C" ~ 1
SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA
MONDAY, AUGUST 30, 1999, 9:00 A.M.
COUNTY COURTROOM
KERR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
KERRVILLE, TEXAS 78028
THIS NOTICE IS POSTED PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS OPEN
MEETINGS ACT. (TITLE 5, CHAPTER 551, GOVERNMENT CODE AND
TITLE 5, CHAPTER 552, GOVERNMENT CODE.)
This Commissioners' Court will hold a meeting at 9:00 A.M., Monday,
August 30, 1999, at the Kerr County Courthouse in the Commissioners' Courtroom.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
VISITORS INPUT
• Citizens wishing to speak on items NOT listed on the regular agenda, please fill
out form for consideration at this time. Citizens wishing to speak on items
LISTED on the regular agenda, please fill out request form for consideration
during discussion on that specific item. In order to expedite the flow of business
and to provide all citizens the opportunity to speak, the Judge may impose a
three (3) minute limitation on any person addressing the court.
•
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
• Commissioners and/or the County Judge may use this time to recognize
achievements of persons in their Precinct or to make comments on matters not
listed on the regular agenda.
I. CONSIDERATION AGENDA: (Action may be taken on Items
listed below)
1.1 Consider and discuss presentation by Kerr County Third-Party
Administrator regarding health insurance costs.
1.2 Consider and discuss approval of Kerr County Budget for Fiscal
Year 1999-2000. pq
,.,led 4~ ~ of A.D. 19.E
JANNEIT PIEPER, KERB CO ERK TiYE~/~
1.3 Consider and discuss status of burn ban. ~~,~%,~ o~~,,
ay.
1
±MA GARET A. BARGEE, Deputy
CLOSED MEETING
A closed meeting may be held concerning the following subject(s):
II. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
This meeting is authorized by Title 5, Chapter 5 51, Government Code and
Title 5, Chapter 552, Government Code.
2.1 (551.071(1)(A)) Consultations with Attorney (County and
Civil Attorney)
OPEN MEETING
An open meeting will be held concerning the following subject(s):
III. ACTION AGENDA:
3.1 Action as may be required on matters discussed in Executive
Session.
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Y. -
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
!-.. .
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
On Monday, August 30, 1999, at 9:00 o'clock a.m., a
Special Session of 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 HENNEKE: It's 9 o'clock on Monday, August
30th, 1999. We'll call to order this special Commissioners
Court session. At this time, any visitor wishing to speak on
an item not listed on the regular agenda who's completed a
form for consideration is invited to come forward and speak.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on an item that's
not on the agenda? Seeing none, we will move on. Do any
Commissioners have any comments this morning? Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'd better not, not in
the public setting.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Larry?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: None for me.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Williams will not be
with us today. His stepbrother died of a heart attack last
night. He's gone to be with his family and deal with that
situation, so our thoughts and prayers go with him, and we'll
miss him this morning. Do you have anything you want to
comment on this morning, Jonathan, on a general basis?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll go to the consideration
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
agenda, then. The first item is consider and discuss
presentation by Kerr County Third Party Administrator
regarding health insurance costs. Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: This is a subject that we discussed
at the last meeting, and I think the one before that, as to
-- and I think it's especially important, before we put our
budget to to bed, to -- to hear from our Third Party
Administrators as to what -- what they expect our health
insurance premiums look like for next year and talk a little
bit about the renewal. I think there are some items they
want to talk to us about regarding that. And, in general,
for -- for the Court to -- to understand where our dollars
go, as far as our plan. So, without any further explanation
from me, I want to introduce Ray Bothwell. He is here from
our third -- from Employee Benefits. Also with us is Bryan
and Curtis Finley, our representative -- our agent from Kerr
County.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
MR. ROTHWELL: I'm Ray Bothwell, and I represent
Employee Benefit Administrators out of San Antonio. And,
we've been the Third Party Administrator for the Kerr County
health and life program for the last couple years. I'd like
-- since there's a couple of new folks on the Court, or at
least one -- two present, the Judge and Commissioner Griffin,
we're a fully-funded, partially self-insured health insurance
..-.
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
program with Kerr County, and I'd like to kind of walk you
through a couple minutes on what that means.
When we say "fully-funded,}' it's become funded at the
maximum recommended level, based on the numbers we get from
the reinsurance folks that we go out for bids from. What it
says is that, in effect, it's a fully-insured insurance
program. The funding of it happens to be a little bit
different. Rather than sending 100 percent of your premium
money off to an insurance company every month, you send it to
a third party administrator. Part of the fund is kept here
in the county, and we buy reinsurance with it, we pay our
administrative expense with it, and we pay your claims with
it. Hopefully, under this program, there's a reserve left
over, and I'll go into that with you in just a few minutes.
But, there's two components -- or really three
components of your health insurance program. We go out and
we shop the market for a premium cost-specific reinsurance.
What that says is that, for any county employee or dependent
that has a claim exceeding $25,000, if it's $25,001, the $1
over $25,000 is paid by an insurance company. 50, the County
effectively funds through their monthly contribution the
first $25,000 of claims for any one specific person. After
that, it's a reinsurance level. We also buy a reinsurance
for the aggregate, an annual maximum for your entire program,
and we go out and shop that. Those two come together,
6
i._
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 II
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
usually from one supplier or from one insurance company.
So, we buy two kinds of insurance from you -- for you.
We shop it every year. This year we sent it out to six
reinsurance companies, and I do not have all of my prices
back yet. I wasn't aware we were going to have this meeting
until last Thursday. But, later this week, I expect to get
two or three more proposals in. I'm going to go over the
current one, because it happens to be from the current
carrier on a renewal basis. The third component we have is
administrative expense, what we charge you to handle your
program, from the billing to the claims payment to the
customer service to negotiating rates with -- with hospitals
and/or P.P.O. networks, Preferred Provider Organizations.
Locally, we use the local network, Greater Hill Country
Health Care Alliance, which is the local hospitals in
Kerrville, Fredericksburg, and Llano, and the majority of the
local doctors. There are a few doctors in town and in
Fredericksburg that are not in that network, but, for the
most part, they all are. So, we keep everything as local as
we can. If you're outside of San Antonio, you're in a
different P.P.O. network that works well and accepts your
employees' I.D. card. With that in mind, does anyone have
any questions before I give you a handout and we go over some
numbers and structuring?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ray, when you -- you just
7
~... -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 I
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
got through saying if you're outside the San Antonio area.
Are we in the San Antonio area?
MR. ROTHWELL: No. When you're outside of the
Kerrville area, in San Antonio or Houston or Dallas.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Okay.
MR. ROTHWELL: Or Boerne.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I misunderstood you, sorry.
MR. ROTHWELL: So, we have the local network for
all. That's called the Greater Hill Country Health Care
Alliance. Used to be Peterson -- P.H.R.O., Peterson Hospital
Regional Organization, or something like that.
Fredericksburg had a like organization. A couple years ago,
they joined together with Llano also, and it's now called the
Greater Hill Country Health Care Alliance. And, we -- we
have a direct contract with them, not just for Kerr County,
but for some other business that we do.
Outside of this area, we're currently using a network
called National Health Care alliance, and all of the
hospitals in San Antonio and the majority of the doctors in
San Antonio belong to that one. Same thing in Houston and
Dallas. So, we pretty much have the, quote, network coverage
almost anywhere you are. On top of that, we overlay a -- a
network called Foremost Select, and that's a catastrophic
network. They have contracts with -- with about 275
hospitals nationally. They're considered to be centers of
.-.
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
excellence: Anderson, Mayo, Dallas, Baptist, San Antonio, for
heart transplants, neonatals, burns, severe -- severe kind of
things. So, network-wise, we've got your programs
well-oiled, I would say, would be a way to say that.
Okay. If there are no questions, I'll kind of go over
where we stand -- where we stand and why with -- with your
current program. This top sheet -- and I'd Like to walk
through these pages with you kind of one at a time. The top
sheet is a quarterly report. This is through the tenth
month. It's a quarterly report that -- that we provide your
-- your county on a quarterly basis. And, basically, what
this -- this is kind of an outline of just claims.
The top little section, at the beginning of the year,
when we enrolled your program this last year for renewal, we
said we might expect 5619,064 in claims. It was on a paid
basis. So, it was bringing in claims prior to last November
and going through this -- this October. Going down the page,
on the left-hand side, the little block just says we've got
188 single employees and 48 dependent units of some kind.
Those can be employee children, employee spouses, or employee
families enrolled in your program. The -- and I apologize
for the two blocks that aren't printed out completely.
On the right-hand column, the little minimum attachment
point, and the next one is true attachment point. The words
didn't print out and I didn't notice that until I had left my
9
1 office the other day. Through ten months, we're saying your
2 attachment point was $467,000. Down at the bottom section is
3 I actual claims paid. 11/1/98 through 8/1/99, we've paid
4 I $483,000 of claims -- right at $484,000, actually. Then the
5 ~; next line, you'll see specific claims, $86,162. That's that
6 ~ specific program that we buy. Any -- any employee that has
7 claims greater than $25,000 is paid by the reinsures. So,
8`, we've taken out the $86,000. That's $86,000 above the
9 I $25,000 on one or more employees. I think there happens to
10 be four, maybe, in here that work towards that $86,000.
11 So we've got $397,000 of claims. You'll see your true
12 attachment point was 467. We've got $15,000 paid outside the
13 stop loss, and the next page will kind of explain that. But
14 we have six employees -- six retired employees over age 65 on
15 the county program, and we pay those -- those claims
16 secondary to Medicare. So, we've got six folks on the -- on
17 the program that Medicare is primary, and -- and your plan,
18 your county plan, is secondary. And that $89,263, in
19 parentheses, it says that we're currently running $84,000
20 under the true attachment point of $467,000, so your plan,
21 quote, has a reserve of $84,000 in it through a 10-month
22 period. That's what that first page tells you. Second page
23 is just a highlight, on a monthly basis, of those Medicare
24 folks. And the third page gives us a picture of where we're
25 going on a renewal basis, renewing with the current carrier.
10
..~- -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Now, we were asked to -- to try to get a two-month
extension to get your plan to a January anniversary date.
When we went out to our current carrier -- the only person
you can get an extension like that from is your current
carrier -- the current carrier would not do it. And the
reason they wouldn't do it is the spec claims of $86,000
verses $105,000 of income -- of premium income the carrier
gets for that -- for that spec insurance. We know that -- or
we believe at the end of this two months, we're going to be
at or exceed 100 percent of our spec premium level that the
reinsures has of about $105,000. We're currently at 86.
Those spec claims are still going during this month, and we
anticipate them to continue next month. We don't think
there's any new people coming in on a spec basis. There's no
indication of it, but that doesn't mean it's not going to
happen. But -- but the folks that are in the current --
current spec program are continuing. We'll continue to get
claims on them, and for this reason, the reinsures elected
not to extend, but did elect to give us a 14-month contract.
