know there is a retiree present
today that might also have some information that she may
want to share with you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
b-3G-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
25
MS. NEMEC: But if I may just pass these out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. Sure, we appreciate
having the benefit of that information.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you give one to
my friend from the Kerrville Daily Times?
MS. NEMEC: I have not, but I will.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you? Yeah. I
take care of you.
MS. NEMEC: I was going to take care of her
later.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I knew you would, but
I get the credit for it now.
MS. NEMEC: If I could just kind of explain,
at the present time, our contribution rate is 7.97, plus --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which sheet are we
on?
MS. NEMEC: Actually, it's not there. I'm
letting you knew what we're cor_tributing to the retirement
system. at the present time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 7.97?
MS. NEMEC: It's 7.97, with an additional
.26 percent on the supplemental death benefit that the Court
approved last year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: .26?
MS. NEMEC: .26, which the total would come
h-_ .-~.~~ ~~~_
1
..-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
75
out to 8.23 that we are contributing at the present time.
The plan looks really good for this next year, which would
be a great time to include some cost-of-living increase for
the retirees, because they're lowering our -- our total rate
to 7.61, versus the 7.97. And then the supplemental death
benefit is .28, versus the .26 that it is for this year, so
that gives us an additional .34 percent to -- that we're
going to be under budget, as compared to this budget. And
if you'll look under -- down in this column right here, this
is the percentages that it tells you that we'li need to
adopt if we wish to give those type of cost-of-living
increases for the retirees. And, of course, this is just
for one year, starting January 2005 through December 2005,
and then each year, if you want to continue to give them
another cost-of-living, then. that would have to be taken up
at that time.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, this is -- this additional
cost is determined on an annual basis, and in order to
actively keep up with C.P.I. increases, it would be
necessary that that be adopted essentially every year?
MS. NEMEC: Right, if you want to increase it
every year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If I understand what
you're saying correctly, based on the current rates --
combination rate of the basic rate plus the death benefit of
h-3o-o~ W._
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
8.23, that's going to go down next year to 7.89. That would
leave available, under current funding levels, .34?
MS. NEMEC: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if I'm looking at
your document here, that would buy 60 percent of a C.P.I.
without an increase in funding for the next budget year. Am
I understanding that correctly?
MS. NEMEC: That is correct. If you want to
go with the C.P.I. percentage rate that it's showing you,
unless you want to go to the flat rate benefit increase on
the next column. Then you could do a 4 percent -- for
instance, a 4 percent increase, which we would have to fund
an additional 14 percent. It's right -- right across that
one column. So, it just depends which benefit you want to
go with, the C.P.I. base benefit or the flat rate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: And then, also, I handed to you
something that lists the -- I prepared for your
consideration to look at also.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I knew you had a
list. Just a matter of asking. Thank you.
MS. NEMEC: You're welcome. Also, Judge,
Commissioners, last year the employees had asked that we
look into direct deposit -- payroll direct deposit, and I
believe I looked into it and it was going to cost around
F-36-04 wk
~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1G
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$2,500 las± year. And I think that those figures are
probably still about the same, maybe a few hundred higher.
I have been getting a lot of calls, and I have told the
employees that I would present it again. However, if -- if
you're not sold on it by me presenting it, they would like
an opportunity to be here to speak to y'all. So, if y'all
would just let me know what your thinking is on that, if we
need to hear from other employees what the benefits are from
it or whatever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the reason for the
cost?
MS. NEMEC: Our bank and the -- our bank is
going to charge "X" amount of dollars, and then the computer
software group will also charge, I think, $1,200 to give us
that package to work with.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When do we bid banks
again? We haven't done it in a couple years. That doesn't
seem --
MR. TOMLINSON: We're on a four-year
contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four-year contract?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't recall exactly when
it is.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who's our bank?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Security State.
6- 3 _ - ~ 4 ~~ k
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Security.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're about halfway
through.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we have -- this
could be the last year of that. Maybe one or --
MR. TOMLINSON: This could be the last year.
CUMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. It's
something that -- I have a hard time understanding why the
bank's charging us money for something that saves them
money, but banks like to do that. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: If I recall, Ms. Nemec, when
we talked about the direct deposit program, there was, like,
a $1,000 or a little bit higher one-time cost, and then the
$2,500 for the annual cost or something on the direct
deposit program. You have some numbers, I think? Or can
put together some numbers of some reasor_able cost estimates
as to what that would save in terms of staffing time,
supplies, all of that, that comes out of your office on a
nondirect-deposit basis?
MS. NEMEC: I can only tell you how many
checks we print, what the cost of those checks is, what the
cost of the envelopes are. The thing is, that I don't know
what the cost saving is really going to be on that part of
it, because you still have to print a check set backup; you
still have to put it in an envelope, and you still have to
F-30-04 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
79
give it to the employee. So, ~ know when we go to seminars,
they don't -- one of their selling points on direct deposit
is -- is not really the cost savings. It's more having to
do with fraud; you know, people losing their checks and
doing stop-payments or -- or other people getting access to
someone else's checks. Of course, we really don't Have that
problem. It's not to say that we never will, but that --
that is a sellir:g point that the bank -- the banks are
giving, that there's less fraud to be able to be used in
that situation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Barbara, going back
to this -- to the retiree cost of living, two questions.
