Following a tour of the county’s facilities provided by the Capital Improvements Planning Commission (CIPC), I prepared the following analysis of the proposed capital projects (reference the attached Bond Program Cost Summary provided by the CIPC). While some of the capital projects should be funded, they have included approximately $19 million for projects that we can either do without, defer or find alternative funding for!
Note that the $19 million cost savings does not take into account the likely cost overruns if all three bonds are approved and the county proceeds with all of the capital projects as budgeted at $27.5 million. Considering that construction materials cost at least 25% more than just one year ago, the supply chain is a mess with likely delays in delivery of critical path materials, there is a shortage of skilled workers, and inflation is driving wages higher; it is all too likely that there will be both project delays and substantial project cost overruns. Something already stretched taxpayers can do without! This is the worst possible time to take on significant capital projects.
Courthouse Square – $2,322,500
Their Plan: Update courthouse security with cameras and door access system. Install perimeter security features with improved ingress/egress.
My Observations: We should improve security by installing cameras and limiting access to the three main points of entry on the ground floor with all basement doors restricted to emergency exit only. This can be achieved for a relatively low cost which could be addressed in the next annual county budget. We don’t need to spend anything on the courthouse grounds. These are “nice to have” improvements that we just can’t afford right now.
Savings: $2 million
Courthouse Ground Floor – $1,397,900
Their Plan: Modify the first floor to provide a 12-person jury room per unfunded state mandate, move the Tax Department to the new 600 Earl Garrett property and expand space for the IT Department.
My Observations: I agree with this plan and support a bond covering these improvements. Note that by moving the Tax Department out of the courthouse, some of the vacated space could be utilized for additional storage.
Earl Garratt Campus – $1,716,894
Their Plan: Utilize 600 Earl Garrett for the Tax Office, creating the Earl Garrett Campus one block from the Courthouse.
My Observations: I agree with this plan and support a bond covering these improvements. The Tax Office should take their documents and election equipment / materials with them to the new office and utilize the storage that will be available therein.
West Kerr County Annex – $4,066,102
Their Plan: Construct a new facility on the Hwy 39 county owned property to provide for the tax office, courtroom, JP office, constable’s office, and a sheriff’s substation.
My Observations: While the current Annex leaves much to be desired and rent has been escalating (what isn’t?), it is functional as is and does not justify building a new facility at this time. We can defer this capital expenditure for a few more years until the recession is over, the supply chain is restored, and inflation is under control.
August 28th Update: The Ingram ISD has leased most of its old administration building to the county for its West Kerr County Annex. The building is ADA compliant, provides far more space, plenty of parking and will allow the annex occupants to function much better. This is a huge win for the taxpayers not only in Ingram but also countywide as it eliminates the need to build a new $4 million facility (part of Proposition A). I encourage the Commissioners’ Court and the Ingram ISD to further extend the lease to ensure the sustainable operation of our West Kerr County Annex, even if the facilities are leased at a higher rate (current lease is only $1 for the entire year although all insurance, maintenance and utilities are to be paid by the county and the ISD will retain a few of the offices therein).
Sept. 1st Update: Today, I had a look at the Ingram ISD building that has been leased by the county. Overall, the building is in very good condition. It only needs a little cleaning and some paint here and there. The leased space is much larger than the previous annex building. In fact, there is plenty of space that could be used to store documents from the main courthouse rather building a special offsite storage facility (next item). Thank you for saving the taxpayers money!
Savings: $4 million
Kerr County Storage – $4,181,604
Their Plan: Construct a new 20,000 square foot climate-controlled storage facility on the recently acquired Spur 100 county-owned property behind the Road and Bridge Department.
My Observations: While State law requires original hard copy file retention; the main problem is a lack of employee commitment to properly organize, catalog and store documents while segregating and separating items that do not need secure or climate-controlled storage (e.g. seasonal decorations, surplus furniture or equipment that should be disposed). With better organization and segregation along with the relocation of the Tax Office and IT Department this issue could be adequately addressed without spending the taxpayer’s money. The desired new remote facility is a nice to have, but its remote location will cause employees to retain documents in their offices and when they do deposit them in the central facility they will be out of sight and out of mind and may not be properly organized and cataloged. The next thing they will want is a storage facility staff to manage the facility and our documents. Just say NO!
Oct. 19 Update: The old Ingram ISD Admin building under lease to the county for our West Kerr Annex has plenty of space for document storage for the entire county. However, if for some reason we are unable to continue the lease of that building, we could instead utilize the old juvenile detention facility out on Legion Drive that has been vacant for several years. The county had planned to lease it to an outside party, but that deal is still under negotiation (dragging on for months) and may fall apart entirely. The JD facility is big enough to become a county multi-purpose facility (e.g., storage, election vote counting, meetings, classes, etc.) and it would avoid the need to spend $4.2 million of taxpayer dollars on a new facility when we already have a suitable facility.
Savings: $4.18 million
Indoor Arena Improvements – $8,065,000
Their Plan: Bring the indoor arena (AG barn) electrical system up to code, add fire suppression, replace the roof, improve the lighting, drainage and ventilation, add accessible restrooms, replace the dirt floor with concrete, add classroom space and a teaching kitchen for 4-H Clubs.
My Observations: Part of the CIPC’s justification is that the Youth Event Center is a key part of the County’s Emergency Management Plan. That’s fine, but the reality is that the relatively new Event Center and the show barn next to the AG barn are both more than adequate for this purpose. The AG barn could still be utilized in the unlikely event of an extreme emergency that overflows the event center and show barn. Let’s face it, in a crisis you make do with whatever you have. They have also stated that the full improvements would attract more events and generate more revenue for local businesses. While this may be true, the economic benefits are difficult to define and do not justify the cost at this time. I agree that we should spend up to $4 million to repair or replace the roof and fix electrical problems for the AG barn and if it can be done within this amount, add ventilation fans like those used in the indoor show barn. But we should defer the concrete floor, 4-H rooms and toilets. The CIPC would not provide the detailed line-item breakup for their proposals so I do not have a good estimate on the later costs, and I am guessing that it would be around $4 million. It is disappointing that the county has not done a better job of maintaining the AG barn via routine or even non-routine maintenance expenditure in its annual budgets (e.g., roof and electrical issues).
Savings: $4 million
Animal Control Shelter – $5,750,000
Their Plan: Construct a new animal control shelter on the recently acquired property on Spur 100 behind the Road and Bridge Department. Their justification is that kennel space is insufficient for our growing animal population, employee office space is inadequate, not enough climate-controlled storage for food and medical supplies, and not enough storage for cages, traps, and department files.
My Observations: While there are issues that need to be addressed, we don’t need a new $5.75 million animal control facility. I’ve taken two tours of the facility. When I asked one of the employees working there last February if they thought a new facility was needed, I was told “no”. So here is the low cost 80% solution I suggested: Relocate the large animal pens and shelter (for goats, horses, etc.) to the new Spur 100 property. Install a new dog kennel (steel building like the existing one) on the far side of the existing kennel. The large animal area could then be used for additional dog exercise areas and part of the area could be converted to additional parking and perhaps even another entry / exit point. Install another prefabricated office building like what is now housing several of the County Environmental Health staff (the cost of this building was approximately $45,000). Once these modifications are made, modify the main building by removing the dog kennels, adding office space, a larger reception, and additional toilets. Temporary portable offices could be located on the premises during the main building modifications. All of this could be done for under $1 million.
Note: The controversy surrounding the Kerrville Library, its placement of pornography in front of the children’s section during the so-called banned books week and its ALA affiliation, has resulted in several of our commissioners suggesting that they may cancel the agreement with Kerrville to provide animal control services to the city in exchange for county wide library access. If this happens, there would be NO justification for a new shelter.
Savings: $4.75 million
Total Savings: $18.93 million
Rich,
I agree with your assessment and recommendations.
Tom, Thanks for your comments!
Excellent work! I agree there is a need for these areas to be addressed but we are dealing with tax dollars and should always look for alternatives that are responsible and effective. Thank you for taking this on and I support your efforts.
I have not seen comments on the education/training on the care of the animals at these shelters. No accountability to the people abusing the animals, nor taking care of the cats and dogs, such as having them fixed so there won’t be so many new born.
Why is there needed space? Where are all of these animals coming from? You don’t solve problems by throwing money at them. Government is the problem not the solution. Increasing the size of government is not the proper approach. What is your solution when you tax people so much they lose their homes, autos, and or jobs. Then you will have less money coming in, have to let employees go, buildings won’t get proper maintenance, so they will deteriorate. How about open your eyes and mind. Get a grip on what you are doing to the struggling tax payers. Do you think the COVID scam didn’t hurt the people excessively already so county government wants to hurt us more for your pleasure? Once you drive tax payers into poverty your pleasure will be gone as well. STOP SPENDING OUR MONEY ON NONSENSE.
Richard,
Perhaps you misunderstand my position. I am against all three bond propositions and recommend voting against them.
Rich, thank you for doing this. i will be taking flyers to Riverhill HOA re NO on ABC this evening.
However, as I read your analysis, I could not tell which props addressed which issue! For example, which prop contains the $5 million dollar for an animal kennel?
Thanks again. So glad you won!
Prop C is for the animal control shelter.
Thank you, Rick, for doing this. My box breaking down the items into propositions was initially unclear. But you do break down the areas of unnecessary spending and it appears there is some in every proposition. Kind of sad….Thank you, again.
Excellent breakdown! No emotion, just observable facts. The bond is a wish list and overkill and very bad economic timing. Thanks for all your hard work on compiling the data needed to make a smart decision on the bond.
Good work on this, Rich! We need all government leaders to be as creative, insightful, and caring as you are. Thank you for your common sense approach to solving all these issues and keeping government spending under control.