Now, I'll back up and tell you we sent this out to six
-- six reinsurance companies, and we only use A or better
companies. Four of them have -- two of them have declined to
bid because of the spec claims level and the unknown nature
of whether they're going to continue into the future period
or not, so they -- they declined. I've got three bids that I
11
1 °"! expect to get back this week, Wednesday or Thursday. And, as
2 "I' soon as I get those back, I'll bring those back through
3 ~J Barbara and Tommy to -- for y'all's benefit. I really don't
4 ~ expect them to be any better than the rates I have. I think
5 II these rates are -- are extremely good from a renewal
6 standpoint, and we'll walk through that in just a few
7 minutes.
8 But, I did -- I did three layouts here on this page
9 where you could compare the current rates on a 12-month
10 ~ contract to the renewal rates on a 12-month contract on the
11 left-hand side of that, and a 19-month contract going over on
12 the ri ht-hand side. You'll see that your current rate is
i g
13 ~ $236 for an employee, and then renewal rate is $257 for an
14 I` employee. That's about an 8 percent increase. Medical
15'r~ trends are running at about 11 percent. The reason we've got
16 ' the rate as good as we did is because we will not -- do not
17 expect, nor really think there's a possibility of going over
18 the annual attachment point this year. We're just -- we're
19 $85,000 under it now; we've got two months going forwards.
20 We're just not going to see that point. So, that's one of
22 the reasons we got that type of a renewal rate.
22 The three components that we talked about earlier, laid
23 out on that sheet, are your two insurance numbers at the top,
24 the spec premium, and the aggregate premium. Let's go to the
25 14-month column and you'll see that's a $47.41 number for an
17_
1
2
3
4
5 k
r
6
7
8
9
10
11 i
12 !
13 j
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
251
employee only, versus a $36.16. Now, remember, we're going '.
than 12 months so if ou want to com are
14 months rather y P
the 36 to the 43 on a 12-month contract, it's -- the numbers 1
are -- are where you can compare those. That's about a 30
i
percent increase in the spec rate. We'll see that on the !,
next page, where I've got it broken down a little differently
for you. But, it's a -- but it's a 14-month program, as
opposed to 12. Again, the numbers are small.
The administrative costs at $14.50; you'll see that
that's down, on the next page, or you can look at the top, by
35 cents. The admin cost is down. The funding claims,
funding number is where your real dollars are, and that's a
product of utilization. The more the program is used, the
more dollars spent for claims, the higher that funding number
is. To remember my earlier term, "fully funded, partially-
self-funded program." So, you can really think of this as a
fully-insured program. That's what it is. You've got a
guaranteed maximum amount of dollars you're going to spend.
They're laid out down at the bottom of that page. The fixed
costs, specific and ag insurance and administrative expense,
fixed costs for the year for a 14-month period, claims
funding, fixed cost for the year. Bottom line, annual
maximum. Only thing that's not in those numbers are those
Medicare -- those six Medicare secondary employees. They're
paid outside the stop loss. They're not included in your
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
annual aggregate. Anyone have any numbers on those -- any
questions on those pages -- on those numbers?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are the -- the E.O., E.C.,
E.S., and E.F.?
MR. ROTHWELL: Employee Only, Employee Children,
Employee Spouse and Employee Family. You know, let me --
Commissioner Letz, let me explain or comment on that, since
you've asked that question. When we get -- when a reinsures
gives us numbers, they give us numbers in two categories.
They give us an "employee only" number and an "employee
dependent" number, so we have two numbers to start with on
that funding, on that attachment point; we have two numbers
to start with. When we start breaking that back to an
employee child, employee spouse, and employee family number,
we have -- in that case, we have $711,227 down at the bottom.
That is the annual attachment point for claims. That's a
number we have to -- we have to tie back to. That's the --
that's what we tie to to make it a guaranteed maximum dollar.
So, when we take that employee dependent number that they've
given us and we go back to a child rate, a spouse rate, and a
family rate, we have to raise that employee dependent number
to -- to get down to a -- to a 307, in this case, for a
child, and a 399 for a -- for a spouse. The number, as I
recall, was $403 or $406, but to get -- to spread that number
back to 20 employees with children and 10 employees with
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
spouses, versus only eight with families, that family number
goes up a little -- a little more, probably, than -- than on
a normal distribution. Eight families is a -- is a little
bit lower than normal, versus ZO children or 10 spouses. So
-- so, that family number gets exaggerated just a little bit
when you tie back to that bottom number.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To make sure I'm reading this
right, 188 of the County employees are only the employee?
MR. ROTHWELL: That's right. There is 188 folks
that have elected to to have employee -- employee-only
coverage, mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, under the employee
children, is that children or child?
MR. ROTHWELL: There's 20 employees with one or
more children.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One or more?
MR. ROTHWELL: Uh-huh. And then ten with only one
spouse.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: How many with more than one spouse?
MR. ROTHWELL: I don't know, Fred. I would never
try to figure that out. The next page kind of gives you a
breakdown. One of the things that Tommy asked me to do in
discussing this was to really point out for you where the
dollars are spent, and your dollars are spent in the claims.
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Secondary dollars are spent for the reinsurance you buy for
that protection, and then the admin cost is a fairly
insignificant piece of the total.
Comparing your current rates, this is the total with a
12-month and a 14-month contract. Percentage-wise, you can
see that there's -- there's virtually no change going across.
The specific and aggregate doesn't change; that's a fixed
number. And the claims funding, I've presented this with a
claims-funding-only number of a 5 percent increase in
employee, up to -- graduated up to a 14 percent increase for
families. But, that's a layout of disbursing the dollars
that -- that the County forwards to us for handling the
program on a monthly basis.
One thing that's not laid out in here, and I was rather
surprised when I looked at the numbers -- in fact, I had the
reports run twice 'cause I didn't believe them. Your -- your
prescription costs, pharmacy card, verses your total claims
is about 18 percent. I thought that was so Iow -- I mean,
it's high. It's high, but it's lower than almost any other
group we have. Most of the business we have are 22, 23, up
to 50 percent medical claims versus Rx claims, and you're
running at about 18 percent, $72,000 through ten months of --
and you don't see that on your numbers anywhere. $72,000 of
-- of Rx payments versus $397,700 of claims. It's about 18
percent. That's a really low number. National average is
16
1 ~ about 17 percent. Three years ago it was 12 or 13 percent.
2 ~ It's up. It's the most alarming number, prescription cards,
3 to all insurance companies today. Its the one that's getting
4 the most visibility by all insurance companies. And it's
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 f
18
19
20
21
22
23
I
2 4 I'
25
beginning to be one of the largest components -- single
components of an insurance premium, the Rx card and how it's
treated. So, anyway, that was an interesting number that I
found going through it.
The last page is something that I want to visit with you
i
in a couple of different ways about. We put a lab card in
place a little prematurely, some folks thought, in the County
program during this last year. When we put it in, there was
-- there was really no facilities in Kerrville to handle the :-
lab card, and we only have it currently in Kerr County.
We're introducing it, within the next two weeks, in a couple
of other doctors out here. But, after some of your employees
started showing their lab cards in the doctors' offices and a
number of calls to my office -- and some of them weren't real
nice, but that's okay, too -- one of the labs in town
contracted with Lab One. The lab -- and I'm not sure of the
name of it, but it's the lab down in the Family Practice
building. There's basically three labs in town; Guadalupe
Physicians, there's one at Family Practice, and there's one
in the hospital that does this kind of work.
Lab One is a program designed to save money. It's a
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
national program, at no cost to the local providers. You go
in, you show your lab card. If it's used, the County
employee pays zero, nothing. The bill comes through your
claims payments, just like the Rx bill. And, this year --
and I don't remember the month, Barbara, that we really put
it in, but it was late. It was February or March, as I
recall. There was about 163 usages. There's been 23
doctors. The total cost of those 163 usages without the lab
card was $4,935; that's based on a national average. We paid
-- or you paid $1,736, for a savings of $3,199 on 163 usages.
That represents about 35 or 36 percent of the County's usage
of laboratory, okay?
We did verify these top three users. The numbers down
at the bottom of $44.50, $76, and $39.50 are within less than
a dollar of the current rates in all three labs here in town.
So, that says to us that the prices that we're paying for
those top three of $850, $1,790, and $499 are valid, meaning
the overall savings of $3,199 is -- it's a statistical valid
number. And, what we'd like to do is have the folks from Lab
One come in and do an education program, at least for your
supervisors. We'd like to be able to touch base with most
employees. It's a 20- to 30-minute meeting, in groups, to
where we can really make them aware, because we believe this
can be a substantial savings to the Kerr County program.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there an extra charge for the
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 ,
14
15
,'
16 !,
17 'I
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lab card? I don't understand why not everybody has one. J
MR. ROTHWELL: Pardon? I
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't understand why not
everybody has one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We do.
MR. ROTHWELL: Everybody for the -- in the county
does have one.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. ''
MR. ROTHWELL: Every employee in the county on the
county insurance program has a lab card. 4'
JUDGE HENNEKE: They're just not using them? Is
that what --
MR. ROTHWELL: Yeah. You know, like I said,
there's 23 doctors that have used this program once or more,
one time or more during this period from March or April
through -- through the current period. If you walk into a
doctor's office and they're going to do blood work or -- or
some kind of lab test and you give them the lab card, the
only place they can send you to have it done is the lab
that's down in the Family Practice building and get in this
program.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Family Practice is the one
with the contract?
MR. ROTHWELL: Yes, that lab down there. And,
they've got a -- I've been told they've got a sign in their
19
11
21
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
window, "Lab One" -- or "Lab Co.," I think it may say,
"Provider." I really do believe and encourage y'all to -- to `
work with us on letting the folks from Lab One come in and do~
an education period with your employees. I think, going
forward for the next time period, it can be a real
substantial savings to you. And, as we find things like
that, as we work with programs like that, we introduce them
into our groups. We have this in a number of our groups now,
and hopefully by the end of this next year will have it in
virtually all. Some areas -- in some of the rural areas it's
not a practical thing to do. But, here it is. That's the
layout of your program.
The -- the numbers, for renewal purposes, as we see them
right now with your current carrier are displayed for you
under the 12- or 14-month -- it's my understanding you'll go
to a 19-month to get to a January date. Later this week, I
should have some additional numbers. As soon as I get them,
if they're better than these or worse than these, I'll
provide those to -- to Barbara and to Tommy and to the Finley
agency to share with you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have a summary of our
current coverages, exactly -- exactly what each employee
gets?
MR. ROTHWELL: Uh-huh. I mean, I have -- do you
have one of these? Are you in on the program?
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I probably have one, but
I'm just -- I mean, basically, I think one of the things that
we talked about looking at this quarter is figuring out
exactly what our coverage is and making sure that's exactly
what we want and --
MR. ROTHWELL: Okay. I'll tell you that your
program is not -- it's a real good, solid program. It's not
-- I wouldn't consider it a real flamboyant, Cadillac kind of
program, nor would I consider it a lower-end Chevrolet
program. I think it's a good, solid health insurance
program. There's a couple of things that are probably not
used effectively in it. It has a $200 annual preventive
physical program that we don't see, as administrators, used
probably as much as it should. I mean, it allows every
employee to go have a physical; it's paid for 100 percent, up
to $200 a year. We don't see that used, probably, as much as
it could. And, again, if we do the education thing with Lab
One, we'll incorporate some of those kind of things into some
of that kind of conversation with your employees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That physical is in addition to
the -- I mean, it doesn't deduct, but it doesn't go against
that?
MR. ROTHWELL: No, it's a flat $200, 100 percent
paid.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I did mine in January right
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
after I took office. It's a good deal.
MR. ROTHWELL: It's an excellent deal, and I would
encourage every person to take advantage of that.
MS. NEMEC: I think we have a real good program,
and that's just a problem that a lot of employees either
don't read this, or read it and don't understand it. So, if
we were to have them come in and explain it, I think they
would benefit a lot from it, and so would Kerr County and the
savings that we would get in the long run.
MR. ROTHWELL: Yeah, I think it's something -- I
don't know how that was done when this was installed a
couple-three years ago, but it's something that we try to do
with all of our new business. And often, with renewal
business, if there's going to be some benefit changes, we
come in, we have employee meetings or just -- you'll schedule
meetings, 30-, 45-minute meetings, 25 to 30 people at a time,
where we can go over in detail and answer questions and cover
those kind of things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Barbara, can you give me
another copy of that, please, of that handout on --
MS. NEMEC: Yes, I'll get you one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I can go over the coverage.
MR. ROTHWELL: It also -- the first two or three
pages is just a summary of the benefits schedule, and -- and
it's -- as good as you can lay out insurance stuff, I think
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it's laid out fairly clearly.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, it's pretty
straightforward.
MR. ROTHWELL: I will tell you this, that as an
administrator of your plan, we work for y'all; we don't work
for the insurance companies. We represent Kerr County. We
think we do a superb job. I don't believe we have any
unhappy Kerr County employees, as it relates to us handling
their benefit program. I think Barbara hears about the ones
we have. I know we get a lot of compliments through the --
through the course, which is unusual for health insurance.
And, if we buy health insurance and don't get more dollars
paid than we're paying in premiums, we're often unhappy with
it. But, we -- we do -- we know we've saved you money
through your administrative side through the way we handle
your claims, and it hasn't been to the detriment of your
employees.
We pay the benefits per the benefit design of your plan.
The renewal process, we bid it every year. We bid it last
year with six or seven carriers. We've bid it this year with
six carriers. So, the things that you bid, if you were to go
out for bid, would be exactly what we do. You would be
bidding another -- another administrative cost. And, you
rarely find an administrative cost lower than $14.50 with any
T.P.A. So, that's where we stand with your program. We're
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pleased to be g'all's T.P.A. We'd like to get to you sign a
10-year contract with us, but that's probably not practical.
But, anyway, that's where we are. If there's any questions,
I'd be glad to cover those with you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Since we're doing this in a budget
context --
MR. ROTHWELL: Mm-hmm?
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- what is the -- what is the
bottom line impact to this coming budget year? Tommy, have
you got anything on that?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I anticipated that question.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That doesn't surprise me.
MR. TOMLINSON: Approximately $50,000. If you go
-- if you go with the 12-month contract for Employee Only,
the difference between the current -- between the current
funding level and -- and the proposed renewal is
approximately -- it's about $20 per month per employee that's
covered, so that would -- roughly, that would be around
$50,000.
JUDGE HENNEKE:
14-month, it would be ba
MR. TOMLINSON:
JUDGE HENNEKE:
MR. TOMLINSON:
JUDGE HENNEKE:
About $50,000. If we went with a
sically the same, correct?
Right. Well --
Because the difference is the --
On an annual basis.
For an annual basis.
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 ,
20
21
22
23
29
25
24
MR. ROTHWELL: But, Judge, bear in mind that as you
go forward, we've got an eighty -- $84,000 of your money that
we're not spending through ten months.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But, we're doing the budget.
MR. ROTHWELL: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And, we've got to put in the
budget --
MR. ROTHWELL: The maximum.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- the dollars that we're going to
spend on health insurance. So, if we're in the magnitude of
$50,000 short, then I think Tommy's going to tell us we're
going to have to alter a portion of that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's not worked into these
numbers.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's not in that number.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Bryan, do you or Curtis have
anything to add?
MR. BRYAN FINLEY: The only comment that I'd like
to add is that we've been in business for 45 years and worked
with a lot of third-party administrators, and directly with a
lot of insurance companies, and I can honestly say that the
service that is rendered by E.B.A. to your employees is the
best that we have ever experienced. The claims payment is
the most timely that I have seen. We've worked with these
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 I
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
guys -- Dennis Burkholder, the head of the company, and I go
back probably 12 to 15 years, and he is probably one of the
best negotiators I have ever run into when it comes to lining
up insurance companies to do business with and -- and
extracting from them, as Ray has indicated here, very
favorable rates. We've appreciated getting to work with your
people, both on an administrative level, and those that have
had some minor claims problems call our office, and we've
been able to resolve them almost instantly. But, we hope
that we would have the opportunity to continue for some
period of time.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Barbara?
MS. NEMEC: I'd just like to say that before we
went with this third-party administrator, insurance was
almost a full-time job in my office, and it was to the point
where I was going to have to hire an employee just to take
care of insurance and insurance problems and questions and
all that. And, since we went with them a couple of years
ago, they handle everything. It's just unbelievable, the
service that we get from them, and I just want y'all to know
that. And, our employees are happy, as they say. There's a
few problems, but, I mean, those are minor, and it's just a
matter of the employee or the doctor getting the right
paperwork. It's nothing that they've done. So, they're
great.
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Mr. Auditor, what do we need
to do as far as our budget?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I think we can approve tt~e
proposed budget as it is, and then, when we actually adopt
the budget, we can -- we can adopt the budget with these
numbers in it by -- by special Court Order. In other words,
we can pass an order increasing the proposed budget by that
amount, and it will be a part of the -- that will be a part
of the budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we just adjust it
now? Why -- why put out a budget that we know we're not
going to --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, your numbers you have in
front of you are -- well, they don't reflect this at all.
And -- and what you vote on -- unless you vote to approve it
with a condition that we do add it today.
MS. NEMEC: I think another reason is that he is --
there is still some more quotes that are going to come in
Wednesday. They may be lower. There's a chance that they
may be lower.
MR. ROTHWELL: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have a precise number
on anything we go out for capital items on. We're going off
the best guess on computers and everything else. I would
rather get the budget as close as we can right now and adjust
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it pennies or a few dollars later.
MR. TOMLINSON: If you want to approve the -- these
numbers with that condition, then we can go back in and redo
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It just seems cleaner to me to
get it as close as we can.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Are you saying do it by
order now?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, he's saying today, before we
approve the budget, let's amend the numbers and just agree
among ourselves that we're going to add in the magnitude of
-- we'll probably just add $50,000 to the current budget for
purposes of covering health --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Health insurance.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anticipated increases of health
costs. And then, when we get exact numbers, then if we get
it before we adopt the budget, we can adopt the budget with
the exact number.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Which will take a Court Order.
But, I think what Jonathan's saying today is very
appropriate. Let's give the public, when we approve the
budget, the real magnitude of what we're going to be
spending.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So at least I know I'm not
~8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
losing my mind.
JUDGE HENNEKE: You didn't have to say that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That will work. That will
work.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything further? Ray, thank you.
MR. ROTHWELL: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We appreciate it. Bryan, Curtis,
thank you all. That you for coming in this morning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where does take us with the --
I guess the consultant was more for the other insurance,
Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: In my mind, it was. I think -- I
think that that's -- those are two entirely different fields.,
I don't know if you -- health insurance is so specialized
that I don't know if you -- I don't know if you can really
find anybody that was -- had that broad of base. I mean, as
far as being able to handle P and C --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- effectively. And, then -- and
also include a health insurance figure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Larry, I think it was you that
brought up another meeting about looking at our coverages,
just to make sure it's exactly what we want. Are we going to
do that? Or maybe it wasn't -- I thought we said --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That wasn't me.
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought we said at one of the
previous meetings to look at what our medical coverage is to
the employees and see if that's exactly what we wanted.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's appropriate, but I
think we're, once again, bumped up against a timeframe which
doesn't allow us to do it before this renewal. It has to be
~'
in effect. The expiration date is at the end of October.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's something we can
i
certainly do at our next round with it, but I don't know that
we've ever really changed it. That's how you -- to me, how
I
you make the change in dollars to the County, up or down, is
based on what we're providing the employees.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whether you, you know, increase
i
the deductible, decrease the deductible, or add some of these ~'
i
other options. ''
JUDGE HENNEKE: What we might look to in the coming
year is to get a -- really, an employee committee together,
headed by our Treasurer and perhaps one member of the Court,
but get two or three employees scattered throughout the
County system to take a look at what we have and make
recommendations as to what they would like to see, if any
changes are necessary.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And work, maybe, with Mr.
Finley as well, as to where we can make -- I mean, if we, you
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
know, went to -- stop loss to $30,000, versus $25,000, what
that would do, or drop it, you know, instead of change it,
where you make it up to them to get the big impact on the
costs. All right. ~
JUDGE HENNEKE: The next item is Item No. 2, which
i
is consider and discuss approval of the Kerr County Budget
for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. Y'all have a printout of the
budget. You also have a summary sheet from Tommy, which
reflects the -- the status of the budget on an overall basis. I~
I
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, do you have anything
k
you want to give us in overview, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, no. I just want to say --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Could I ask a procedural
question? Do the general provisions get approved separately
f
or as part of the budget?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Part of the budget.
MR. TOMLINSON: Part of the budget. ~I
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Part of it. So, it just
takes one approval?
MR. TOMLINSON: One approval.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you have any questions
on the general --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. I just wondered if we
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 E
8
9~
10
11 I'
12
13
14
15 `'~
16
i
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
had to address that separately.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll let Tommy make it --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, first of all -- I mean, I
wanted, you know, y'all to -- to review this -- the numbers
carefully, because we're not perfect and we can -- we could
have left something out, you know.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm shocked.
MR. TOMLINSON: You know, we make mistakes, and so
in reviewing this many numbers, it's difficult to make sure
i
that -- that they're all exactly right. So, you know, I did
want -- I do want you to do that between now and -- and when
we adopt the budget. To the best of my knowledge, everything
is there that we -- that we tentatively approved. The
summary page reflects the total of the -- each fund. And, I
don't -- I left it on my desk. The the tax revenue column is
-- is as a result of the proposed tax rate on this sheet that
I gave you, so -- and that -- and that also reflects the same
-- the same tax rate as to last fiscal year. So, those tax
revenue numbers are -- are a product of that rate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we leaving the tax rate --
last year, it seems, we adjusted it; we took some from Road
and Bridge and put it into General. Are we doing that again
this year anywhere or --
MR. TOMLINSON: I left -- I assumed that we would;
I left it as-is. I mean, that's still a consideration, if
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
you --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, there's --
MR. TOMLINSON: -- if you want to. ~,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just divided the same way
between those two?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right, that's exactly what I did.
The -- the nontax revenues, I looked at those numbers again
through mid-August. They still -- they still look, to me, R
that that's what -- that's close to what we're going to have.
The expenditure column came -- came off of the budget that
you have, with the resulting fund balance of three million,
one for the general M and O tax funds, and a million, five in
Road and Bridge. I think that's -- I think that's
sufficient, in my mind. It's between three and four months'
operating capital. Any questions about that?
The -- one of the requirements of the -- legal i
requirements is to include a summary of your debt to show the1
maturities and the rate and the debt -- and payment schedule
of each debt that you have. That's -- that's in your -- that'
will be in the budget. I have listed a -- made a schedule of
and explained the capital and expenditures for each
department telling what -- what each item is, and the amount
that was budgeted for that item. And then Barbara has gone
through the payroll system and has -- has included a position
schedule off of each position and the level of that position
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 ~'
14
15
16
17
I
18 '
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and the amount paid for that position for every -- every
position in the county. So, all that is also in the budget. ~I
Now, I think that's -- besides the general provisions, that
pretty much sums it up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question. And I'm
looking at or comparing the same sheet done from last year, I
guess. I don't know if it's -- it's a mid-year one or it's
an original one. But, why is the estimated fund balance so
much higher? I mean, during this year, the construction
I
should be paid off. It's like -- what I'm looking at, maybe,`
is the total on the General Fund, or -- or the total --
MR. TOMLINSON: For the end of this year?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, end of this year versus
the end of next year. To me, it should be going down,
because of the -- ICI
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it did.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, what I'm looking at --
look at General Fund, 9/30/99, estimated balance of -- I
guess this is before the bonds were put in. This would be
last year's before we got the bond money, so it's $495,000.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, that was -- that's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The difference is -- but at the
end of next year, is it going to be -- I mean, after we pay
off the construction, is it still going to be $2.5 million as
a fund balance?
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, no, it would be 3.1.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, 3.1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's after we've paid off all
the construction?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll have to get with you as to
why these numbers are so different from last year and this
year.
MR. TOMLINSON: We can go through that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's double; I don't
see why -- why it should change that much.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we didn't have the bond
proceeds at the beginning of '98-'99.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I'm looking at -- I
guess what I'm looking at is before last year's. It shows a
fund balance of $1.5 million on this sheet, which is from
last year. I'll get with you later.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As to why there's such a huge
difference.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Fortunately, in a positive way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's true. But I'm
still trying to figure out why.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I'll have to admit that --
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 in revenue projections, I am -- I'm conservative, and I
think we need to be conservative on the positive side, and so
I -- I think we -- as far as nontax revenues, we've had a
better year than -- than what we've projected in the budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the settlement from the --
the tobacco, or the tobacco settlement money, it's put in for
the coming-up year into the General? Or is it going into --
MR. TOMLINSON: It shows up in the General Fund,
right, in the fund balance of the General Fund.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The General?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it -- or do you know yet?
Does that money have to be used in a certain fund, or can it
be used anywhere?
MR. TOMLINSON: Could be anywhere.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions on any of the
specifics? Any comments?
MS. NEMEC: Judge, when are y'all going to set
holidays?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Say again?
JUDGE HENNEKE: The holidays are in the General
Provisions.
MS. NEMEC: Okay. So, do I have those?
JUDGE HENNEKE: They are just -- they are the same
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
holidays that we adopted last year at this time, adjusted fore
the change in the year.
MS. NEMEC: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: For instance, Christmas and New
Years are on a Saturday this coming year, so the holiday
would be the day before. It would be the 24th, in the case
of Christmas, and the 30th -- or 31st in the case of New
Years. But, otherwise, they are the identical holidays we
have this year, simply adjusted for -- for one year later.
And, I apologize for not getting those out earlier, but it
kind of slipped up on me. I didn't realize until Friday that
that was part of what I needed to do.
MS. NEMEC: I know last year the Court wasn't too
happy with some of us because we complained about some of the
holidays after they were adopted, and they said we should
have done it before, so we were going to have a chance to
look at them this year. But, we still have that chance?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. We're simply approving the
budget today.
MS. NEMEC: Right. Once it's --
JUDGE HENNEKE: We adopt it on the 13th of
September. So --
MS. NEMEC: Okay. We'll have time to look at it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If anyone wants to take a closer
look at that, we certainly welcome your input.
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: While I'm looking at holidays,
Veteran's Day is a Thursday holiday. Has it always been
actually on the Veteran's Day?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Federal holiday. Veteran's Day is
actually on November 11th, whenever that is.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's the only non-weekend holiday
I think we have in this schedule -- or non-Monday holiday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Monday or Friday.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Monday or Friday, except for
Thanksgiving.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, July 4th is a --
JUDGE HENNEKE: And July 4th.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Could I back up just a
second and ask a question? Did all of the nontax revenue
fees that we've talked about at various times through budget
workshops and all, have those all been adjusted? Like, for
example, the Justice of the Peace fees and the -- I know the
Sheriff had something -- there was some fee that was -- that
we adjusted.
MR. TOMLINSON: We --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's all reflected on the
revenue side?
MR. TOMLINSON: As far as projections.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, okay.
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have one comment on
our General Provisions. If you would -- I'm sure everyone's
aware of this, but I just want to bring it up one more time
and see if we can't get real clear in our minds how this
works. In Section 2, line item transfers and budget
amendments. I want to read that whole paragraph there, if
you`d allow me, please. "No elected official or department
head may expend funds or commit to expenditure of funds by
purchase order from a budget line item unless there are
sufficient funds available. If a budget amendment is
necessary to provide sufficient funds to a line item, the
amendment must be approved by the Commissioners Court
PRIOR" -- big, bold letters, underlined -- '}PRIOR to an
expenditure or execution of a purchase order. The elected
official or department head must appear before the
Commissioners Court and the agenda request must be supported
by sufficient written documentation to support the transfer
or amendment."
Now, that's a -- this is a document that we're going to
-- that we've already adopted, and we're going to vote to
adopt again, and I take that kind of serious. And, the
reason that these things -- these words were built-in there
is to -- to encourage all of us to really pay attention to
our budget as we're going through the year; that if we see
that -- at any time, that we're going to go over budget, that
39
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we need to sit down and talk about it. That's what's behind
all of this, is we need to talk about it and see if we can't
work out something instead of lust going out and purchasing
items, and then good old Commissioners Court is going to come
along and break the budget for us later on. Gentlemen, we
vote on this and we adopt this document and, to me, that's
very, very serious. So, if we're not going to live up to
this, let's take this out. If we're going to live up to it,
let's talk about it and get serious about it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, are you
suggesting that we have at times approved things after it's
been done?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Well, I -- there's
kind of a clue in there somewhere.
MR. TOMLINSON: I'd like to add something --
something to that. Getting a purchasing person will
eliminate a lot of those things. I mean, if that person and
my office work together and -- and there's a focal point on
-- on where the acquisitions are together, then that -- that
person knows that there's not -- none of those line items
we're purchasing will be --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think there's a problem
in that area. I think it's going to conferences, then coming
back for approval, and things of that nature, or other line
items like that. I mean, if my memory -- I don't remember
40
1
2'
3'
4
51
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
too many cases where we buy mata_rials without having money in
the budget. Usually we do other things without money in the
budget. But, I think Commissioner Baldwin is correct.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This one specifically refers
to purchase orders, and if we want to include that we'd have
to change the language, I think, the way I read it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, it says --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Expend funds or commit the
expenditure of funds by purchase order.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think that's a term that --
basically, anything we buy is pursuant to a purchase order,
whether it be services or widget.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would certainly hope that
if we put in a purchasing agent system, that a lot of these
problems go away, because I know the way it works in the
State, for example, the purchasing agent has to certify that
the funds are available when the purchase is made. And, if
they're not there, it gets kicked back to the person who
originally made the purchase order and you can't spend the
money; you've got to come to the Court for an amendment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The theory needs to stand or
go, regardless of who's in charge and who's monitoring the
thing.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my point. I don't
41
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
care whether we have a purchasing agent or Tommy's the guy or
you're the guy. So, you know, whoever. It just needs to be
done. We need to keep an eye on our budget. And, of course,
as Jannett Reno would say, "The buck stops here." Of course,
that doesn't mean anything to her, but it does -- it does to
us. And --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone have any specifics they want
to ask about?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to live by this?
If we vote on this, I think that we need to get firm with it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Specifically relating to what
Tommy's talking about, or going back to some of the budget
items, I mean, I would like to revisit some of the stuff in
the wish list and a few others so we know what we're spending
money on.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Now's the time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Two things. You know,
looking at this, and looking at the reserve funds that -- for
what we're spending, I would like to do some sort of a small
tax decrease. We are -- I guess a couple of things. We had
decided previously, before this Court -- this new Court came
in, we were going to keep the money from the tobacco
settlement aside for capital project-type of things, and
we're not doing that; we're spending that money. And, I
think that we're getting into a situation, in my mind, of
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
while we're relying on that in our operating budget, that
we're basically going down the road and, you know, I guess,
basically spending too much money. I think we have approved
basically every request that has come in from every
department; certainly, the majority of them. And, I just
would like to at least put on the table giving a small tax
reduction.
I mean, it's a -- you know, we have been -- we're i
fortunate this year. We have a lot of funds coming in from
road growth and economy and building, and, you know, the
reserve funds are still very strong. Tommy said we have, you ~
I
know, three to four months' reserve. That's -- I'd just like
to look at the -- I guess, where we're spending our money one',
more time, especially on the wish list, I guess, as it's been
termed, and see if there are some things that -- if we
absolutely need all those, and if those are the right numbers
on all these.
You know, going down, some of these are increases and
decreases. I'm just looking at the bottom page. This is the
sheet that came from the Judge with the Judge's July 23rd
memo. This is one I get called on all the time, on horse
stalls. Are we going to do them or not? They need to know
or they're going to sell them all. We have -- we're not
doing them right now, as I see.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At the last meeting, we added
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$5,000 into the budget for
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Chutes, stalls, and all that.
But, I mean, is that all we're going to -- are we not going
to buy the chutes? I don't see us doing any long-term
planning with the Ag facility property, for one. You know,
we've talked about a little bit of money out there, but, you
know, we -- that is not enough money to accomplish what we
have said we want to accomplish. $5,000 is not going to be
enough to accomplish the chutes and stalls. Tables and
chairs are elsewhere, so --
JUDGE HENNEKE: But, Jonathan, at the last meeting
they said they were not willing to sell us the chutes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, they said that they -- at
this time, they need direction from the Court. This Court
needs to decide so we can make them an offer.
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, that -- what was said at the
last meeting was they didn't want to sell the chutes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They said -- that's true, they
said they would prefer not. But, Bill's and my comment was
that we would prefer the County did.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can't buy them if they
don't want to sell them, can we?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we can't make an offer
until I have the approval of the Court. We haven't offered
them -- there's no money in the budget.
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: It was in the list. There was
$10,000 in the list when we came together last time for
chutes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And when someone made the
representation that the chutes weren't for sale, we took that
$10,000 and turned it into $5,000 to buy stalls and $7,000
for volunteer fire departments. So, the money was there for '~
i
the chutes and, under someone's representation, it was taken II
out. You know, the money for the tables and chairs has I,
always been in there. II
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I agree.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And it is in there now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, I mean, that's --
you know, if that's what we're going to do, fine. But, it's
the -- the representation made by Bill and I when we were
here -- at least, you know, he was at the meeting -- was that
he would -- and I told the Livestock Association that we, the
County, preferred to buy the chutes, but we don't have any
money to do it. They said they would prefer not sell to
them, and it was worked out that we could probably handle the
purchase -- or their concern, which was to make sure the
County kept them under a contract with the County, which, you
know, is going to be worked anyway.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Then I heard incorrectly, because
45
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
what I heard at the last meeting was that the chutes were not
for sale, and so we ought to use that $10,000 to buy some
stalls and for volunteer fire departments.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Can we back up just a j
minute? I'm having trouble understanding what the purchase
of chutes or stalls has to do with lowering the tax rate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I want to make sure that
what we're spending money on in here is exactly what is a
priority, because if there's -- if, you know, it's not a
priority, I think we should lower the tax rate.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, you're saying we should
cut out the chutes and stalls? Is that going --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just going through the
priority list. I don't recall if we've ever really gone
through this, you know, other than just looking at this list
and, you know, saying that's it from a priority standpoint,
and I think it's important. You know, we've gone through and
looked at these, you know, but I don't recall the Court ever
looking at, long-term, what are we going to do with the Ag
Barn. Are we going to set aside money to try to do some
construction out there? I don't recall us looking at some of
these bigger projects, how we're going to pay for them down
the road.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That -- I recall us talking at the
last meeting about one -- at the last meeting, about wanting
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to do a long-range plan for the Ag facility. Also, if you'll
go back and look at the Permanent Improvements out-year
budget, I've put $50,000 in next year's budget for permanent
improvements to the Ag facility, which would be based on,
hopefully, a long-range plan that we would adopt in this
fiscal year. But, what I did was I went out and established
my marker for the Ag facility, $50,000 in permanent
improvements for Budget Year 2000-2001, which was based on
the supposition that we would do a long-term plan for the Ag
facility this year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I just wanted to -- I
get calls all the time on this stuff, and people are trying
-- you know, wondering what we're going to do. I say I can't
answer it; we haven't done the budget yet.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's the way that I have it
game-planned. I thought that's the way I'd laid it out, was
that let's do the plan before we encumber the funds. But,
I've established a marker of 550,000 for the next budget year
to do permanent improvements at the Ag facility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, then, I'll -- you
know, we will -- I guess, in our mind -- or I guess when Bill
and I visit with the Stock Show Association, we'll tell them
to keep the chutes and we're not interested in them.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But, see, there's the fact that, at
the last meeting, someone -- and I don't remember who it was
97
I
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-- said the r_hutes are not for sale. Let's take the money we
had in the budget for chutes and use it for something else.
Because if you go back and look at the last list we had,
there was --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- $10,000 for chutes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. But, I mean -- but
that's a question I have, 'cause that --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think, you know, they
-- the comment was made, they don't want to sell the chutes.
But, the second part of that sentence was, we want to buy it
and we think we can handle that through a contract.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Well, that's the part
that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, the other part.
And, there is a -- I guess, from a -- I don't hear anyone
else on the Court saying anything; no one is interested in
doing a tax reduction if possible. So, if I'm the only one,
it's not going to go anywhere with that, anyway. I just
think I would rather give some of the funds back rather than,
you know, do everything on the wish list.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We haven't done everything
on the wish list.
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: There's $375,000 of things that
i
were requested that are not funded in the far right column.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Philosophically, let me make
a statement. I think that -- I think that what we're looking
at here is what level of comfort on conservatism and planning'
do you want to -- do you want to incorporate in our budget
i
process? For example, we have -- we see projected revenues
that look very good, because the economy's strong, tax base
is broadened, or at least increased in value. But, I -- I ~
know the interest rates went up a tick last -- or this month.
They may go up a tick next month.
i
My question is that there probably is a day of reckoning.;
i
and, boom. And, I don't mind some conservatism. I would ~
rather end up with money in the bank at the end of the year
that we give back, with the understanding that we -- we
really can identify funds that we may not have to have to run
the county. So, I -- to me, it's just a level of comfort on
conservatism. And, I don't think that, with the reserves
we're projecting right now and with the funding that we've
done, that we have funded anything that shouldn't be funded,
and we haven't projected too big a -- a balance at the end of
the year. And, so, to me, it's -- this is a conservative
approach. I like it.
I would rather do that and then, when we know we've got
enough money -- and I don't know what that is -- to lower tax
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rates, then we do it at that point. But, I don't think now
is the time to Lower tax rates. I would rather have a
surplus in the funds that we can make that judgment on later.
That's just a philosophical point of view, by the way, and if
somebody can convince me otherwise, I always -- like I say,
I'd like to see my taxes go down too, but I don't think this
is the time to do it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think you ever reach
that -- you ever reach that comfort level, because you don't ~
know that, you know, whether it's three months' operating
funds that we're -- I've sat at this table and argued for 30
days over whether it should be four months or five months of
operating funds. So, you don't -- you know, that's just III
something that Tommy's landed on, and so I don't think you
ever reach that comfort level of, "Gosh, we can give back to I'
the community." But, you know, at some point -- I agree with
Commissioner Letz, at some point in all of this -- I mean,
things are pretty doggone nice, and we're taking pretty good
care of our -- our employees, and things are going well in
Kerr County, and -- and it would -- it would be nice to give
something back to the community. I don't know if it's now or
next year, though, either. I don't know when that time is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's never easy, never a good
time to do it. I recognize that, but I think that just --
you know, we're doing a lot. And, I'm not talking about a
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
huge decrease; I just think it's a small -- I mean, you know,
half a cent, a cent, something, like, in that area, you know.
I think we have the money. And, that's just, you know, my
feelings.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't think anyone would argue
with the concept of reducing taxes, and I'm optimistic we can
do that in a year or two, because we are able to fund a
substantial amount of services and improvements this year
without a tax increase. And, as we look forward, some of
those requirements will not be with us going forward for next
year. The overrun on the annex is going to be, hopefully, a
one-year shot, which will free up right at a quarter million
dollars for tax relief on other government services. But, I
think the bottom line is that we're charged with funding
county government, and I don't think the level that this
budget proposes is, in any way, shape, or form, extravagant.
I'm sure I could go around the the room and ask people, and
they'd find it a little bit underfunded, but that's probably
the proper creative tension between us and our other elected
officials and department heads. And, I think everyone has
done a good job and come to a position of -- of a budget that
I think we can all represent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I do have a specific
question, if you don't mind. It may be for one of these
police officers back there that are radio nuts --
51
1
2 I
3
4
51
61
7 I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 ~'
P
19
20 ,
21
22 I
23
24
25
radio-minded people, excuse me. The way -- and the way I see
it, are we putting $200,000 in the budget to start the
upgrade on the S.O.'s radio system?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We're actually putting in $150,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 150, three times?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's kind of what we looking at.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kind of what we're planning,
putting $150,000 a year.
JUDGE HENNEKE: This is my number, and it's based
on the fact that I believe $150,000 will fund what we have
for this year. And, by the time we're done with that
exercise, we'll know exactly what we need in future years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have any problem
with the number. I understand it's probably -- could
possibly be even more than that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What I'm wondering is, what
-- do y'all know what we're going to get with our money? Are
we going to be able to communicate statewide? Will we be
able to communicate with fire departments? Does anybody --
Charlie, do you or anybody know?
DETECTIVE HICKS: I believe we -- if we go with
Project 25, we'll have that capability.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Capability of what?
DETECTIVE HICKS: To talk to fire departments. And
52
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
D.P.S., which is, in my mind, the biggest thing, because
they're a State agency.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And this $150,000 that we're
putting in this year to head toward that, I mean, we're
talking about Project 25, are we not?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we specifically moving
in that --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes this is the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is the real solution to
the problem. And it's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Until next time.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, but it's a 3-year --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I understand.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's a 3-year deal.
JUDGE HENNEKE: There's a rider in the current
appropriations bill in the State which my recommendation is
going to be that we follow, which says that all equipment
purchased must be compatible with the standards which Project
25 is putting forward. And, I think it would be foolish for
us to do anything different than that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I'm -- yeah, I agree 100
percent.
MR. ODOM: Does that include us, too? We have to
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be compatible?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good question.
MR. ODOM: We're low frequency, they're high
frequency.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We're going to work towards
everyone being, at least to a certain degree, able to
communicate back and forth. We -- you know, the guy out on
your truck out on the road may not need to be able to talk to j
the Sheriff's Department, but you guys certainly do at a
supervisory level.
MR. ODOM: I need to talk to the S.O., anyway.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, that's part of the global ~
perspective, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two more specific comments.
One, it's listed under the Maintenance Department clerk, a
salary of $21,500. I was looking through that. That seems
really high for a clerk.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's everything.
MS. NEMEG: That's a 12-1. It's 12-1, $16,757.
JUDGE HENNEKE: With alI the benefits.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's all the benefits and
the FICA and --
JUDGE HENNEKE: And if that's high, then it will be
adjusted, but that's what was represented.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's in there as actual cost.
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.0
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That's the way it's in the budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, it's not just
salary. Another question. The signs are under Special
Projects in Road and Bridge?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's just one I think we need
to really hold off on. We need to put it in the budget right
now, but remember, until after our Wednesday meeting, I still
have a real question whether that's, to me, the best way to
go, is changing all the names in the county of every county
road. If we don't change every county road name, we won't
need that money there.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I still haven't understood why
we need to do that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We have discussed -- or I've
discussed with Mr. Odom and with 911 the possibility that
next year, the only signage changes we might have to address
are the duplicate names. That would be a relatively small
number.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I~
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Of signs. We probably would
want to do that even if there wasn't a 911 program.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And so that may be the only
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hit for next year, but I think we need to leave this money in
the budget for now. We can always, you know, not do that and
spend a lot less money or maybe none of that particular pot,
and I think we need to talk with 911. And, I'm still hoping
that somewhere, somebody remembers that in this courtroom,
more than one year ago, that somebody said that 911 was going
to pay at least part of the signage cost. And, I haven't had
time to go ask all the right questions yet on who said that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner, I can remember
that, if it's necessary. I have a great memory.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We may need a little firmer
reference than that. But, anyway --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, I think the comment's a
good one, and maybe we'll get some clarification Wednesday
night on this. But -- but, I think we will probably do less
rather than more signage for next year's budget.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: I'd like to say one thing about --
about fund balance, and it's something that sometimes is
overlooked. We have -- there's people in the private sector
that have purchased Kerr County debt based on -- based on a
strong balance sheet and our ability to collect taxes, and I
-- I think it's -- and because of our strength and the
reserves, we got -- we always get a favorable rate.
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
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Excellent point.
MR. TOMLINSON: And, I think that it's our -- this
Court's duty to maintain that balance sheet for that reason.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that. I -- my
comments were if we can look at the -- the purchasing that we
have built into the budget and find a way to cut some of that
out and give a tax decrease, I'd be in favor of it. But,
evidently, you know, there's not much interest in going
through the budget again, so we won't do that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I have just a couple specific
items, Tommy. On the County Judge budget, 105, we have a
State supplement of $15,000. That's $10,000. And, I find
the $2,500 for Lions Park out in Center Point included in --
under County-sponsored activities, Line 427, and also in
Parks, under 487.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do you have a page reference
on that?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Page 58 and 104. I want to make
sure that it's clear that that's only one $2,500.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's in there twice?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, it's in there twice. And, the
other thing is, I'm sure it's in here, but I didn't find it
in my review. I wanted to make sure that we had the six
lease cars for the Sheriff's Department. I'm not sure where
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that would be.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, they are.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good. I just didn't find them. I
know it's in here.
MR. TOMLINSON: They are.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Those are the specifics that I had
in my review of the numbers, compared to the numbers that
were from earlier.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What should that number be
under, the Lions Park?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Should be under Parks.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, that's what it sounds
like, it should be under Parks.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know why I got it in two
places, but --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Take it out of the County-sponsored)
and put it in Parks would be my -- my belief.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, Parks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the elected officials'
salary, do I have that sheet in here?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, there's -- I didn't -- I didn't
include that. It shows what -- what each elected official's
salary is in the schedule, but it doesn't show what the
increase is.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It is reflected in the numbers.
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in the numbers.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's in the numbers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question goes back to -- I
hate to pick on the Judge, but it's the Judge's salary a
little bit. I understand -- and I think part of this is
trying to reconcile that the State is now paying a good
portion -- or $10,000 -- not a good portion, but $10,000 of
your salary, and that we should really look at that, whether
to adjust his salary from the County or not. You know, to
me, you should. And, I'm lust -- you know. I think that
your salary is approaching $50,000 when you include that
supplement on top of the County salary, which is -- is fine
as a total salary, but I don't know why we should isolate the
two. I think we should look at your salary combined, since '~
that's how you get paid.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't have a problem with that.
I'm not trying to hide at all.
MS. NEMEC: It says it on the position schedule.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. If the policy increases
it under the feeling that the Judge needs to be the highest
paid of the elected officials, for the most part --
JUDGE HENNEKE: With several exceptions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, yeah. But, I mean, the
County Attorney's an exception, because he also has a State
supplement; his salary is pretty much dictated a lot by the
59
1 I State.
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 HENNEKE: And County Court at Law.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, right. Anyway, I just --
you know, just wanted to make sure that you want to be paid
that much. I mean, it's a large increase, the two of them
combined, in my mind.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's true. As the Judge --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's still probably a
significant percentage below like jobs and responsibilities
in the private sector and other areas of government.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What this --
MR. TOMLINSON: It's likely that could be said of
every elected official in the county.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that's true.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's why we plan to take a good
top-down look at that in the coming year. I'm glad Judge
Sagebiel did it first. He caught more of the heat than we
will.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have one more
comment. We have a distinguished gentleman in our audience,
Dr. Morgan, former County Commissioner in Precinct 1. And, I
remember, years ago, Dr. Morgan and I were working on the
library budget together, and we tried in our minds and worked
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
and worked and worked, tried to figure out a way to put a cap
on the County's share. And, at that time the County's share
was $190,000, if I remember correctly. And, we worked and
worked to try to put a cap on it. Commissioner, it has gone
to $354,000 in that short period of time. So, you have a
nice time out there, and if you can figure out how to cap
this thing, please come back. That's all.
MS. PIEPER: Judge, when y'all approve the budget,
the Court needs to set a fixed price in case some -- the
public wants to purchase a copy of it from our office.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What's been our history of that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $1,200.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that a motion, Commissioner
Baldwin?
MS. PIEPER: I don't know about the fixed price.
I'm supposed to charge a dollar per page, and when it's this
thick and I say that to somebody, they're going to faint.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What have we done before, $25 or
$10, or -- do you recall, Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't recall.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anybody recall?
MS. PIEPER: Five.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Five or ten.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'd say $10.
(Discussion off the record.)
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. PIEPER: But, it would be best if y'all set a
fixed price on the book, and then maybe a price per page in
case somebody wanted to come in and get just a couple of
pages.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that would be good.
JUDGE HENNEKE: $10 for the whole thing, and $1 a
page for anyone who wants just a few pages.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. I think we're at the stage
-- Mr. Motley?
MR. MOTLEY: Yeah. Is this open -- I guess this
meeting is preparatory to another meeting where we're going
to talk about different requested items and different
department budgets? Or -- I mean, is there going to be
another meeting?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, this is it.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, are the revenue figures that we
were awaiting, are they in? Do we know what the figures are,
the official figures?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I'm not real sure where I stand
in my particular department about my requests. I don't know
that I know.
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the Court did not see --
chose not to fund the additional position, if that's what
you're asking for or asking about.
MR. MOTLEY: And is there an opportunity to discuss
that at this point? Or --
JUDGE HENNEKE: We can discuss that at this point.
Or we have -- have to actually, formally adopt the budget,
which we'll do September 13th, and at that time, according to
Tommy, we can amend our approval, our budget as approved, if
we need to. But, this is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is the time.
JUDGE HENNEKE: This is the time.
MR. MOTLEY: I really, I guess, repeat what I've
already said to the Court about, you know, my perceived need
for the position in our office. And, I know we've made it a
-- if not annual, a nearly annual request, every year, every
budget hearing. I mean, and we are experiencing very
substantial increases in case load or types of cases heard.
And, as I said, it was, I believe, a 79 percent increase
total in the things we do since 19 -- well, over the last
seven fiscal years. And, it was at some point during, I
believe, December of '95, we lost, you know, a third of our
attorney staff.
And, this year, with the regular session of Legislature,
there are many new responsibilities that are being placed on
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
our office, and there are new responsibilities placed on the
office outside of this legislative action, but a number of
new offenses. We are now, by law, required to do civil
representation of the U.G.R.A. and their civil enforcement
actions, as well as there's a requirement under Open Records
for us to have civil responsibility on cases.
There is -- as I've said, the increases overall are, you
know, somewhere around 9 and 10 percent a year, if you
average them out. I don't see any changes in that; we're
growing about 9 percent per year. And, this is an item that
I have come to the Court perennially about, and I really feel
like the need for another assistant is there in our office.
And, I -- maybe the way to approach it might be to ask of the
Commissioners if they have any questions of me, or something
about -- perhaps you have a doubt about the need for it, and
I can answer those questions, because -- well, it's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: David, I've always felt like
that if -- if your office -- and I've said this to you and
I've said this in open court. If your office handled, like,
-- hold on, I got a cramp, sorry -- handled the civil work
that we create, man, I'm all in favor of you having another
person there. I just -- and, to be honest with you, I simply
-- I mean, nobody here -- well, Fred might understand what
y'all do, but, I mean, how in the world are we supposed to
know what do you? There's no way we can know what you do.
69
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
But, I do know that -- I know that we pay out a lot of money
to another attorney to handle all of our civil work, and I
think, personally, that you're the office that needs to be --
want to be doing that.
MR. MOTLEY: We really had no -- we really had no
part in the decision --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. I'm not --
MR. MOTLEY: -- to handle it the other way.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We're not throwing rocks, anyway.
MR. MOTLEY: No, I'm just telling you that that was
not part -- that's where we lost that third attorney, but we
didn't have any part in that. No real consulting about it.
Just that's the way it was going to be done. And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't know about it;
I wasn't here on that, either.
MR. MOTLEY: But, let me explain that. I think
that the position is merited by workload, regardless of
whether that work is done. In that position, the workload,
as I estimated in the Commissioners Court, is not a full-time
position amount of work. So, I mean I think it's there. The
last time we had somebody doing work, they spent about a
third to 90 percent of their time on Commissioners Court
work, and so that left us 60 percent more of an attorney to
do other general things. And, when we lost the whole
attorney and the money for the whole attorney, we lost more
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-- we didn't just lose the civil representation that the
Commissioners Court Lost; we lost the rest of that attorney
and the other duties that they fulfilled in our office. And,
it's been a hard hit for us to absorb.
And, I just don't see anything other than more increases
in work and such on the horizon. There are 31 new
misdemeanors this year that we will now have. There are a
lot of -- you know, I guess you'd kind of call them -- well,
I don't know what to call them, other than they're just more
responsibilities. The Child Protective people -- most
counties in the state are represented by either a County
Attorney or a District Attorney. We are one of few areas
where they do not do that. Well, they are seeking at this
time to bring us into sort of compliance with the other areas
and get us to be doing the child termination cases. These
are not like D.W.I. things; these are high-level litigation,
thick files, a lot of work, a lot of time spent doing them.
That's not yet come to pass, but I'm just saying that it's --
it's on the horizon.
And, if we try to plan our expenditures and do the
3-year plan, and we know our postage is going up .22 a stamp
and all that stuff, I don't see why it is that we can't look
at the increase that we have seen in case load and workload
in our office and try to respond to it, because we have --
we've gone down 33 percent in our attorney representation and
66
1
2
3
4
5 ~~
6 I'
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
our workload or our ability to work in our office, while the
work and the type of work and the variety of work is
increasing very regularly. And, there comes a point where I
-- you know, I don't know exactly what we're going to do
about it.
This year, the Legislature has mandated that we appear
in each and every session of justice court. We have tried to
do that in the past. We did regularly do it when we had a
third attorney, and we tried to do it on an as-needed basis
when we lost that attorney. Now we're going to be required
to be in a courtroom whenever they have court. As a matter
of fact, it is illegal for a J.P. to conduct a case on their
own without an attorney there. So, that's another change in
law, and somebody's going to have to be there. And, for us
to not consider that and not respond to it, to me, is not
being -- I don't know, I don't think we're being realistic as
far as what we're being asked to do with what we have at this
point.
And, I really feel like there is meritorious argument
for the third attorney at this time. I feel like I have
asked for it, as I said, in the past, you know, virtually
every year. I have copies of my old memos and things like
that, and I've asked for it, and it's -- we had a third
attorney since 1988. We had one for six years and then lost
that position in '95, and the workload has done nothing but
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
increase. If there's any among you that have any question or
can, you know, ask something of me that might clear up
something in your mind that's holding you back from this
specific expenditure, rather than just a general desire to
keep the budget down -- and I understand that, but if there's
something specific about this that is lacking in your
information, if you ask me, I will be, you know, happy to try
to answer you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: David, would you take all
the Commissioners Court civil work and -- and answer opinion
-- give us opinions and all?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, you know, that's part of what I ~
do anyway.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, some, but not the
civil stuff.
MR. MOTLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just -- I'm going to say it
again. If your office was willing to do that, I'm in favor
of it. That's all I'm saying. We've had this conversation,
and you --
MR. MOTLEY: We've done this --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- you really haven't
answered that.
MR. MOTLEY: We've done it in the past. We've done
it in the past.
68
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know you have in the past.
MR. MOTLEY: Although, on the civil work, our
office technically would be able to charge extra fees for
doing the work, we've never charged any money. We've never
lost any case. We've never had anything but a good result,
and you can check that if you want to. We've -- you know, we
haven't had any bad results. I'm not sitting here telling
you that in high-level, complex litigation or something
that's specialized, that we don't recommend outside counsel,
because we obviously do if we're not able to do anything that
might come along. But, for most routine legal work -- and we
have handled it in the past and, I think, really did a good
job.
As far as the opinions that we've rendered to the
elected officials and department heads, that's required by
the Constitution, and I believe we've endeavored to do that,
and as -- you know, as quickly as we can. But, part of our
problem, again, is that they may not be as timely as the
Commissioners Court would like to receive them, but it's --
often there are other things that are just more pressing than
-- than that at the moment; we just have other things we have
to do. So, that's a factor in having somewhat of a delayed
response on those items that we are doing and have continued
to do.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: David, when does that new
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mandate for covering the justice courts go into effect? Is
that September lst?
MR. MOTLEY: Tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: September the 1st?
MR. MOTLEY: Yeah, tomorrow. And, I also want to
mention one other thing that I think might be an important
factor, at least for this year. The individual that I'm
considering for the position is somebody who is not currently
licensed, will not receive a law license until probably April
or May, meaning that the figures that I've estimated for that
whole package would be 50 percent reduced because that person
would not be drawing that sort of salary unless and until
they become licensed. So, although it appears on the budget
as, I don't know, $45,000 or $93,000, whatever it is, in
actuality for this '99-2000 fiscal year, it would be
approximately half that.
And, again, I don't know if that makes -- of course,
that also begs the question, what would it be in 2000-2001?
You'd be asking for that -- we'd be asking for that full
deal. But, as far as this year, it's approximately half
that, about -- I put a pencil to it here a minute ago --
about $21,000 and something. So, it -- I don't know that
that's anything that could possibly make a difference, but I
really feel that this is something that we need and have
needed. I'm an active member of the District and County
70
1
2'
3
i
9'
5i
6
7'
8
9
~:
10
11
12 ~I
13 11
14
15
16
17
18 !.
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Attorney's Association, and I look at other offices of my
size and smaller. And, staff-wise, I think the case load all
the way around merits it. So, I -- again, I would -- I think
if we cut that line item to about $21,612.50, assuming that
the FICA and retirement are, you know, uniform and will be
consistent if this salary were half a year.
But, anyway, I do -- I would like to answer questions,
or if you have concerns about it, as I said, specifically
related to this and not to an overall desire to keep the
budget in line -- I share that with you. But, as far as this
particular deal, if you have questions, I'd like to answer
them to you -- or for you, because it sounds like I think
this is going to be my last opportunity to do this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, I guess I'll go back to
Buster's -- I'm not sure I heard an answer. If you got
another person, would you be willing to take on all the
Commissioners Court civil work that's currently going to Tom
Pollard?
MR. MOTLEY: You know, let me -- yeah, but let me
answer it this way. We did it before. We did it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know you did it before, but
I'm already -- I don't know whatever happened on another
court before I was around, and then you didn't do it.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, let me explain. We did -- y'al]
didn't quit having us do the work because we quit doing it.
71
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We quit doing the work because y'all decided -- some of you,
the predecessor court, decided somebody else could do it and
thought there would be a savings.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We're not concerned with what
happened four years ago.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I'm trying --
JUDGE HENNEKE: The question that's been put
directly is, if you got the third position, would you take
over all the work that's now going to Tom Pollard? And, to
my knowledge, you've never answered that question.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I said yes just a moment ago.
Yes, I have no problem with that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
MR. MOTLEY: And, I don't -- I don't understand why
there's any mystery about it, because we did 100 percent of
it before.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that was before, David, and
the question has been asked of you several times.
MR. MOTLEY: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And, until 45 seconds ago, we've
never -- I have never heard a yes or a no.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, there has not been much in the
way of discussion about this possibility, about us doing the
work. My assumption is that the Court's happy with the
arrangement they have. I'm not trying to beat somebody out
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of_ their work or whatever it is they're doing. I want the
Court to be pleased. What I was trying to say was that,
regardless of whether we did this civil work for the
Commissioners Court, we have a gaping hole in our ability to
do the work that we are doing. We will do the work and we ~'
have no problem doing the work. We had no problem doing it
before. And, I tell you, if you'll check, I think you'll see
what I'm saying is correct. The cases were handled well.
There was no -- I don't think anybody can come up with any
case that we ever handled, and charged zero fee for, where
the County was not successful in their position. That's all
I'm saying. So, yes, we're going to do it, but I'm telling
you that I feel the need is there, regardless of whether the
Commissioners Court chooses to continue with the arrangement
they have with their outside counsel.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- I mean, I was
looking to see if what we currently have budgeted -- I think
it's $25,000 for professional services, and that pretty much
is Tom Pollard, is it not?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, for the most part.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have any other things
to come out of that item. You know, I don't have -- I don't
know why the arrangement ended up the way it is. I do know
in the past few years we've had a tremendous amount of civil
litigation, and it probably worked very well to have outside
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
help, because I don't think the County Attorney's office
could have handled the amount of detailed work that we were
doing for -- because of the major lawsuits we had pending.
But, I have no objection of -- as long as there's an
assurance that we get timely responses from the County
Attorney of what Commissioner Baldwin suggested, of switching
our civil work to the County Attorney's office again and
providing an attorney for that. The dollars -- there's a
switch there, really, of -- you know, and if that person,
then, when there was some -- you know, I guess he could
certainly be used by the County Attorney for any purpose he
needs, as long as we get our requirements fulfilled timely;
that's my only concern. Doesn't make any difference to me
whether we have a contract out or use the County Attorney's
office to get that done.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we have to understand that
this essential switch you're talking about from one budget to
the other would be for this year only, and after that it
would go up. Once the gentleman was licensed, his salary
would have to go up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think this -- you know,
I'm -- I was not aware of this mandate from the Legislature
about covering justice courts, the County Attorneys
presence. And that, to me, seems to be a significant driver
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
at times, because you've got to -- the justice courts have to
meet, and covering four justice courts with -- well, you can
probably do it with three people easy enough if you had to.
Covering the four justice courts in three different places,
it seems to me there's a good chance that two is -- is a
little slim.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, let me ask, is it your intent
that none of your attorneys in your office have any outside
practice?
MR. MOTLEY: Can you repeat that, please?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Would it be your intent that none
of the attorneys in your office would have any outside
practice, then?
MR. MOTLEY: No, not necessarily, it wouldn't. I
would not want them to have an outside practice that
interfered with the time requirements it took to do their
job, and I would not want them to have an outside practice
which interfered ethically with any aspect of their job.
But, if -- maybe what you're asking is what sort of outside
practice is there now, and I can say there's just practically
none. My understanding is there's no -- nothing in the
Personnel Policy that would prohibit it, but the lawyers
would have to live up to what ethical -- live up to whatever
ethical standards there are, as far as creating a conflict of
interest, which is one of the prohibiting factors for
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
somebody having an outside practice.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I understand that, but one of
the things I would want to have assurance on is that the
extra attorney would not be -- not necessarily structured,
but one effect of the extra attorney would not be to free up
MR. MOTLEY: No.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- either the existing attorneys or
the new attorney to increase or -- or have a private practice
which would impact on the time --
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I appreciate that
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- of the County.
MR. MOTLEY: I'm sure I share that concern.
JUDGE HENNEKE: To me, someone who takes the job as
an attorney -- full-time attorney with the County needs to
give the County the first crack at their services repeatedly,
constantly. And, I say that as one who's in the practice of
winding down and doing away with my private practice, because
its time demand is such that -- the competition is such that
you cannot maintain an outside practice and give the County's
work the attention that it deserves.
MR. MOTLEY: I'll tell you that there's never been
a problem allocating all the time the County had. Me
personally, I've been in this position for 10 years and I
have had no outside practice. I've drafted wills for family
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
members and I've drafted a single legal document for somebody
and didn't even charge them for it, so that's the sum total
of what I've done outside of the court -- outside of my
office in 10 years. When you say "outside practice," I'm
talking about -- you might be referring to, as you're saying,
you have a regular place where you're going and trying to
wind down practice and such as that. Outside practice, in
our situation, might be assisting on a case here and there.
But, I --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, but assisting on a case here
and there, I mean, you can't assist on a case and not be
available to do one of the dockets.
MR. MOTLEY: No, absolutely not. Absolutely not.
And, I don't think there's anything like that that has
happened. That would be contrary to my wishes in the office,
as well. We're not having problems that I'm concerned about
with people devoting adequate and full time to the County;
that's not a problem. The problem is sort of on the other
end of the deal, is that people are putting in overtime and
weekend time and nighttime and late time to try and get by
with the duties that we have now.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What's the wish of the Court?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think with the -- with the
understanding that the civil work comes back under the
County's direct responsibility in the County Attorney's
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
office is enough to convince me that we ought to go ahead and
add another -- the other attorney at the budget numbers we
just discussed for this year, with the understanding that it
will go up the following year. But, you know, we'll have to
review that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, is it your suggestion --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We do that in every
department every year, anyway.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is it your suggestion we offset
what we have in Professional Services?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We have to be careful with that,
because we have an ongoing lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Which we don't know where we're
going with that one at this point.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
MR. MOTLEY: Let me also mention, again, that as
far as this third attorney, prospectively, as far as us
assuming control of this department or whatever there -- this
litigation or whatever it is you're talking about in
Commissioners Court work --
JUDGE HENNEKE: We would not switch you.
MR. MOTLEY: No, what I'm saying is that we're not II'
in a position to be running with three attorneys until this
7a
1
Z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
other individual receives confirmation of a successful Bar
Exam and is sworn in. He is functioning --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Then you're not really talking
about anyone until next June.
MR. MOTLEY: My understanding is that --
JUDGE HENNEKE: When does he take it? Will he take
the February Bar?
MR. MOTLEY: He will expect results --
JUDGE HENNEKE: When will he take the Bar?
MR. MOTLEY: The first one after he graduates in
December.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, he'll take the February Bar,
which means he'll be licensed in May.
MR. MOTLEY: That's what I was saying, about April
or May is my estimate, so about a half a year.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, June is when he'll be --
MR. MOTLEY: That may be.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- be licensed. I took the
February Bar.
MR. MOTLEY: That's just -- it's just my -- and
this was just my guess; I'm saying approximately a half year.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Third of the year. June, July,
August, September. We're talking about a third of the year.
MR. MOTLEY: Okay. Well, if that's when it
happens, that would be a third. Anyway, I will tell you that
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I just feel like the need is there.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What if we did this, Judge?
What if we -- can we -- can we fund that one-third or
whatever it turns out to be in the budget for this year,
leave the -- leave the outside coverage just as it is, and
with the understanding that that's -- that the following
year, the outside coverage would be covered, and we would
hope that it would be settled by then. We'd have to look at
that, of course, but my -- my thinking would be that the
following year, then, there would be no outside coverage and
that we would expect the County Attorney's office to handle
all of our -- our legal work.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, you're talking about adding
$14,000 to the County Attorney's budget for this year, which
is approximately a third of what he requested?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: On a full-year basis.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Can we handle that --
JUDGE HENNEKE: With the understanding that all the
Court's civil work would come in in the following budget
year.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And that anything further would
have to be -- understanding that if anything significant came
in in the interim, then it would go to the County Attorney,
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a!
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
ZO
21
22
23
24
25 I
because we don't want to get in a position again where we've
got someone outside working on something significant and we
can't switch.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's close. I'm concerned
about having enough money to -- in case something else
happened, to go outside.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we've got --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But we're not changing that
for --
JUDGE HENNEKE: In the coming year, we're okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. We're not
lowering it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, we probably -- that
particular lawsuit, I understand, we need to make kind of
some decisions on that, anyway.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We're going to have that on the
agenda. I'm going to look at how long the agenda is for the
13th, and if we don't mind staying --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're probably going to know
from that kind of where we are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Yeah, cool.
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But any new litigation that's
started would go to the County Attorney this year?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This coming year.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Because we don't want to be in a
transition.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. MOTLEY: I think we can accommodate that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You think we can, David? We
need to know.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think what I might suggest
we do is -- I mean, if it's the decision of the Court to go ~~
ahead and add that 514,000 to the County Attorney's budget,
but ask the County Attorney to give us a written -- perhaps a
written plan by the 13th?
MR. MOTLEY: Written plan by what day? I'm sorry.
JUDGE HENNEKE: September 13th.
MR. MOTLEY: And when you say "written plan,"
you're talking about how things will be shifted from --
JUDGE HENNEKE: We want the benefit of your
thoughts on how, basically, you're going to take over the
civil work in the -- not necessarily to the extent you can inl
I
the coming year, but certainly in the following fiscal year, !,
when you have this individual full-time, that all the civil
work will be handled. So, with that, we should have no II
i
outside legal expenses except for extraordinary events, such
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
as a major lawsuit, which we need to go outside for. I'd
like to have some --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would say --
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- assurances there as to
responsiveness and timeframe, because it's going to involve
contract reviews. I mean, right now, when the construction
contract came in -- well, that was actually for Recor, but
when the construction contract -- when the contract came for
in for Leonard's Caterpillar, it required approval by the
County's attorney, which is something we sent to Mr. Pollard
to do because it was a civil matter. We need to know we're
going to have a responsiveness level to that. And I'm not
saying you wouldn't do it, but I'm lust saying I want you to
think about it, because that's one of the additions.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: David, if I might interject,
I think what we're talking about is -- because I think it
would help all of us on the Court, too, particularly those of
us who are not in the legal profession, just to sort of have
an idea of what I would call your "work plan." In other
words, how you would break up amongst the staff who does
what, how you cover it, or extraordinary things, if something
pops up. I don't even know what those might be, a hearing at
the hospital or something. Just sort of how do you -- it's a
general work plan, because I don't understand -- I can
intuitively understand some functions of the County
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
government, but when I get to the legal side, it's a little
out of my expertise. So, I'm just saying --
MR. MOTLEY: Sure, that would be fine.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Who, what, when, and how
you're going to transition that over the next couple of
years.
MR. MOTLEY: I think we can do that.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, we'll come back at
11 o'clock. Kathy needs a break, so we'll take a break.
{Recess taken from 10:50 to 11:00 A.M.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Court will now resume session.
It's 11 o'clock on Monday, August 30th. When we adjourned, I
believe Mr. Odom had his hand up. I don't know if that was
to ask for a recess or --
MR. ODOM: That was one of them. I talked to -- I
thought Commissioner Griffin was going to beat me, but I -- I
think part of the questions I really had were answered while
we were on break there, and part of them had to do with
Capital Outlays and the timing of this. Can I assume that I
would go with Capital Outlays at this point just like I
regularly have without this Purchasing Agent situation?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
MR. ODOM: Because part of this -- I need to make
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
the orders, acid I've got 30 days. I need to put this order
in for those trucks and use -- and we'll go by State
purchasing, so that's the best bid we can get. Same thing
Austin gets.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That takes us out of competitive
bidding requirement. I might ask you to check with Houston/
Galveston area government --
MR. ODOM: Pardon?
JUDGE HENNEKE: You might check with Houston/
Galveston area of governments, see what they can do. So, I
-- Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment. I mean,
wherever you get them the cheapest. I know Leonard usually
uses State purchasing and gets them amazingly cheap.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I suspect once we get the
purchasing process set up, that that one area, particularly
Capital Outlay, of equipment like you use probably won't
change much, 'cause that purchasing agent's going to go the
same people exactly.
MR. ODOM: Well, I do have some reservations, let's
say, not from the purchasing agent situation, but on our
daily operations and how we go about doing this, for
maintenance particularly, with the purchasing agent. So,
there are some questions I would like to be able to address
to the Court for your consideration.
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
MR. JOHNSTON: Parts.
MR. ODOM: Parts.
JUDGE HENNEKE: When we get to the point where
we're setting up the department, we'll have a full series of
meetings as to how it's going to work. I mean, what the
Purchasing Department does on something like that will
basically be to go out and -- and acquire the contract.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. Once the contract's
written, they don't interfere with your making buys and all
of that. It's just --
MR. ODOM: Sure. You're saying the percentage off
of that .
JUDGE HENNEKE: Oh, they will make the buys for
you. It's like we explained to the other elected officials
on their office supplies. The Purchasing Department's
responsible for making those buys under the contract that has
been signed, so they'll handle your department unless there's
unusual circumstances. And we're also -- we're around. So,
we're looking at putting it in place by this time next near
to try tc~ give us four, five, maybe six monthss to get all
the bugs worked out before it becomes effective.
MR. ODOM: And I'm sure there will be some things
we have to work out about the time. I don't show a profit; I
show it by time. And, delayed time, just for a little part
to get out, means that I've got man hours I've lost, so -- I
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
only have 3-man crews.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We understand.
MR. ODOM: Those are the things I wish you to
consider when we do talk about that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's going to take a lot of
effort --
MR. ODOM: I think it's a good concept.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- on this. And, Leonard asked
me, and I think I told him correctly. Everything on the
Capital Outlay, with the exception of this wish list stuff,
was approved, correct?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Was in the budget.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct. And you could be -- well,
that's good.
.-.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I recall.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Unless there is any further
discussion at this time, I think we're at a point where we
would entertain a motion to approve the budget, with the
additional $14,000 for the County Attorney and the $50,000
for quarterly insurance, set a price of $10 for the full
budget with the County Clerk's office, and $1 a page for
whoever wishes to purchase less than the full package.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the -- going back to the
87
1
Z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
County Attorney
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And the General Provisions
are included the that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And the General Provisions, Capital
Outlays, and the Employees' schedule.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going back to the County
Attorney and the civil attorney, do we need to keep the
$25,000 in Professional Services during this year, when some
of that work will go to the County Attorney, or can we reduce
-- offset part of that $14,000, maybe go down to, like,
$15,000 or $20,000 for Professional Services?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, typically, I would say yes,
we could and should. The problem is, we're in this lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And that $25,000 will get chewed up
in about a week if we ever had to actually go into high gear
on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And, so, if we want to do that, I'm
willing to do that, 'cause I don't think that's going to
happen, but we have to be prepared to find it from somewhere
else.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Prudence may be lust to leave it
where it is. We may know -- we may have a better idea about
88
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And hopefully we won't have
to spend it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd rather leave it there,
'cause we don't know what's going to happen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we'll know more on
the 13th, the decisions we make on the 13th.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll have an opportunity to make a
decision on that. Do I hear motion to that effect?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So move.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve the budget
as presented, with an additional $14,000 for the County
Attorney's office to hire a third attorney effective next
June, and an additional $50,000 for employee health benefits.
Motion includes approval of the General Provisions, the
Capital Outlay, and the Employee Pc~sitivn sched~~le, anc~ als~~
sets a price of $10 per copy for the full budget from the
County Clerk's office, or $1 a page for those individuals who
wish to purchase only selected pages.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that the motion?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that's what you seconded,
Buster.
89
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Lord God.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? I could
have charged somebody $50 for that if I was a private
attorney.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can make money out of
these motions.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If there's no further discussion,
all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.}
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carried. The only other
item we have on the budget is to extend the burn ban which is
currently in effect. I've placed that on the agenda so that
it will take us to our next regularly scheduled meeting; we
won't have to have a meeting in the interim to extend the
burn ban.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we extend the burn ban,
until September 13th. Any further discussion? If not, all
in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
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
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Unless we have any
further business to come before us, we stand adjourned.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Amen.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 11:10 a.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS I
COUNTY OF KERB I
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 8th day of September,
1999.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY : ' ~~~
Kathy a ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
ORDER H0. 25990
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED KERR COUNTY BUDGET
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 - 2000
On this the 30th day of August 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0, the Proposed
Kerr County Budget for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 as amended with
an additional 514,000.00 for the County Attorney's Office
to hire a third attorney effective next June, 2000 and
additional 550, 000.00 for Employee Health Benefits. The
motion included approval of the General Provisions, the
Capital Outlay, and the Employee Position Schedule and
also sets a price of 510.00 per copy for the full budget
from the County Clerk's Office and a 51.00 a page for those
individuals who wish to purchase only selected pages.
ORDER N0. 25991
APPROVAL TO EXTEND BURN BAN
On this the 30th day of August 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0, extending the burn
ban through September 13, 1999.