First of all, how many retirees do we currently have on
T.C.D.R.S. system now?
MS. NEMEC: I don't know that answer,
for me?
MS. NEMEC: Yeah, I can call you back within
just --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, secondly, this
paper, was that something that you prepared or something
someone else prepared?
MS. NEMEC: This paper here? This is what
Ms. Jane Buck prepared.
6-3G-~'~~ w;~
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MS. BUCK: Commissioner, you should be able
to tell that's not professional. That --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought it was very
well done.
MS. BUCK: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Gave us the benefit of a good
deal of information. I appreciate that. Just as an
observation, i don't know how they compute C.P.I., but
6 percent increase for .21 percent, I can't imagine that
that equates to only 40 percent of C.P.I.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I saw that,
and I don't understand those.
COMMISSIONER Tn7TLLIAMS: Yeah, I don't
understand that either, because the -- Barbara pointed out
4 percent, and it gives you a point -- .14 additional.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And 60 percent comes
at .35, so I don't know. Maybe -- maybe you could -- maybe
you could get a little additional information on how they
compute this.
MS. NEMEC: I will.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because, obviously,
what they're saying is we could -- we could go to a
6 percent flat rate increase, and still be well within the
6-3G-04 ~._
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
current funding level.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MS. NEMEC: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: For this -- this coming year.
MS. NEMEC: We're in -- I think we're in a
position this year to where we could do that, and not
really --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you could shed a
little more light on that, that would be interesting.
MS. NEMEC: Okay, I will get more information
together on that, and as well as the direct deposit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Appreciate it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Nemec. We
appreciate it. Anything else, gentlemen? I don't hear any
grumbling tummies, except maybe Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My tummy is grumbling
-- growling, but I have a question first. When shall we
meet again? That's Old Testament talk.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the schedule?
We got a schedule?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we have a schedule?
You're going to -- you're going to meet with the -- all the
Indians one-on-one, and then. we'll come back again, will we
not, with you? And you can -- then you can tell us what you
did and what you didn't do. That's exciting. When would
6-3~-~4 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
that be?
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably sometime after the
end of July, because we'll have the other -- the numbers
from the other side of the equation coming in. Hopefully
end of July. I mean, that's my thinking on it. We won't
have revenue -- any decent revenue estimates until the very
tail end of July, will we?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should be like --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we have -- I don't know
how -- I don't know how good the numbers are we got from the
Appraisal District. They're kind of preliminary, so -- what
we got from them said we qot an 8 percent. That was -- that
equated on a -- you know, the new properties. So, I don't
know; probably needs to be refined.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Needs to be refined down
based on protests, probably.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's going to be a
maximum of 8 percent. Likely, probably not. I don't know
what the historical --
MR. TOMLINSON: I think that includes new
property, too.
MS. RECTOR: The preliminary figures are
pretty close.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It won't vary a whole
6-3U-09 w}:
83
1 I lot .
.- 2
3
4
5
6
-,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~-.
25
JUDGE TINLEY: But it's going to be right at
the tail end of July before we get sure enough --
MS. RECTOR: Well, the target date is the
25th, is what -- how the law is written, but that's just a
date. There's ncthing set in concrete about that.
JUDGE TINLEY: GJell, I guess -- I guess, in
answer to your question, Commissioner, sometime shortly
after a month from now will --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's
wonderful.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- will be the date that we
need to start taking a closer look.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When is the last day
we can approve the final budget?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: September 30.
JUDGE TINLEY: September 30th.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, I -- after this
round of refining the requests with you, there's going to be
an opportunity in August for the department heads and
elected officials to explain their needs to the entire
Court?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. Yeah, to come back -- to
come back, much like we did last year. Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, actually, we have
c- 30-0~ oak.
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
a little more time this year, 'cause we started earlier, and
we have time to do that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We didn't have
enough time last year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you never have enough
time, but we have more than we did last year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we also -- I mean, I
would strongly hope, at least on the Road and Bridge
administration -- I mean, that's one that's of interest to
me -- we plan to have some sort of workshop between --
during July to see if there's some reorganization at that
level of that department that we can look at. And I think
if -- if you -- you mentioned, you know, the police
department and the Sheriff's Department, which I don't think
that's realistic to look at that this year, but certainly, I
think it is realistic to put -- if you so choose, or one of
us choose to put that on the agenda as a formal request to
the City, to name people to start looking at that for the
following year's budget. And, I -Wean, 'cause these
things -- you know, the airport's taken a full year to come
to any kind of an agreement. So, I think we're going to
look, and that would, I think, be a great thing to look at.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're looking at
years with that issue, 'cause you're looking at a
E-30-~4 w}_
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
constitutional issue, and all kinds of -- all kinds of
stuff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I think that,
you know, anything that -- I mean, what I'm saying is that
just because we're not going to have a budget from the Judge
until early August, I think that we still should look at
some of these projects and try to refine some things that we
have a particular interest in and get them into workshop or
agenda mode so that we don't hit the Judge after he does a
budget and say, "Here, we want to make these changes." Why
not get those things to him before he comes up with the
final budget?
JUDGE TINLFY: That's a good point. If
you've got some specific areas, Road and Bridge
administrative reworking, or -- or law enforcement, or
County-sponsored activities or things like that, if -- if
you want to put several of those items on a separate
workshop agenda between now and then, sure, that -- that's
just going to be that much more information that I'll have
to pour into the mix.
COMMISSIONER WILI,IAMS: I want to tag onto
what Commissioner Letz is talking about in terms of Road and
Bridge and organization, structure, people, manpower and so
forth, and -- and capabilities to do things, and crank into
that workshop process or thinking process whether we're
6-3U-U4 wk
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
capable of and wish to pursue bidding for other work;
i.e. --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Airport.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hate to get ourselves
in that box, that "Oh, yeah, we'd love to do this," and find
out either we can't or we don't want to. I don't think
that's the case, but I think it's something we can examine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have -- and just for
the rest of the Court's benefit, Commissioner Williams and I
negotiated pretty hard to separate the -- the operations of
the airport into categories that could be bid by us or third
parties, so it's not locked into whoever -- you know,
whoever your City Manager -- or I mean Airport Manager is.
All the work comes into that entity; it can be divided,
separated out on a subcontracted basis.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that will be --
that will be a decision that will fall to the new board to
help in the development of their budget, as to examining the
costs one way to examine or reduce costs for them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, while we're on the
airport, I think everyone received copies of the agreements,
et cetera, from the City as a result of the airport
committee. That will be on our next agenda to look at and
-- and address.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, y'all start making your
6-30-09 wk
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
87
lists on what needs to be on an interim workshop, and I'll
start with my one-on-ones, and we'll roll this thing
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my -- a final
comment that I'd have is that anything that we can do to
improve productivity, basically reducing staff, increasing
salaries, I'm in favor of trying that. I mean, I think
that's the approach -- I'm not in favor of going into any
department and saying, "We're laying off three people in
your department." I think it needs to be a collaborative
effort. But I think that if a -- the carrot that we have
that works is that, if you can reduce staff, we can -- we
can reorganize workload, we can increase the salary level of
the remaining employees and let attrition take -- do that
reduction. I think that's a win-win situation for the
taxpayers and for the employees.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly how I was able
to accomplish it last year, by -- by dealing with them
one-on-one, and they sought the ability to do it, and the
ability to compensate the remaining people better. And I
think, for the most part, it's been pretty -- pretty
effective.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if we -- and, in
that connection, if it requires tools, then we're willing to
make the capital investment to give them tools to help them
E-30-04 wk
88
1 I do that.
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: Mr. Holekamp, you --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah, I just have a -- it's
probably a question. And when we're talking about -- or
when y'all are talking about efficiencies in personnel, is
the Court -- would they be willing to look at contractual --
like, in our department, a lot of our work could be done
contractually.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Outsourcing.
MR. HOLEKAMP: You don't -- well, of course,
you don't have the hospital -- you don't have the insurance.
Probably don't have even Social Security. We'd issue a 1099
at the end of the year or_ whatever, no retirement. And is
that something that departments like mine should be looking
at? Or are we still pretty much an employee-based type
governmental entity?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My -- if we can contract
it out more efficiently, contract it out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with you. If
you can outsource it, go for it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In that regard, one
thing that would be -- probably produce very good benefits
would be for department heads and elected officials to check
with their counterparts in these other counties who appear
to have a higher rate of productivity, and find out how they
E-~0-04 W~;
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
do that. We might not learn anything, but we might learn
that, by use of technology or contracting out or any more of
a dozen other ways, they've -- they've done something right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And outsourcing is
exactly how Road and Bridge has become more efficient. They
contract projects out, as opposed tc keeping, you know,
personnel on-hand all the time.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Right, okay. I just wanted to
-- a general idea from the Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you talking about
cleaning -- maybe a cleaning company take over the cleaning
-- evening cleaning? And --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Or portions of it. Portions
of it. I -- you really can't -- you can't do everything,
because you still have to have the 8-to-5 type people. You
can't do it all witYi -- because you've got to have staff.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think there's
maybe -- maybe some security issues as well.
MR. HOLEKAMP: in1e11, there -- those --
they're pretty much bonded individuals. I mean, I'm talking
about individuals; I'm r_ot talking about companies. I'm
not --
MS. UECKER: Companies are bonded, but
individuals aren't for those contracts.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah, they are. Yeah, they
5-30-09 ~a'-
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are. On these cleaning -- these reputable companies, yes,
they are.
(Discussion off the record.)
(Commissioner Baldwin left the courtroom.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOi.,SON: As soon as he
leaves, I want to talk about the Ag Barn.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 'That made him go
faster.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think you've got the -- the
guidance that you need.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I think so. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further? If
not, we'll stand adjourned.
(Budget workshop adjourned at 12:05 p.m.)
h-30 04 wk
91
1
~- 2
3
4
5
E
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 5th day of July, 2004.
JANNETT PEEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY . ~~ I~-~'-~~-lC
Kathy Ban.ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
~o-r:~ ;~:.: