1 2 ~.-. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 a 25 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Special Session Tuesday, August 21, 2001 1:30 p.m. Commissioners' Courtroom Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4 LJ F~ V !mil 'Jo 2 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 N D E X August 21, 2001 PAGE 1 . 1 Report by Trott Engineering on proposals for ,~?~ ~ ~~ Radio Project, selection of preferred vendor, authorization for Trott Engineers to negotiate best and final price & negotiate contract with preferred vendor for approval by the Court 3 1.2 Consider retention of outside counsel to assist in negotiating contract with radio project vendor -- 1.3 Discuss issues relating to FY02 budget 16 1.9 Discuss schedule for adoption of FY02 budget 106 Adjourned 108 3 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 On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 1:30 p.m., a special meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S JUllGE HENNEKE: It's 1:30 p.m. in the afternoon of August 21st. We'll call to order this special session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. First item on the posted agenda is to consider and discuss report by Trott Communications on proposal for radio project, selection of preferred vendor, and authorization for Trott to negotiate, in conjunction with the Sheriff and the County Attorney, best final price and contract with the preferred vendor for approval by Commissioners Court. Mr. Lucas. MR. LUCAS: Commissioners, I would just -- is this on? I guess y'all can hear me. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. MR. LUCAS: How's that? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Try it again. MR. LUCAS: There we go, we're on. Commissioners, I'd just like to reiterate that it's the counsel from the County Attorney's office to not disclose the specific amounts that were bid from the vendors. We have authority under the Local Government Code, because we 1 ,-^ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .-. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 actually fall in what's called the Competitive Proposal Procedure, to have those prices remain secret. We're about to enter negotiations, and there's plenty of authority in the Local Government Code, case law, and A.G. opinions that JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any questions of Travis on that issue? We can discuss price as a factor in the deliberations without revealing the numbers; however, we are cautioned not to reveal the numbers until we have concluded the actual negotiations for the project. So, with that caution in mind, Sheriff, do you want to introduce your colleague there? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: George Weimer. Y'all have all met before and spoke with him. He's with Trott Communications. He has their analysis of the three proposals that we have received, and I'll let him give that to you first and answer any other questions. JUDGE HENNEKE: Welcome, George. MR. WEIMER: Howdy. I'm George Weimer with Trott Communications in Irving, Texas. We did get three proposals. The proposals generally followed the -- the guidelines of the Request for Proposal, RFP, that was issued by the County. And the evaluation -- we had actually five different evaluation criteria that were used, as stated in 5 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 the RFP, and that included the technical compliance, reliability of the system design, vendor references, acquisition maintenance and operational cost, and implementation schedule. As we went through the proposals and rated each vendor based on the -- the score, and that's on the -- the top of the second page, the vendors were rated according to those five criteria. And, as you can see, the -- the ratings of the three vendors, Dailey Wells had a score of 88 out of 100. Motorola, 79 out of 100, and, Tyco M/A-COM, 73 out of 100. That's basically the -- what we had scored according to the RFP. If you look on the last page, there's -- we did ask in the RFP for a five-year cost to operate the system, in addition to the purchase price, and those are the costs that were estimated by the three vendors, and that includes site leases and contract maintenance on the systems. So, basically, what we -- what we have is the option to -- to get best and final offers to take care of any inconsistencies with the RFP, and make sure that the County gets the system that it asked for. JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone have any questions -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question. JUDGE HENNEKE: -- for Mr. Weimer? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Weimer, I'm going to refer to the vendor proposal evaluation scoring -- 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WEIMER: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- chart that you prepared for us, and I'm going to refer to these as Column 1, Column 2, and Column 3. MR. WEIMER: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. From left to right. Tell me, if you will -- or tell the Court, if you will, the -- the differences in technical compliance as between Column 1 and Columns 2 and 3. MR. WEIMER: Columns 2 and 3 had essentially the same design. Column 1 had less sites, and there was less area covered by that -- that proposal. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. So, there would then, in fact, be a technical compliance deficiency? MR. WEIMER: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that a fair characterization? MR. WEIMER: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Let's follow through, if you don't mind, for just a minute. MR. WEIMER: All right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On Page, what would be 3 of your letter -- again, I'll refer to them as Columns 1, 2, and 3, left to right. Specifically, I'm referring -- I'm referring to tower lease, and the difference -- the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 zb differences in Columns 1 and 2 is significant. Can you explain that? MR. WEIMER: No, sir, I can't. That is a -- a cost estimate that was provided by the vendor based upon their design. If you -- if you have less sites, obviously, the lease should be less. The total difference, I can't -- I can't explain. What it is, the vendors, based on the site that they proposed, were to provide assurances from the site owner that the site lease would be available and to estimate what the cost would be. There could be some differences in construction costs, but they were not identified as such in the proposals. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I follow up that question, the same -- you know, Column 1, 2, and 3 that Commissioner Williams stated? You mentioned that Column 1 had a lower coverage which was, you know, caused -- or resulted in a lower compliance score. MR. WEIMER: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much of a lower coverage? What is the coverage of the courrty compared to -- between those two, or between Column 1 and Column 2? MR. WEIMER: The vendor stated that they complied with the required 95 percent coverage, but still it was in an area that -- that I feel is necessary for 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 coverage. And that's the type of issues that we can cover in the best and final offer, so I would not expect that deficiency to remain in the contract. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, all -- all three of the proposals met the 95 percent -- MR. WEIMER: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- criteria? MR. WEIMER: Yes. One was less than the others. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions of Mr. Weimer? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have one, now that I see it. Looking at it again, Judge, on the first chart on Page 2, Line Item Number 4, could you enlighten us a little bit about the scoring between Columns 1, 2, and 3 on Line Item Number 4? MR. WEIMER: Yes. What I did on -- on that particular item, we did a linear scale from the -- the lowest cost to the highest cost. That was done just on the -- on a linear sliding scale. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Weimer, on Page 3, the tower lease for five years, and then the maintenance, and it says four additional years. Is that additional to five years? 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WEIMER: The first year is covered under warranty, which is required to be included with the equipment cost. So, the -- the first year maintenance is basically free. It's included in the cost. So, we're talking about the cost of contract maintenance for years four -- two, three, and -- and four, in order to make it a complete five-year -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see what you're saying. MR. WEIMER: -- operational cost. So, I think it's important that you know what this is going to cost you over the -- the five years operations in the system. And, that's the way the RE'P required. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going back to the vendor references -- MR. WEIMER: Yes? COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we scored all three columns equally? MR. WEIMER: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They'd all done comparable types of work? Or -- MR. WEIMER: We required that -- that they have at least five references, all vendors have five references. We did -- we knew a lot of the systems that 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lb 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they referred to. The ones that we didn't, we did call the references, talked to them, and they all spoke very highly of -- of the vendor. I would not expect the vendor to put a bad reference in a proposal, but it happens occasionally. COMMISSIONER LETZ: In your opinion, I mean, from the -- all three vendors are equipped and able to provide the system? MR. WEIMER: Yes. I have worked with all three vendors before, and all three are more than capable of complying with -- with the requirements of the County. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: One quick question. When would -- how long will it take to get the best and finals out, the request for the best and final, do you think? MK. WEIMER: I'm thinking two to three weeks after the contract. We should, within -- probably by the end of next week, have the final dollar figure, but it may take another week or so to get the final contract negotiated. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. MR. WEIMER: I'm aware of the time crunch that you're in for budgetary purposes, and I think that we can meet that -- that requirement. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Sheriff, do you have anything you want to 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 add? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only thing that I would add is, after consulting and visiting with Trott, who we've hired to do the consulting and the engineering of it, and in going over the proposals myself and seeing what the system's comprised of, I think that Trott will admit all three proposals have some deficiencies, and that's why we need the best and final offer, the negotiating part of it. But, I would -- at this time, I would recommend that the Court consider authorizing us to go ahead and start best and final offer negotiations with Column 1 that's on your table from Trott. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we can reveal the name. I think that's part of the public record, so -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I thirrk -- yes. Dailey wells. JUDGE HENNEKE: So, it's your recommendation to the Court that the Court authorize negotiations for best and final and contract with Dailey Wells as the preferred vendor? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, at this time. JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a motion to that effect, or anyone have any questions of the Sheriff? Let's do it that way. MR. TOMLINSON: Rusty, I have a comment. In 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the negotiation, I would like to know whether or not the -- the future maintenance -- or if they have the opportunity to change the -- my experience with -- with maintenance contracts is that you can get a better deal when you try to negotiate the extended maintenance up front. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's included. JUDGE HENNEKE: Each of the proposals has -- MR. TOMLINSON: But does it say if it's -- if it's negotiable? JUDGE HENNEKE: We'd have to look at the specifics. I think that's a good point and one that we'll take into consideration when we're doing the best and final. MR. TOMLINSON: 'Cause I know -- I know that, historically, the maintenance agreements, that's where you can really get hurt, is -- is by having an open-ended agreement where they -- where the vendor can change that amount on a year-to-year. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we'll factor that into the discussions with Dailey Wells. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only last thing I may add, Your Honor, is that I understand from Trott the way this works is you can -- the Court could authorize negotiating with all three of the vendors for their best and final offer, or they can authorize starting with the one -- or with one of them and trying to negotiate that way and see 13 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 if we can beat the time frame limit you're on, and I understand that's the way that works; is that not right? MR. WEIMER: Yes. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And authorize trying to do it with one of them or all three of them. MR. WEIMER: Obviously, if we had to work with all three, it would take a lot more time to do it. You know, and we really don't know how long it would take for the vendor to get back with the answers, but if you're working with the -- the best-score vendor, then what that does is put them under as much pressure as everyone else to get things done on time. To answer the maintenance question, the maintenance cost for Years 2 through 5 were included in the proposal, so they -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Fixed price? MR. WEIMER: At a stated price. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Agreed-to price. MR. WEIMER: Yes. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Contract price. MR. WEIMER: So that price would be included in the contract for the -- at least for the first five years of the system. JUDGE HENNEKE: Gentlemen? Any further questions of Mr. Weimer or the Sheriff, or anyone else want to offer anything at this time? 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make the motion that we authorize best and final negotiations with Dailey Wells. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin -- Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court authorize Trott Communications and the Sheriff, as well as the County Attorney, to negotiate best and final and contract with Daily Wells Communications of San Antonio, Texas. Any further questions or comments? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question. In the unlikely event that we don't like the best and final number and the contract terms, we are still at liberty to consider other proposals; is that correct? JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that correct, Travis? MR. LUCAS: That's right. That's exactly right. The Local Government Code says that the actual award of the contract shall be made to the responsible offerer -- bidder -- whose proposal is determined to be the lowest evaluated offer resulting from negotiation. So, we could have several. MR. MOTLEY: But it's just authorized him to talk to one right now. We would have to come back to authorize the others later. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I understand that. Let's don't be locked in -- if we don't like the terms of 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 one we authorize negotiations with, we can then proceed to authorize negotiations with somebody else. That's the thrust of my question. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 't'hank you, George. We appreciate it. The second item on the agenda was placed on there by myself, because at the time I did the agenda I'd not had an opportunity to talk with Mr. Motley, the County Attorney, as to the availability of County Attorney resources to negotiate the contract. David has assured me that he will make available the necessary resources in order to get the contract done on a timely basis. I would prefer for the County Attorney's office to be involved rather than outside counsel, because they have the in-depth and everyday knowledge of the workings of county government, but the restrictions and unique situations that places us in. So, at this time, we do not need to take up the second item on the agenda. COMMISSIONER SALDWiN: I agree. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Now, down to the hard part. 16 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 left the courtroom.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Just lost a Commissioner when we got down to the hard part. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No comment. (Discussion off the record.) (Commissioner Letz returned to the courtroom.) JUDGE HENNEKE: The next item on the agenda is consider and discuss issues relating to next year's budget. I sent out a memo to each of the Commissioners -- an e-mail to each of the Commissioners dated Monday, the 13th of August, outlining the general situation with regard to the budget. Wearing my budget officer hat, what I'd like to propose that we do today is make some concrete decisions regarding funding issues, and then that we ask the Auditor to run a new budget with those -- having taken into consideration those decisions, and bring it back to the Commissioners Court for us to further deliberate on. That would have to be not later than next week. The issues that -- well, first let me back up and say that, in accordance with my memo, we reran the budget after our budget workshops and basically granted to each department head the additional increase in operating costs that they came forward and said were necessary. We're talking about supplies, telephone, et cetera. We also included in the revised budget the additional position for 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 the Tax Assessor/Collector's office in the voter requested. And, that's about as far as it went. It gave each of the department heads their capital item requests, except for scanning stations, for the most part. Did not authorize any additional personnel for the Sheriff's Department and did not authorize an additional clerk for the County Clerk's office. It did, however, restore the overtime budget for the County Clerk's office to what it currently is, which, as you may recall during the budget workshops, she indicated she would need that additional overtime if she did not get the additional position. So, that's kind of the summary of what's 13th. So, the funding decisions that we have to make today are many, but the ones that -- that principally come to mind are cost-of-living increase for the employees. I've suggested a 2 and a half percent cost-of-living adjustment, which would be approximately $110,000, based on the figures given to me by the Treasurer. Elected officials' salary increases, we have the latest information from the survey, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 which was updated again by Barbara Nemec. We need to make some decisions about where we go with that. I proposed a 5 percent increase for the department heads, because they were not included in the salary increases last year as a result of the Nash study. Then we have to fund the radio project, and, I think you all received a copy of the memo from Bob Henderson which outlined what the cost would be on Certificates of Obligation on a 7- and a 10-year payout. And, Tommy, do you remember what that number was? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here it is. MR. TOMLINSON: I think it was, like, $120,000. JUDGE HENNEKE: A hundred -- $118,000 the first couple years, and going up to $122,000 at the top of the scale; that's for a 10-year payout, I believe. And then, anything else. And, again, if you'll refer back to my memo of August 13th, Tommy is comfortable with a general revenue fund balance at the end of the next fiscal year of $4,500,000. He's projecting approximately $4,639,000. He's also projecting a fund balance at the end of next fiscal year in the Road and Bridge Department of $764,913, which is less than he's comfortable at. He's comfortable with a million dollars. So, what I've suggested to each of you in my memo is that we consider shifting $139,000 in fund balance from the General Fund to the to Road and Bridge, 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with the commitment that over the next year or two, we would bring that fund balance in Road and Bridge up to a million dollars. In other words, do it on a gradual basis. exceeds what's left over. You know, one of the suggestions I made, again, after consulting with Tommy, was we might consider reducing the Special Projects budget for Road and Bridge in order to make up some of the difference. We always have the alternative of dipping into the fund balance, but that's not a very palatable alternative, given where the economy's headed these days. I think it would be imprudent of us to look at the fund balance for much more than -- than adjustments to the Road and Bridge balance. And, the third alternative, which is something that is unpalatable at the least, would be to look at increasing the tax rate. I know none of us want to do that. In our earlier budget workshops, we all expressed a desire not to do that, but I think we also have to look at what is our responsibility to funding county government, and I think that a case could be made for a specified tax increase in the neighborhood of two hundred -- of two cents for law enforcement purposes to fund the radio project, including tower leases, and also provide, by my very rough calculations, another four positions at the Sheriff's 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 Department, which would be hopefully used for patrol Now, that's up to us, whether we want to do that or whether we want to -- to skimp by with what we have. The County has enjoyed the same tax rate for six consecutive budget years; we're in the sixth now. That's a pretty remarkable accomplishment, given what we've accomplished in that time. Previous Courts, as well as this Court, have been very diligent stewards of the County's -- of the taxpayers' money. No one could accuse us of wasting it or not properly managing the taxpayers' money. But, there may come a time -- and it may not be this year, may not be next year, and, you know, theoretically may be never, but there may come a time when we just have to recognize the fact that we can no longer fund the necessary government services at this tax rate. I mention the word with the greatest of reluctance. I hesitate to say what the editorials are going to read tomorrow, but it's necessary that we consider everything. You know, when I was doing mediation, we had to consider everything, which included doing nothing. You know, one of the alternatives may be so unpalatable that you just immediately throw it out, but if you don't lay all the alternatives on the table, you don't ever get to the proper solution, and so that's -- wearing my budget officer's hat, 21 1 2 3 ~ 4 ~ 5 ~ 6 7 8 9 I ~ 10 11 12 .- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ..-. 25 that's where I see the situation is now. And, I think at this time, I'm going to sit back and throw it open to general discussion and see if anyone has any thoughts before we kind of go down the specific items that we need to make decisions on today so we can move this budget towards completion. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I think that -- thank you for your comments, and thank you for laying it all out on the table, and I also think it's important that we do that to reach a good decision. But, I think that before we get into the tax increases and those kinds of things, it's my opinion that we would go back through the budget and possibly take out some of the things that are -- may be a little fluff here and there. And, as an example, our salaries could be cut back considerably. And I understand that that's just a drop in the bucket compared to the overall picture, but it takes drops to fill up a bucket. And, that would be one of my proposals, is to take -- take our salaries -- proposed salary increases and cut them back, possibly half, and start -- that would be a starting point, and then go throughout the budget and look at those things. I mean, I could come up with probably a dozen things that I would -- if I had to vote on -- I'll give you an example, the D.P.S. radar units. You know, I -- I don't -- I don't see why we're buying a radar unit every year. I know that's F P 1~ 1: l: 1~ 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 LL 1 a small item. I know that. But it takes small items to 2 build bigger things, I think. That's my comment. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's ust 7 go around the 4 table. Bill? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I sort of agree with 6 Commissioner Baldwin, in that we have to see how many of the 7 pieces of tYie puzzle we can get together before we know 3 whether or not there is any need for additional revenues 3 over and above what we have coming to us and what we -- what ~ we accrue due to increased property values. I think law enforcement deserves to get the items that we're talking about, and if -- if a tax increase has to be considered, it should only be considered, in my opinion, after we've seen all the puzzle pieces together and what that -- what that totals, and whether or not law enforcement -- the needs of law enforcement, particularly communications, is over and above what we have available or whether it's partially available -- what we have available, or what -- in fact, I'm agreeing with the Commissioner. We need to -- we need to get how many pieces of the puzzle we can together and see where that takes us. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I pretty much agree totally with what both said -- what the two Commissioners said. I think, especially on the -- I was not here at the salary workshop, and -- but I -- in my mind, I'd like to 1 1F I 1 l 1: „_, l; l~ l~ 16 17 18 19 20 27 22 23 24 .-. 25 G3 1 take another look at those elected officials across the 2 board, especially those of us on the Commissioners Court. 3 To me, they're a little bit high. Some of them may be 4 phased in over a couple years. And go, like Commissioner 5 Baldwin said, through the budget and really try to, you 6 know, find $100,000, $200,000, which goes a long way towards 7 doing what I think we need to do in the Sheriff's 3 Department. To me, if we still can't make ends meet and a can't put it together and have to look towards some sort of ~ a tax increase, which I certainly hope we don't, I would almost rather do it on a specific thing for the communications; target that at something, similar to what we did for the reconstruction over here, which was a 7-year payout. Do a 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-year payout for that one project, and once that project is paid off, the tax rate goes back down. That would be the only way I can really see doing any kind of a tax increase, would be in that scenario. I think we need to be -- you know, be conscious of the fund balances. We don't need to go too low there, so I think we need to, you know, be good stewards in that area. I'm a little cautious of taking money from Special Projects out of Road and Bridge. I think those are things that we have a long -- basically, a 7-year plan for those projects. Our roads need to continue in their upgrades, and those projects need to continue, and I really r- 1( 1" 1L 1_ 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 G4 1 think that we're going to be hurting future Commissioners 2 Courts if we take that money and put it somewhere else for a 3 short-term bandaid. We've been budgeting a long time; I 4 think those projects are needed. JUDGE HENNEKE: Larry? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. I think that, 1 obviously, you got to understand -- we have to understand 3 the total budget impact before we can start thinking about 3 mechanisms for covering all the required stuff, and I would agree, too, that the radio project is one that we have to fund. I mean, that's a -- that's a health, safety, and welfare issue of the people of the county, and that's one of the things that we're charged to do, so we've got to figure out a way to do that and we need to do it, obviously, the most palatable way we can. But, that should include looking at every option that we have to. I'd point out, particularly to the Court and to everybody here, that on the issue of elected officials' salaries -- I wish I'd never agreed to build a model -- there is no proposal. No proposal has been made for increases in elected officials' salaries. All we've done is develop a model by which we can analyze it, and hopefully, somewhere in this process, rnake a recommendation and then make a decision. But, there has been no proposal by me, by this Court. We have adopted nothing. And you can always 1( 1: 1L l~ 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 G J 1 exercise the option of setting those percentages to zero and 2 leaving the salaries right where they are. I hope everybody 3 understands that right now, today, there is no salary 4 increase proposal on the table. We have to do that still. ~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner, forgive ~ me for that choice of words. I'm sorry. ~ COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. You're not the 1 only one, Buster. In fact, we'll drop it at that. But, 3 it's just that it's just a model, and we're going to have to work with that and decide what we're going to do. JUDGE HENNEKE: What I hear, really, is -- is kind of a consensus as to what I suggested we might want to do, which is to make some decisions about funding and ask the Auditor to rerun the budget and bring it back. And then we'll have other -- and then we'll have a further step down the road where we'll really be able to decide what we want to do, principally on the revenue side. Now, I have no hesitation in cutting out radar units for D.P.S., if that's what we want to do. You know, and any other cuts that we want to make. But I think what we need to do today, really, is to -- is to make some decisions on some big issues and some small issues so we can rerun the budget and get some new numbers before us, so then we can really get down to it. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Quick question. When we rerun the budget, would it be possible to put page 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 numbers on the budget pages? Can we do that? I'm serious. I notice our budget normally does not have page numbers. It sure would help us when we start flipping through this thing, and I just don't know whether we have that capability or not. MR. TOMLINSON: They're automatically put on there. There are page numbers on there. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's not in the budget workbook. JUDGE HENNEKE: It's up at the top right. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. It's not in the budget book, I guess. MR. TOMLINSON: The budget we print has -- JUDGE HENNEKE: It's in this one. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay, good enough. JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan, you had something? COMMISSIONER LETZ: One thing that we didn't talk about as we went around the table was the Ag Barn project. And I -- to me, you know, that can be a little bit -- or set aside right now, and if we go forward with that project, to me, it should be some sort of a bond issue, and it would be basically the taxpayers voting for a tax increase for that project. And, I just wanted to make sure that everyone understands that, and that's on the table still; it's something to do out there as a project. I think 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 we're getting closer as a Court with a consensus on what should be done out there and a definite project. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. I think that whatever we finally determine is a feasible approach to improving that facility, we need to go to a bond issue. If the people say yes, they say yes. If they say no, they say no. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think your suggestion, Jonathan, which I agree with, was that we -- we put this on the agenda at a future court -- at a specific time, separated from the regular business, perhaps 2 o'clock, so that we can devote some time to it, maybe towards the end of next month. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that what you're thinking? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so. JUDGE HENNEKE: Because I think -- thinking about a bond election, I'd like to think the first Saturday in -- in February, which would be a good time. Anything else among the Commissioners before we -- Linda? MS. UECKER: I just have a question and a comment. First of all, Judge, did I understand you correctly to say that you nixed all the scanners? Is that correct? JUDGE HENNEKE: None of the scanners are 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 28 included in the numbers that are presented today. MS. UECKER: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: That's correct. None of them. Not yours, not Jannett's, not the Sheriff's. MS. UECKER: Okay. Well, at what point will we get to come in and say, you know -- like, I'd be willing to compromise and say, you know, I'll settle for one scanner instead of two, and I don't know if the Sheriff would be willing to do the same thing. But, you know, at some point, I would like to be able to come in and justify at least one scanner. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think today's your best shot. MS. UECKER: All right. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Your Honor, the only other thing that I'm wondering, in that you hit -- kind of highlighted some of the things that would and wouldn't be. I think every elected official probably had several smaller things in it. Are we going to be able to know exactly what is and isn't -- can we go through that step today? So we know if there's even small things that we really feel could be justified or could be compromised or -- or swapped around, are we going to get an opportunity to at least -- JUDGE HENNEKE: You know, I don't know whether -- I'm happy to do that, if the Court wants to. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 Or -- or I could do it individually with the department heads. It just depends on what -- what you all want to do. And I'm prepared to go through and say what I've included in these latest numbers and what I haven't. Tommy? MR. TOMLINSON: We could even give each one a copy of their own budget. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be helpful. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I like that approach, giving each one -- I hate to do it right now, because I don't think everyone's prepared. They don't really know what's in and out, and it's not fair to the department heads. MS. DECKER: We don't even know what's been left out. COMMISSIONER LETZ: After we go through our exercise today and 'Pommy runs the new -- the next run, we can get all the department heads -- and they may want to say, well, you know, this is -- the scanners are more important than this, and come back and do it, take that approach, and that's -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the way to do it. MS. DECKER: What if it's the only thing you have on there? I mean -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, you have more than that. Essentially, I would say that -- I will say that everyone got basically all of their capital items-slash-wish list requests, except the scanners. MS. UECKER: That's all I wished for. JUDGE HENNEKE: The Sheriff's Department is different than that, too, because his capital needs are so high that there's not a lot left for -- but I agree with what's being suggested here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If the department heads can work with that, let's go through what we have today. We'll get you another budget right away, and you'll have another chance to come in and visit with us about it when we get down to the final decision. MS. UECKER: Now, the comment I had was on the elected officials' salaries. I know Commissioner Griffin said there had been no proposal. Well, just a suggestion or a proposal from me is to pick a figure that you're comfortable with. Now, this Court knows that I'm never comfortable with percentages, because a percentage of 1,000 is a lot more than the same percentage of -- of 10. And, to pick one figure that you're comfortable with and go -- go across that way to where it would average out -- except maybe with the exception of the Sheriff, who's making less than his chief deputy. But, that would be my proposal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, what I'd like to see us do on the elected officials' salaries is to say that elected officials in Kerr County deserve to be paid no less than the average of counties our size, and that we ought to commit ourselves on the Court to bringing those salaries up to the average over a two-year time frame, which means that this year we could decide, okay, we're going to take -- move up to half of the average this year and the other half next year, with the exception of the Sheriff, which stands out among us all. And the next year -- or 40 percent this year and 6U percent next year, or 60 percent this year and 40 percent next year. MS. UECKER: Are you talking about not including the COLA? JUDGE HENNEKE: No, including the COLA. MS. UECKER: Okay. So, you're talking about that in addition to the COLA? Or -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. MS. UECKER: -- the same? Okay. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can -- and with the model, we can set any percentage that -- that we want. I mean, we could do 40 percent, we can do 30 percent, you can do zero or 100. But, all the model does is give you the ability to analyze any percentage you want to consider. And -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 MS. UECKER: Well -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- we can constrain the model if you want to put limits on something, like we have right now, and we can vary this. But, what we've said is that no department head who has a chief deputy shall make less than 2 and a half percent more than the chief deputy's salary, so -- to solve that. MS. UECKER: Which I agree with that, but the comment -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But that's one constraint. We could do other constraints; the model is flexible enough to do that. We just have to decide what we want to do. MS. UECKER: Okay. The -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Barbara? MS. NEMEC: One thing that I notice in the model is that it does make the salaries of the county-wide elected officials, being the District Clerk, the County Clerk, the Tax Assessor, and the County 't'reasurer, bringing them to different salaries, and they're not that much different, but they are different. And I know several years ago, the Commissioners Court worked real hard to get these salaries at the same level, and I -- I would just hate to see that change. I think in the model, the District Clerk was making less than all the others, and I don't agree with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 that. I think we need to look at county-wide elected officials. I just don't feel that the District Clerk in this county should make less than the County Treasurer, County Clerk, or the Tax Assessor. And the same for all the other offices that I just mentioned. I would like to see those stay equalized. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we could do that by simply establishing one of those offices as the one that we use for comparison. MS. NEMEC: 'Cause they're not that much different in dollars. JUDGE HENNEKE: The one in the middle? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I was about to say, the model could very easily indicate that we pick one of those offices as the -- as the target. MS. NEMEC: Maybe the middle one. COMM1SSi0NER GRIFFIN: And that's what we use, then, to set all of them. It would still be calculated, but that office is the one that then would determine all of the -- MS. UECKER: Well, the other thing I was going to comment on, Commissioner Griffin, was most of the counties that we used in the comparison, for instance -- and this is just in the District Clerk's picture -- is they only have one court. I clerk three courts. Most of those take 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 39 in about half as much child support as I do. Their court load is much less because of their -- especially the criminal cases, because they're not in the vicinity of I-10 or -- or an interstate. So, you know, at one point you had said we could would come in and discuss those variables, and -- depending on whether or not you're going to use the model or not. But, in the counties that were listed -- and I just got the list yesterday -- I do know for a fact that most of those counties have one. Some of them have two, and there are a couple of them there that do have three courts. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, and what you would hope is -- and what you hope is -- is that the size of the data sample takes care of most of that, because you'll have some on the low end; you may have some on the high end. MS. UECKER: Except most of those are one-court counties. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm, yeah. And what -- and the way the TAC database and the way that this model is based on, is that -- is that it's -- it's a functional look. And maybe that has weaknesses, and I would admit, certainly, that it -- it probably does. But, what you're looking at is type of work done in a 10-hour day or 6-day week or whatever it is, that -- that Clerks or -- or Commissioners or anybody has to -- Treasurer, whatever, has to work in, so that it's really -- it's not a -- it's not so 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 much the breadth of the work as it is the depth of it. It can only work 8, 10 hours a day, whatever it takes to get the job done. MS. UECKER: But you also have to take into consideration created liabilities. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We may need to up your insurance, too. MS. UECKER: Well, we did that a couple of years ago. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. But, anyway, there's all kinds -- these are all good comments, and those are all -- those are all weaknesses in my model. Remember, the swamp that we set out to drain was that we were going to try to come up with an objective system that was repetitive and we could use it from year to year and get it out of the -- sort of the back of the envelope kind of thing that says, well, boost this one a little bit this year and this one a little bit next year and all that sort of thing. We're trying to come up with an objective system that sort of accomplishes what the Commission on Congressional Salaries has done. I noticed that the Times editorial mentioned that yesterday. That's, in essence, what we're trying to do here, is to come up with something that's outside of the political arena that you can use to base salaries on. So -- but all of the comments are good ones, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 and I think we can certainly accommodate the -- the comment that Barbara's made. We can look at several ways of doing that. What we can do is also constrain the model at the same time. If we want to put a limit on how much in one year any official can be raised, we can do that. There's several ways we could skin the cat. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have the capability in the model to take the County Clerk, District Clerk, County Treasurer and Tax Assessor and average the salaries that's in here? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I agree with what Barbara's saying, that in this county it's worked pretty well to have those salaries equalized. I think we've done that. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I noticed, too, in gathering the raw data -- you may have noticed it, too, Barbara -- that -- that a lot of counties do that. MS. NEMEC: Right. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: A lot of counties do have those positions equalized. Some are higher than others, but they're -- within the county, they're the same. So that we can -- and I -- I'm not making a proposal. I can adjust the model to do that. DODGE HENNEKE: Paula? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 MS. RECTOR: This is just a comment. I think what we're up against is probably the same thing that we've seen in the past where we've got some inconsistencies in the salaries among the four elected officials, and that was a problem in the past, and it appears to be a problem now, because you've got some that are not making quite as much as what this model shows. There's some going to be making more than others, and that kind of leaves a sour taste in some of our mouths, that we're not all equal. But, I think that's something that the Court is going to have to decide and just go ahead and bite the bullet and say, either we're going to leave it all consistent and everybody makes the same, or we're going to go ahead and adjust it according to what these figures or this data shows. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the disparity issue is very minor; there's only $100 difference. There's $100 difference between three of the four elected officials. MS. RECTOR: But there are -- some of the other elected officials are making a supplement to their salaries, which some of us are not. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's not part of this model. Supplements are not part of the model. MS. RECTOR: Right, so that is not really a true figure of what their actual salary is. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I was thinking we were 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 talking about the positions that -- we talked about the District Clerk, Tax Assessor/Collector, Treasurer, and County Clerk; is that correct? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Now, do any of those receive supplements? MS. RECTOR: I think she gets a Law Library supplement. MS. UECKER: But that's a weekend and evening project. MS. RECTOR: It's still something that's not reflected on here. And I'm not -- and I'm not putting her down for that additional supplement. That's fine. JUDGE HENNEKE: The reason it's not reflected is because it doesn't come out of tax dollars. It's a separate County Law Library fee -- MS. RECTOR: Exactly. JUDGE HENNEKE: -- which pays for that. MS. NEMEC: And -- because she doesn't have to do it; is that correct? MS. RECTOR: Right. MS. UECKER: I don't -- no, I don't have to do it, and I don't really want to do it. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well -- MS. UECKER: Twelve hundred bucks. Does 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 anybody want it? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't have -- I would make the proposal that we -- that we equalize those based on the average, or I can look at -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Average seems -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The model can do that easily; that's not a problem. JUDGE HENNEKE: We have had one citizen sign up to address us on this issue, which I think I'll take now, and then we'll take a quick break and come back and go into some specific decisions. Mr. Nicholson, do you want to address the Court on this issue? MR. NICHOLSON: I'm Dave Nicholson, and I'll address the issue of elected officials' compensation and propose that the Commissioners Court take a different approach to establishing these salaries, the approach that businesses base decisions on principles. I've noticed that many decisions made by the Commissioners Court are based on flawed logic, whether being principle-based or guided by established -- established policy. For example, the recent decision to budget payments of equal amounts to all the volunteer fire departments was apparently based on the flawed logic of simplicity. Had the Court taken the time to establish a principle, it would have considered factors such as need, size of the area served, capability of each 40 1 .-~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .-. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 department, and other relevant factors. To avoid making another decision based on flawed logic, I suggest that the Commissioners Court adopt these principles in determining the compensation for elected officials. First, elected officials, other than County Judge and County Commissioners, are full-time career professionals who bring particular experience, skills, and education to their jobs. Their compensation should be at a level that will attract qualified people to seek these offices and should be favorably compared to compensation levels in the private sector, as well as governmental entities. The second principle is, County Judge and County Commissioner offices are public service positions requiring no particular qualifications, and are essentially part-time jobs, even though some dedicated Commissioners spend -- do more than the minimal requirements. Compensation levels of these positions should not be so high that candidates would be attracted to the office by the compensation. A modest compensation level is appropriate for these office holders who seek these offices based on a sense of duty and desire for public service. I have these additional observations of the proposed compensation levels. First, compensation data from the Texas Association of Counties is not reliable enough to provide guidance to -- at setting compensation levels. One 41 1 ~„~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 problem with using it is that there are significant differences in the job descriptions of positions with the same title. This is particularly true in the County Commissioner title. Some similar counties with higher paid Commissioners have, quote, Road and Bridge Commissioners who have full-time jobs with heavy responsibility for county operations. That's not the case in Kerr County. There are also significant variances from county to county in the responsibility of classifications such as the Sheriff, Justice of the Peace, and constables. Use of the data is an apples-and-oranges comparison. Selective use of the data is akin to deciding on a desired outcome and then selecting some data to support that outcome, or the fox guarding the henhouse. The decision made last year to allow the compensation of the Sheriff to be $2,000 less than his chief deputy was ludicrous. A common organization principle is there should be a 15 spread -- 15 percent spread between the midpoints of salary grades. I recommend a salary of $97,000 for the Sheriff. The offices of Justice of the Peace and Constable are underpaid by any standard. These highly qualified men and women have difficult jobs, are on call 24-7, and use their personal resources in the performance of their jobs. In order to assure that the County is able to attract and retain qualified people in these offices, and in 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 the interest of equity, a significant pay increase is indicated. I recommend $33,000 for constables and $35,000 for the J.P.'s. Based on the principle proposed earlier and the unreliability of the survey data, the compensation of County Judge and County Commissioner is at least adequate, if not high for those levels. The proposal to increase these salaries by 30 percent and 23 percent, respectively, is greedy and unconscionable. I recommend these salaries be frozen and the savings be used to fund adjustments that are needed for the Sheriff, the constables, and the J.P.'s. I urge the Commissioners Court to do the right thing on compensation, be guided by principle and not self-interest. Thank you for listening. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we go back to the ladies -- elected officials right quick? I just want to give you some wisdom, which is from sitting here a long time. Keep their salaries as close to each other as possible. And I won't go any further than that. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Safe ground. JUDGE HENNEKE: With those words of wisdom, let's take a 10-minute break, come back promptly at 2:35, and we'll get down to some issues. (Recess taken from 2:25 p.m. to 2:35 p.m.) 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Let's go back into session now. It's Tuesday afternoon, August 21. This is a special sess ion of the Kerr County Commissio ners Court, and the topic fo r consideration are budget issue s. Three or four things that we need to make a decision on that's on my agenda. Let me go through those first, and then we'll open them up. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Judge, before you get into that, a-point of personal privilege, if I may. Elaine Casteel is here, Ingram Fire District, and this is an issue -- a budget issue which I've spoken with her at some length on. She, of course, represents one of the fire districts that we did a reduction on as we equalized -- put our flawed -- whatever -- what did he call it? Flawed reasoning together and came up with whatever we came up with, that took one of the cuts. And -- and her concern is -- and 1 think I wanted to raise it as an issue, that we're certainly not going to penalize any fire department because it's in a fire district; that, to the contrary, we want to make sure that we are fair to all of the departments. I think that's the sense of the Court, and I think I would just like to take this opportunity to reassure her on the record that that's the case; that there was certainly no -- no consideration given to affecting County support to a fire department based on whether it's in a fire district or not 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 in a fire district. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Let's go to work. I have suggested that we consider a 2 and a half percent across-the-board cost-of-living adjustment, which I believe is less than the actual cost-of-living, but close enough for government work, as I used to say in the private sector. Thoughts? Issues? Suggestions? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that's certainly reasonable, and -- and probably -- I don't know what the C.P.I. came out. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll tell you what it came out. According to Carole Keeton Rylander, for the 12 months ending -- April of '00 to April of 'Ol, it's 9 percent. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think 2 and a half percent is certainly conservative, and it's certainly -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if we go any less than that, we're going to just be going back down the same road we just fixed, or tried to fix last year in getting our employees' salaries up from where they -- too low, where they shouldn't be. So, I think -- I mean, I think 2 and a half percent in this year's budget is a good number. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, 2 and a half percent is actually going backwards, if the C.P.I. is 4 percent. I mean, if the cost of living has gone up 45 ,'-~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 4 percent and we're going to give a 2 and a half, we're really going backwards. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. We've gone backwards by a percent and a half, that's correct. JUDGE HENNEKE: All we need to determine at this stage in the game is, seems to be the consensus we're going to give a COLA. What number, so that we can run the numbers? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2.5. JUDGE HENNEKE: 2.5, going once, going twice. Do I hear competitive bids? Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do they have to be sealed? (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. So, we will ask the Auditor to include in the next go-around of the budget a 2 and a half percent cost-of-living adjustment. Next item I want to bring up is department head salaries, and I have suggested a 5 percent increase in the department heads, which is Leonard, Franklin, Marc Allen, Glenn Holekamp, and Russ Duncan. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did I understand you correctly, that they didn't get anything last year? JUDGE HENNEKE: They got a -- a one-step increase -- the equivalent of a one-step increase. Since 46 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 they're not on a step and grade, they didn't get an actual step increase, but they got the equivalent of a one-step increase, plus the COLA. So, they didn't get left out, but they didn't get a full adjustment. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is a -- what is the one-step increase? I mean, just depends -- I guess it depends on where they are. JUDGE HENNEKE: One step is approximately -- MS. SOVIL: Two and a half. MS. NEMEC: Two and a half -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Two and a half percent. MS. NEMEC: -- percent. JUDGE HENNEKE: Five percent increase for those department heads is about $8,600. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think a couple of those, mainly Road and Bridge, Leonard and -- again, that situation we go through, the percentage increase that we got into with the County Attorney, their increases -- the salaries are so much higher than a lot of these other department heads that the impact, dollar-wise, is a lot higher increase. And, maybe it should be. I mean, they're -- there's more -- it's a higher level position. There's a lot more education, a lot more experience and, you know, qualifications. COMMISSIONER GRIF'F'IN: Total impact's $8,600? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 JUDGE HENNEKE: $8,600, roughly. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sounds good to me. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, does that -- is it -- is it 5 percent on it or is it 7 and a half percent? JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, it would be a 5 percent salary increase and then a 2 and a half, so a total of 7 and a half percent. Salary base would be 5 percent. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, for the record, you said the COLA's 2 and a half percent spread across-the-board, top to bottom, is $110,000? JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. That was before any elected official salary adjustments or any -- the $110,000 is based on today's salary structure. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For everybody, Judge down? JUDGE HENNEKE: Top to bottom. Right, Barbara? MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm. JUDGE HENNEKE: So, there will be some -- MS. NEMEC: Department heads, elected officials, employees. JUDGE HENNEKE: -- some adjustments in that number, but that's a number that, if we agreed on that, then Barbara will calculate it, give it to Tommy for the next 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 98 budget. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think my preference would be to do a 2 and a half percent increase and then the COLA on top of that, so you end with up with 5 percent, and do the same the following year; we'd need to adjust it again, spread out department heads another year. It's not a tremendous savings, but if we don't start somewhere, we're not going to have any -- I mean, so basically it would be a $4,300 increase, which will be -- MS. NEMEC: I'm sorry, Jonathan, what was your suggestion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two and a half percent increase for department heads. MS. NEMEC: Instead of the 5? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Instead of 5. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Plus COLA. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Plus COLA. JUDGE HENNEKE: Everything is plus COLA. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I like 5. I just think -- I think we're really going to leave them behind by giving a low COLA and what I think is a low adjustment. The total budget impact is not that great, and I just think it's fair to go ahead and do what the Judge had recommended. Now, I'm not hard over on that, but I just think that sounds fair -- it just sounds fairer to me. 49 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I would go along with the 5 percent and just work those numbers up and take a look at them, you know, and -- late next week, and see what that does. And then, in my mind, if that's too much, then my mind's going to automatically go to what Jon -- Jon's COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. And I think that's going to apply to any numbers that we come up with from now until -- and when we get the run, then we'll go through all of the other issues. I think that's -- that's a good caveat on all of them, because we'll look at the next run, and if we have to come back, we'll come back on anything. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. So, we'll -- for purposes of review next time around, we'll go with a 5 percent department head increase. Okay. Elected officials. I'm going to suggest that we set a goal of having the median of elected officials' salaries for counties our population. I mean, that's the average, boys. I mean, I think we're all above average. We're like Lake Wobegon; everybody is above average, but I think we at least ought to get the average. But, I'm going to suggest that we do that in two years, and that this year we grant the elected officials 60 percent of the amount necessary to come up to the median, with the understanding that next year we 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 would go the rest of the way. The reason I do that is because if we went 50 percent this year and 50 percent next year, actually, next year we would have to go more than 50 percent, because everybody else's salaries would rise, so the median would rise. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I assume that there would be some rise throughout the state. JUDGE HENNEKE: It really wouldn't be fifty-fifty. That's -- I'm just throwing that out there as a target number. Again, all we're doing is plugging numbers into the budget so we can see what it was. If someone else wants to propose a different adjustment, now's the time to say so. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, let me throw this out. It appears to me that last year, we dealt with the employees' salaries. JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This year we're trying to deal with elected officials' salaries, and so in my pea brain, it looks like that next year, we may go back to the employees' salaries again, and the elected -- you know, it would be a cycle. So, we would -- we wouldn't have that freedom next year to deal with elected officials' salaries. I'll throw that out. That's the way it looks like to me, that we're kind of getting into a cycle system, which -- 51 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: My response to that, Buster, would be that because we went through the -- the correct process and the pain last year of having a professional evaluate the employees' salaries, we shouldn't have to go back and reevaluate employees salaries for another two or three years, probably. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That may be. JUDGE HENNEKE: Or five years. That's kind of what I was looking at last year, was that we get them up to where they should be and we do cost of livings, plus we have the automatic step increases that come into play once they've been here one year, three years, seven years, that they ought to stay pretty much in line and that we shouldn't have to go through that painful exercise more than about once every five years. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we maintain equivalency with cost of living. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER WiLLlAMS: if we fall behind a point and a half or a point or two points a year in COLA's -- COLA adjustments, you find yourself in the same boat again. JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN That's true. And you look at it, if 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 52 you -- if you do a short COLA, then what you may want to do the following year is look at a -- a COLA-plus to make up for the difference. If there -- see, you really don't know what the real C.P.I. is going to be for the year yet. Economy's heading south a bit, so -- at least southwest or something. But -- so, it could be that it -- it could be that -- that that C.P.I. is going to be closer to 3 percent than 4 percent, so maybe you don't lose at 2 and a half percent -- maybe we're not going to lose out much. But, we'll know what the real C.P.I, is at the end of the year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. And automotive, begin to trend down. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we just need that we look at what we did the year before, couple of years before, perhaps, and then look at what the real C.P.I. was, and then try to make sure that we keep up with our -- our new salary schedule that we have for employees, for example. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we know what the 60 percent of the median with regard to elected officials -- what the cost of that is? What's the price tag? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, other than -- hang on. JUDGE HENNEKE: We've all got it here 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 somewhere. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's in the model? COMMISSIONER LETZ: $56,957. JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah, $56,957. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fifty-six -- put 57K. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only -- you know, I don't have a problem with using that as our target right now, but I -- are we confident in those numbers? I mean, where do they come from? JUDGE HENNEKE: Barbara personally called each of the 18 counties on the list and verified the salary information. M5. NEMEC: Those were the numbers they gave me. Those are not this next year's budget numbers. Those are what they're working on. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If you'll recall -- if you'll recall -- well, you weren't here -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- at the workshop. And, so that the record is set straight from our last speaker at the podium, because we didn't have great confidence in the TAC database because we had found some old data and some data that was inaccurate, this Court made the decision to go get the real data from every county involved. So, we did not use the TAC database information. We took 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 actual data from every county. If that's flawed logic, I can't get any better than flawed, then. But, at any rate, that's what happened. We've got real data. I've got as much confidence in that now as I think we could have at this point, so I don't think we -- we ain't hurting for data. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only other question I would have in that area -- I mean, that, I guess, reinforces going along with the 60 percent. I think we do need to make the adjustment which is going to balance out -- I think if we take the average of the four -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That will have little -- probably shouldn't have any. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Really, the average shouldn't have any impact. And, on the Commissioners' salaries, I do think it is an issue as to which of those counties use some sort of a unit road system. I think that's a difficult question to ask, because there's so many different kinds of unit road systems. I know when we were at the conference in Beaumont, the question was asked by one of the speakers, and roughly two-thirds of the people raised their hands as Commissioners that had -- those counties had some sort of a unit road system. As an example, I think Gillespie, Kendall, and Kerr counties all have a form of unit road system, and each of those forms are different. But, I think it does have an impact on a Commissioner's 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 workload. I think that needs to at least be somewhat noted or, you know, maybe call them and -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: well, I don't -- yeah, but here's the problem we run into. There's only 24 hours in a day. I don't -- I have -- I don't have a day, including Saturdays and some Sundays, that I don't work a road issue. Do any of you have days off that you don't deal with road issues? I'm talking to Len Odom and Franklin Johnston all the time. And, so I don't know what -- you know, what -- what non-unit road system -- what the precinct systems have is -- and if somebody wants to argue that it's cheaper to have a precinct system because you don't have a road administrator like Len Odom, the fact is, you got four Len Odoms -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- when you have a precinct system, and it's more expensive. And that's the reason counties go to unit road systems. It just happens that your road boss and mine and Buster's road boss is the same guy. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But -- so I don't buy the argument that because you have a precinct road system, that somehow or other it would save you money on salaries. It increases the personnel costs. No way that it cannot. 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 LETZ: I would agree. I think it increases the salaries, but I think it does -- in my mind, anyway, does decrease the workload a little bit. And, I think the -- you know -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I talked to some -- I talked to some guys down in Harris County. That's a big county. They have precincts. You know, they have huge staffs and all that sort of thing. Jim Fonteno is -- is the guy I know best that's a County Commissioner, and he said the thing about a precinct road system is -- is that that's about all you do. You don't do anything else, because all you have to worry about are roads and bridges; that you have staff or other -- someone else in the county that does computer models and O.S.S.F. and whatever, and water and all those kinds of things. So, I don't buy -- since there's only 24 hours in a day, I just don't buy that there's any grand distinction. Now, you can argue what a County Commissioner's worth. I don't know. Some of us are worthless, I suppose, but -- but we can argue what a County Commissioner is worth, but I wouldn't on the basis of whether it's a unit road system or not a unit road system. I would say it's a lot more important how big an area you have. See, mine's bigger than you guys, so I ought to get more. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There you go. 57 ,~- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But, I mean, you can argue it on the basis of how big a county you got and how big are those precincts? How many miles of roads do you have? How many grandkids do you have? And -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What condition are the roads in? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That was sort of the point that Buster made last time; if you start making exceptions, if you throw one out on the bottom end, you ought to throw one out on the top end. What it tends to do is still drive you toward the median. So, I -- I don't see the distinction, but I can certainly understand the argument on what a County Commissioner's worth. You know, I -- we can debate that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's interesting in the model -- just while we're making some comments about the model, as opposed to the numbers, okay? -- is that some of the counties that are smaller than Kerr County have a salary structure in many of the positions greater than Kerr County. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. Yeah. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, let's -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They don't have a unit road system. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think what I'm hearing is, 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 let's plug in the 60 percent of parity for budget purposes and look at this. If anyone wants to make a special plea for their suggestion upward or downward, we'll be open to that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sixty percent this year and 40 percent next year. Can we -- can we make that -- make a commitment on 40 percent next year? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: In a sense. JUDGE HENNEKE: In a sense, we can, since it's the sense of the Court that we would equalize the median salary within two years, starting with 60 percent this year. Okay. Easy ones. Mr. Henderson's provided us with a $118,000 estimate for the radio project on Certificates of Obligation. That's a very conservative estimate, one I think will -- will hold true, if not prove to be a little high, but we need to use that, don't you think, Tommy, for purposes of this exercise? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: Also, we have -- for next year, we have a -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't go on; let me ask a question. I just want to throw it out there. I think I know tYie answer, but I want to throw it out. In this year's budget, we had $150,000 allocated in that line for communications. Now, I know we've tapped that, reduced it, 59 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 but it was there to begin with. Are we starting this exercise with respect to communications with that 150 still in that line? Or has it vanished? JUDGE HENNEKE: It has vanished. It was taken out and is part of the rerun of the numbers which were reflected in the memo of August 13th. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: As was $160,000 for the T-hangars. Tommy? MR. TOMLINSON: On this issue, I -- I'd just like to make a comment. In effect, what we're doing, if we issue a debt, the -- I think the statutes say that -- that when you do issue a debt, you -- you will levy a tax for the purpose of interest and sinking fund for the purpose of retiring that debt. So, in effect, what you're doing is taking a bite out of -- out of your M & 0, or maintenance and operation tax rate. That's -- and that bite's going to be gone for -- for however long the term of the debt is; in this case, seven years, probably. So, I think if you -- if you ever entertain the thought of -- of raising the tax rate because you -- because you're legally required to levy a tax for that purpose, then that, you know, is the most logical time, because you -- because you're going to have to live -- or future courts are going to have to live with the tax rate -- or a maintenance and operations tax rate that is 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 less than the rate that you're going to have to move from maintenance and operation to interest and sinking. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, isn't that really a part of the reason why we're having a very tight budget right now, is because we didn't levy a tax when we did that C.O. over there? MR. TOMLINSON: Exactly. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We took that straight out of the M & O, and that's why the budget's as tight as it is right now, and will continue to be tight until that's paid off in, what, four more years. JUDGE HENNEKE: Good point. Thanks, Tommy. Anybody have any questions about that? Okay. The other one that we need to plug in here for discussion purposes, that the report from Mr. Trott -- Trott Communications says that our preferred vendor has a cost of $125,640 for tower lease for the first year. Now, the Sheriff and I have some grave questions about that, and we'll be working on that between now and the next time we get together, but we need to plug it in there for planning purposes. So, that's $125,640 for tower leases. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seems awfully high. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not on my property. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me ask Tommy a 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 question to follow up -- follow up on what the Judge is talking about. For the maintenance and the tower leases, would it not be possible, if we're considering a tax to support the communication -- acquisition of a communications system, that this number also, the maintenance and the tower lease, can be rolled into that as one and covered with that tax rate? MR. TOMLINSON: No, I don't think so. I think that's a maintenance and operation issue. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. MR. TOMLINSON: And I think that debt needs to be associated with a specific purchase. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To follow up, don't you think you could make that case, however, on the tower leases, but not the maintenance? MR. TOMLINSON: No. I -- I still think that the lease, itself -- it's not a purchase. I mean, you're not -- you're not purchasing property, so you're going to live with this forever, so you need to build -- you need to build a rate into your maintenance operations where that will take care of that for perpetuity. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree, it needs to be plugged in. JUDGE HENNEKE: Needs to be plugged in. I 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 mean, it -- well, we just have -- the Sheriff and I have talked about that at length. We have some grave reservations about their number, but they may just be picking numbers out of a book somewhere instead of knowing what the situation is on the ground. As I pointed out in my memo, I mean, it's our Auditor's suggestion that we move $139,000 of reserve from M & O to Road and Bridge as the first installment in a commitment to get that Road and Bridge fund balance up to where it needs. Is everyone in accord with that, or comfortable with that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mind doing it all right now. I think we certainly need to get to a point that we get that fund balance healthier again. But, as long as we leave this Special Projects fund alone, I'm not as -- it could be a little bit less than that, in my mind, and have that kind of as a -- a pot that could be used if there was a problem over there, and try to go for a three or four-year plan to get that back to where it needs to be. JUDGE HENNEKE: What we -- give me a number. COMMISSIONER LETZ: A hundred thousand. JUDGE HENNEKE: So, does anyone want to -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that. JUDGE HENNEKE: So, we'll take -- move $100,000 from the M & 0 fund balance to Road and Bridge. Everyone understands that that Lakes money out of the M & O 63 ~. 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 pot? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Would this be a good time to raise the Schreiner Trust Fund accumulation issue? Discuss that? Or do we do it later? I mean, because it's related to that. JUDGE HENNEKE: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We had a -- a letter from Security State that there's some $25,000 of undistributed income in the Schreiner Trust, and to help the very problem that we're talking about there -- and I just briefly mentioned this to Commissioner Baldwin, but we could -- I believe, as indicated by the letter, we could move those -- that undistributed income into the Road and Bridge M & 0 account for projects in Precincts 1 and 4, could we not? MR. TOMLINSON: I think you have to -- indirectly -- indirectly, you're right. I think the trust instrument actually says that you have to -- the Court has to, in writing, tell the trust -- the trustee what -- what project you want to use -- specifically what you want to use those funds for. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So maybe what we could do -- if I understand what you said correctly, Tommy, maybe what we could do is just earmark that we're going to expend those funds in Precincts 1 and 4 this year, this coming 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 year. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think what Tommy's saying is that you have to designate specifically what you're going to use them for. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's what I'm saying. JUDGE HENNEKE: What you two might be able to do is, say, look into the Special Projects budget for Precinct 1 and Precinct 4, and say, "I'm going to use $15,000 of the Schreiner Trust on this project." COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see where you're going, and I asked the County Engineer what -- did they have any plans for -- and he said no, not this year. JUDGE HENNEKE: But we can -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What we can do -- JUDGE HENNEKE: -- move money into those projects. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What we can do is take a special project and say $15,000 is going to go for the Special Project A in Precinct 1, which means that that leaves some Special Projects money in there. You didn't have to spend that, 'cause we spent this instead. I'm just saying we can commit to do that, which is going to help that imbalance with the Road and Bridge M & 0. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the project that 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 just comes out, to me -- I know it's all in Precinct 1, but it kind of helps, is the Sheppard Rees project, which is an ongoing, big project. Just put the $25,000 into that one project. You know, that's a simple way to accomplish what you're talking about. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I like it. What do I get? JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's do what we need to do. You guys need to talk and come up with a specific allocation of that fund, if that's where you want to go, and then we can readjust the numbers. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: An issue that's not on here that has just come up, actually, in the last day or so, is the issue of administrative fee to the U.G.R.A. for the O.S.S.F. project. Commissioner Griffin has been working with U.G.R.A. to see if they would develop a fee schedule that would pay for the O.S.S.F. program without the need for contribution and tax dollars from either the County coffers or the U.G.R.A. coffers. The most recent fee schedule which they've proposed essentially doubles the existing fees, and comes up about $40,000 short of breaking even. Revenues have produced about $167,000, with a $201,000 expense side. So, the issue that's raised is whether or not the County wishes to continue providing what's been called an 66 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 administrative fee to the U.G.R.A. for support of the Last year we provided $30,000. The contract actually expires at the end of September, and we're not obligated any for next year. I've been involved in some of those discussions with Commissioner Griffin, and I am seldom misunderstood, but apparently I wasn't very clear, because they didn't understand that I wanted them to set up a fee structure for our consideration which would carry the project, because it's my belief that those sort of special needs projects need to be supported by fees, as opposed to by the taxpayer. And, while it's true that all of us in Kerr County benefit from the clean waters of the river, it seems to me like the people who are -- are putting in the waste disposal systems should be the ones who bear the cost of the program. So, the question becomes to what extent, if any, the County wishes to provide an administrative fee to the U.G.R.A. for the purpose of -- gap between the higher schedule of side. I will tell you that it giv doing it that way, because one way we're being asked to write a blank of bridging the apparent fees and the expense =_s me some trouble in to look at it is that check in the sense that we don't have any control over the expense side. Commissioner Griffin has worked diligently with them to 67 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 scrub the expense side, you know. He and I talked, and they had some very minor funds in the expense side which simply were not acceptable to us. And, at his request, I believe they've taken them out. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, about $300. JUDGE HENNEKE: But it still remains -- the issue is they're in charge of the expenses, and they want us to contribute towards the gap between the fee schedule that they're proposing, which we have tc adopt -- I mean, we're the ones who set the fee schedule and the expense schedule that they're proposing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. How many people do they have? I mean, they have Stuart, and one other person? JUDGE HENNEKE: They have Stuart. They have -- they have two clerical people. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Scott Loveland. JUDGE HENNEKE: They have part of Scott Loveland as the supervisor for that department, and they're hiring another -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Another inspector. JUDGE HENNEKE: So they have four virtually full-time people and one kind of overseer, oversight person, in the form of Scott Loveland. I -- I don't know. I mean, I -- i'll be honest with you. I thought that it was 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 perfectly clear to them that it was our opinion that this program should be self-supporting. And, I'm -- when I got the message yesterday that they expected us to continue the administrative fee, I was very surprised at that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We -- did we not recently adopt a fee schedule? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We added some fees. That was when we went to the real estate inspection and that sort of thing, but that was in addition to the fee schedule that was already in place. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what we -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Those other things -- fees weren't changed. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what we've been doing is we had a fee schedule from last year and sending over 530,000 for administrative, and now we've come along and we've added some more fees, and they want 540,000? Is that -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, they say 30 still. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought Fred said 40. JUDGE HENNEKE: The gap is about 30, 40 thousand. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, they'll eat the 10? 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 JUDGE HENNEKE: U.G.R.A. will tell you -- Mr. Brown will tell you that they've been subsidizing the O.S.S.F. program to the tune of $80,000, $100,000 over the last two years. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've heard the story. JUDGE HENNEKE: You've heard the story and probably have the same skeptical ear to the story that I have. But, this is a budget -- we've got to start crafting a budget. The question is, are we willing to continue to pay an administrative fee to U.G.R.A.? Are we going to go back and tell them, you know, "If you guys are going to control the expense side, then you need to propose to us a revenue stream that covers the expense side"? Or something in between? Or -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Or if we are going to pay an administrative fee, are we going to have administrative oversight into the expenditures? And, which I think if we were -- if -- if we were to subsidize our -- our paying to administer the fee under the terms of the interlocal agreement, that we should insist that we have administrative oversight on a quarterly basis for all expenditures; be done here, everybody here, and everybody listening. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Larry, are you comfortable that the amount of O.S.S. F. work that is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 70 performed each year, that the staffing level is required for the amount of work? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. I don't know. I would have to say I don't know, because we don't have that much insight into what the staff does. See, we -- we've contracted and we've taken that at face value. We don't have any reason to -- to think that the figures aren't correct, but we don't have any expenditure oversight. We don't see, for example, that in the month of January, here's how much revenue there was. We see that as an aggregate, but we don't see a breakdown of that, and we don't see a breakdown of the expenses. We say here's -- they say here's how much we spent, here's how much came in. I don't know. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My second question is, if the fee structure that's come back to us as a recommendation -- I assume it's a recommendation -- in fact doubles the fee structure, 100 percent increase, and it's inadequate, will 150 percent increase cover the nut? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They have -- it probably would, but they haven't -- they really didn't propose a fee schedule. They just said, here are -- here is what adding a third and a half or whatever, and -- and here's what doubling would do. And when they doubled the current fees, based on the number of inspections, et cetera, that they -- and permits granted and all that that they 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would expect over the next year, they still came up $40,000 short. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm with y'all 100 percent. I think that the fee should cover the program, like all programs, in my opinion. I tell you, even doubling, those fees go way up there. I mean, that's a pretty high fee. I mean, if we want -- if we only want to allow millionaires to live in Kerr County, maybe that's what we need to do. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's a problem. That's the issue. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is a huge issue, in my opinion. JUDGE HENNEKE: And the -- you know, doubling goes from -- basic O.S.S.F. goes from $200 to $400. That's what doubling is. It's not going from, you know, $500 to $1,000. You know, that's it. That's the magnitude we're talking about. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just kind of following up on what Buster just said, can anybody -- any of the budget historians in the room, can anybody recall any time that O.S.S.F. has been a part of a budget -- Kerr County budget, even when we had the department here? Have the fees always covered the expenses? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I don't think so. 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's always been a court subsidy for O.S.S.F.? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: But that also is when the Court controlled the expense side. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. JUDGE HENNEKE: We made the decisions. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We used clerks that -- for example, that were paid at the county rate, you know. I mean, we had a fee schedule -- I mean, we had a salary schedule where it was a Kerr County employee being paid. The U.G.R.A. employee doing that same job -- and I don't know exactly what their rates are, but I suspect it's considerably higher. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. And we had control of who we hired, how much we hired, and what we paid them. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But even with that control, there was still a line item subsidy. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think it's reasonable, you're going to have a subsidy. I don't have a problem with that, but my -- my concern is the lack of control on the expense side. And, really -- and wages -- I really think it's wrong for -- you know, this should be 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 73 part of the payment for clerks and people in like positions. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Here's something that might work -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy has a hand up. MR. TOMLINSON: Maybe -- this is just a thought. Maybe you could require them to base -- base the subsidy on activity. In other words, have them equate their -- their activity, as far -- from an expenditure side; say, how much -- how much does it cost to do one inspection? And then we will -- and then -- then we will subsidize them based on -- on the difference per inspection. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you're on to something, Tommy. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: See, what -- and how they do it is that they take all of the O.S.S. F. function, and they account for that separately. Supposedly. That's how they're deriving their total cost number. In other words, they -- they say these people are totally dedicated to O.S.S.F. We don't split them up or anything of that sort. These are people who are all in the O.S.S.F. section, so then they account for it that way. Now, what you're saying is that what we would do is say, "Don't account for it that way, but just tell us how many events of each kind, and we will pay you on the basis of -- of jobs done"? MR. TOMLINSON: Right. Then -- then if -- 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 then if their activity level goes down, that might give them some incentive to -- to reduce the cost, rather than -- rather than continue to keep the level of staffing that they have with -- with a reduced level of activity. Makes them a little more accountable on the cost side. JUDGE HENNEKE: Kind of hard to budget that way, but it certainly makes them more accountable as far as the -- their end of the subsidy. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. They would probably counter that it would be hard for them to budget, too, because they've got to hire a full-time person. MR. TOMLINSON: They know how many people they have, though. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They know how many what, Tommy'? MR. TOMLINSON: They know how many people they have on their staff, and that's essentially -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But wouldn't they, then -- well, but it would come out $90,000. I think what they would do in that case is, it would come out $40,000 at the end of the year, because they would -- what they would do is take the total cost and divide that by the number of events, and then say that's how much it costs for each event, and therefore you owe us $40,000 over and above what we can generate. 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 MR. TOMLINSON telling us what it costs now future. I was thinking in terms of I mean, and not in the COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: offset that with -- with less events? "events. So, if -- MR. TOMLINSON: Pay th COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: forth fell off -- Oh, okay. Okay. Well, how would you Using that word, em less money. -- inspections and sc MR. TOMLINSON: We pay them less money. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe more money. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thea just handed me an activity report for the year. I just don't see how they can keep that many people busy with what they're doing. They have inspections -- this is rough numbers, but it's roughly 300 licenses, inspections, transfers they did in the last 12 months -- or, actually, year-to-date up to -- from October 1st through the end of July. You know, that's like, you know, less than two a day. And it takes four people to do four -- I mean, that just doesn't make sense, the numbers. I mean, how -- one clerk should be able to handle that amount of volume. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They have -- they have Tish Hewlitt, who does the -- is sort of the keeper of the 76 1 1 1 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 records and all that sort of thing. They have a data entry clerk, I think, in that equation that does all the data entry, and then they've got -- they will have two inspectors and Scott. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, they will tell you that Tish Hewlitt spends a lot of her time walking people through the process. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: Helping them with the application. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: She works that full-time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do those numbers include floodplain? JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Floodplain -- 42 this year. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Forty-two completed? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Maybe what Tommy's talking about is worth looking at. There's another idea that I had. Let's say we did come up with a subsidy; let's say $30,000 as an example. We could, in an agreement, require that they come to this Court once a quarter to 77 1 1 2 3 9 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 determine what that fee is for that quarter, based on how much they took in in revenues and what they spent, and that we would say, okay, when we're satisfied that those numbers are real, we would pay the difference, until it hits $30,000. When it hits $30,000, that's it; they eat the rest. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I kind of like that approach. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Because that way, at least we've got some administrative oversight into the expense side. And if we see that -- that, hey, they -- they only did 20 inspections for the month, then, hey, you got to think about -- we need to lower that expense in the next quarter, because you got too much staff to -- at this rate. You've got too much staff on board. Now, we're not going to tell them they've got to fire them; just say, hey, that's not -- that ain't kosher, so you're going to have to start eating that one. In other words, it needs to be something that we can have some input on how the program is managed if we're going to pay an administrative fee. JUDGE HENNEKE: The other option is, we need to sit down and play with their fee schedule and come up with something that covers the nut, which wouldn't be that hard to do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only -- I agree it ~s 1 2 ,.-~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~-. 25 should be fee-based, but at the same time, we're trying to encourage trying to get everyone to do things the right way, and I'm already getting complaints -- I get a lot of complaints already about our fees are ridiculously high. To have somebody get out there to get a repair, you got to get -- it's only $50 -- 50 bucks, but, I mean, you know, you go to -- unlicensed to licensed is a $200 fee, and you double that, we're talking about $400. Who's going to do it? Who's going to want to do it? What's the incentive to try to get a licensed system when you're going to pay 500 bucks just for the fee, not to mention the work? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the down side of raising them too high. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that, you know, I having a subsidy, and it's $30,000. That's okay, as long as we're getting our money's worth. I just don't think that -- you know, I think there's a point that we need to look at the fee and say, if it's going to cost us this much to run the program, we're going to have to subsidize; we can't keep on raising fees to that height. JUDGE HENNEKE: The alternative is to simply say, okay, we'll give you your $30,000 administrative fee, but we're not going to raise the fees for your services then, which means you guys eat the difference. Which is 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 79 then going to be about $100,000 on their end. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, that's, in essence -- JUDGE HENNEKE: We can do that. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They've still got to bring us a fee schedule; we've still got to approve it. They don't want to raise the fees 'cause they think it will drive people underground. Somebody will say, hey, I'm not going to even -- I'm going to go put an illegal system in, because I don't want to pay the fee. Usually the people who will do that would duck a $10 fee just like they'll duck a $500 fee, but that's still -- that's an argument, and that's probably got some validity. But, if we're going to -- I sort of like the idea that it says if we have a fee schedule -- I mean a subsidy, that we're going to have some insight into the expenditure. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have said that 12 or 15 times, so obviously that's on your mind. And, I -- and I agree with you. What I wonder is, in your scenario -- one of the scenarios like Tommy's or yours where they come in every two or three months and give this report of ingoing and outgoing money, how do we -- how would we control that? Interlocal agreement? I mean, how would that be laid out? In the interlocal agreement? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would just think 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 80 that we would require a report for the Court once a quarter, where we go through these numbers on the top of the table where everybody can see them. Personnel costs, lease car, which is in there, et cetera. Two lease cars, because they got two -- will have two inspectors. So -- but let's look at that and at least know that, as Jonathan says, we're getting our money's worth, and that we're not being overcharged or whatever you might say to keep staff on hand that doesn't have anything -- is not productive, is not effective and efficient and all those good adverbs -- or adjectives. And, maybe that's not worth our time. Maybe we give them $30,000 and say, "See you." COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, I'm hearing Commissioner Williams saying possibly let's take the program back. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You did not hear me say that. You absolutely did not hear me say that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sorry, that's where I thought you were leading. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I heard that once. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There is that option. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's an option, but you propose it. I'm not going to propose it. JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's come back down to the numbers, which is what we have to do today. Do we want to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 81 put in to look at a $30,000 administrative fee? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I think it's realistic. I think we're going to -- there's going to be some fee associated for the County to administer this program, wherever it's done. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's your question? JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we want to, you know, tell Tommy to plug in for the next round $30,000 administrative fee for U.G.R.A.? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I guess so. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right back to where we started before we got here. JUDGE HENNEKE: Those are the funding issues that, based on my list and what's transpired, that we need to make a decision on today. At this time, I'd open it up to anyone else who wants to go throw anything else the into the chopper. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Give you back $10,000, so it's only $20,000 here. I'm going to reduce the water conservation project again, and i think the nature of it would not require us to budget $10,000 this next budget year, because the basic tenets of the proposal would get us -- would be that anything that's installed in this new budget year would not get credit until the following budget 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 82 year. So, if we laid any money in, you can take it out for this year and still proceed with the program. JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the money in there is not just for that one program. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if it's for other things, then we need to consider that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it can be reduced. It goes in the category that Buster talked about earlier; you know, if we're not going to fund radar for D.P.S., we can take $5,000 out of that fund, or maybe all of it. I think that's come out. At that phase of the budget, we certainly can do it item-by-item. JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? David? MR. MOTLEY: On the model that I think we've adopted, which is going to be the 60 percent equity adjustment in this year, and then try to do 90 next year with the 2 and a half percent COLA -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: David, could I ask that you clarify the term "adopted," because it was certainly misinterpreted after the workshop. MR. MOTLEY: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's the number that we are discussing. MR. MOTLEY: Excuse me. 1 know that 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Commissioner Griffin had -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm sensitive about that. MR. MOTLEY: He had said that -- (Discussion off the record.) MR. MOTLEY: He had said that the idea on the thing was to try to model it after a federal commission, and have kind of a method by which this could be done fairly every year. I was just looking at the salaries for the Assessor/Collector, J.P., District Clerk, County Treasurer, County Clerk, and constables, and the budget increase proposed under this model, the 5 percent in each case is substantially -- that the department heads are getting increased is -- is substantially greater than the salary increases being awarded to those very offices, which also includes a 2 and a half percent COLA. For example, the Assessor/Collector, $1,737, including 2 and a half percent COLA. If it were 5 percent like department heads, that would be $1,900. And, the numbers are -- are like that all the way through. I don't know if 5 percent is similar to the idea that was being proposed for the Sheriff; that the Sheriff is just undercompensated and he's making less than his first lieutenant or first deputy, and this is something that y'all are doing to try and bring department heads up 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 more or -- or what. That's one concern I have. The other concern -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait, David. Tell me what the concern is. JODGE HENNEKE: We've already gone through the elected officials thing. MR. MOTLEY: Well, you said did anybody have any questions that they wanted to ask. I thought -- about anything. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I was asking for any other issues we needed to take up. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what we're doing, David, can be now or later. We're adding in -- this is a target in the budget to see what it does. We're not -- I mean -- MR. MOTLEY: I agree. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've already said we're not going to -- these numbers are going to change. Tommy's going to work the figures over. MR. MOTLEY: On the -- behind the idea of -- of being fair, and everybody being, I guess, treated the same, the model -- I'm curious as to the current income for the County Judge being $34,328. And I read the article in the paper, the interview with Ms. Lavender, when she said that the Judge said that $9,479 was for mental health 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 85 patient hearings at Kerrville State Hospital. But the budget line item, 10-426-101, states that this is elected official's salary for County Court, and I'm -- I'm curious as to why that $9,479 is not included in with the County Judge's salary as County Judge, the $600 travel fee, and the $1,200 for the participation in the Juvenile Board. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's not in there for the same reason that your 30,000 -- $34,339 -- MR. MOTLEY: It's not a state supplement. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Huh? MR. MOTLEY: Based on county fees. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You got to read on the first page where it says the ground rule assumptions. MR. MOTLEY: I did. I did. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Did you read the assumptions? MR. MOTLEY: Yes, I did. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Read it again. MR. MO'PLEY: It says income is defined as all compensation from Kerr County funds, not including directly reimbursed funds from non-Kerr County tax sources or services -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You said it. MR. MOTLEY: -- services provided for a stated fee or cost. 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You just said it. You just said it. MR. MOTLEY: That money comes out of the general budget, $9,479. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It comes out of fees. MR. MOTLEY: What fees? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Comes out of the $SO per -- whatever it is. That's also paid to the J.P.'s. MR. MOTLEY: TYrat's incorrect. I'm sorry, that's incorrect. The Local Government Code states, in 154.004, if a county officer is paid arr annual salary, the State or County may not pay a fee or commission to the officer for the performance of a service by the officer. That's against the law. Those fees are given -- it says they are granted to the Judge as fees to be paid as court costs, so they have to go over to the Treasurer and be put into an account, under which, if the Commission -- Commissioners Court adopted a procedure at the first meeting of next fiscal year, that money could then be transferred over and then be used to pay the salary next year, but that's apparently never been done in this county. These moneys are -- and here's an A.G. letter opinion asking the very same question, where the person says -- he is a prosecutor. Identical provision provides for up to $50 for a prosecutor to be paid, and this 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 prosecutor wanted to be paid that as salary. And, they said money received in the form of fees or other compensation must be deposited with the County Treasurer, according to Section 113.021 of the Local Government Code. County Treasurer deposits the money in the county depository in a special fund to the credit of the officer who collected the money. The appropriate special fund for fees, commissions, or other compensation collected by an officer who is paid on a salary basis is the applicable salary fund. And then it says, in the first -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: David, if I may -- MR. MOTLEY: It's not a fee. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If I may interrupt? MR. MOTLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't think anybody would argue that, and I -- I don't -- I certainly wouldn't argue it, but I'm just telling you now, the model was built by ground rule. It has nothing to do with -- MR. MOTLEY: My understanding -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Which is that we would not consider in that anything other than direct tax payments that are coming from -- tax payments by Kerr County citizens. MR. MOTLEY: I understand. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, so -- and 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 whatever the source, I mean, it ain't -- it ain't general tax revenue. MR. MOTLEY: Last year's budget does not reflect a revenue item for that amount of money for -- from any other fund transferring in funds for that amount of money for these fees. Furthermore -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Where did the fees get recorded? MR. MOTLEY: That line item does not vary by the number of hearings from year to year. It varies by the COLA from year to year. It is paid out of County funds. And, that's all I'm asking, is -- if I'm incorrect on that, I mean -- perhaps I am. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The information -- Tommy, where does the -- where do the mental health fees get deposited? What fund does that go into? MR. TOMLINSON: It goes into the General Fund. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It goes into the General Fund, but it's not tax revenue? MR. TOMLINSON: No, it's fees of office. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The ground rule of the model is that if the source of the funds is not tax funds, Kerr County tax funds, then we don't consider it in the model. You can argue whether that's appropriate or not, but 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~-. 25 89 that's what the model does. MR. MOTLEY: Okay. All right, then, if that's the case, then why does that number not bear any there, if they're all collected? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't know how many because that money is contributed back to the County. Now, if you took -- strictly took $50 per hearing and multiplied it out, the amount that should go to the judges -- we've always used that money also to subsidize the J.P.'s who go out and do the probable cause -- would be far in excess of what's paid. But, my predecessors didn't do it that way, and I don't think it's legitimate to do it that way, myself. MR. MOTLEY: That same budget contains items for probate school and probate-related matters. Doesn't particularly relate to mental health in that budget. The budget's called County Court, and if I could just finish this letter opinion, it said the Commissioners Court may, however, at its first regular meeting in the first month of each fiscal year, direct, by order entered in its minutes, that all money that otherwise would be deposited in a salary 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 90 fund -- that's talking about these fees -- be deposited in a general fund of the county. That's something that has to be done on the first meeting of the year -- fiscal year every year. And then they take the fees that were there last year, bring it into the salary fund, and use it to pay the salary at that time. And, I'm -- I'm not sure that that procedure has, per se, ever been followed, because -- and, again, looking back at this 154.009, paying straight over as fees without having this done, it says that that may not be done. And the Constitution, at Article 16, Section 61, says that a county over 20,000 in population must pay all its officers on a salaried basis. So, if somebody's paid on a salary basis, the County may not pay a fee or commission to the officer for the performance of a service by that officer unless they go through this procedure where the money is taken in and moved from a special salary fund to the salary fund, and then perhaps into the General Fund at that time, first meeting of the next year. COMM155IONER GRIFFIN: Are you suggesting we should do that? Is that -- MR. MO'PLEY: No. I'm asking -- this is -- this is -- in the line item, it says 10-426-101, a salary -- Elected Officials Salary, is what it says. It doesn't say anything about compensation, fees for hearings. I know that the money is -- I mean, I'm well aware of what the Mental 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .- 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 91 Health Code provides in the way of salaries, supplements, fees, as court costs, et cetera. It's just that this revenue, as opposed to coming out of some special salary fund that was created by fees, because it does not vary with the number of hearings at the hospital. It varies with the cost-of-living. And, it seems to me if that's what it -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you saying that we're going to -- that you think that we ought to pay out based on number of hearings the Judge or whoever -- MR. MOTLEY: I drafted the contract a couple years back, specifically -- and the Commissioners Court approved $10 per hearing as a salary supplement for Judge Henneke for holding hearings at locations other than the courthouse. That's money that's supposed to be paid to him, and is probably about $7,000 for every -- maybe as high as $10,000 for every hearing. That is, in fact, salary supplement, and that is -- I don't see any record of where that has been -- been paid to him. I think he's due that money. But this business about the $50 per hearing to be make the transition, turn that around and to put it into the General Fund and turn it into Elected Officials Salary into the County Court, it would require that Commissioners Court have that initial meeting every fiscal year and do this. 1 2 .-. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,.-. 25 92 And, all I'm saying is that it appears that, at least as of this time, that that $9,479 is County-funded Elected Officials Salary, and -- and -- as opposed to a state supplement or a fee, because it says you can't pay a fee unless you go through this procedure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think your point is on that -- and I would -- you know, one of the problems I have, because this goes out to the public, is that a number of people in the county get supplements, and I think that should be always put out while we're doing the salary structure. It should be a straight. structure, either a state supplement or other supplement, so it's real clear to the public as to what the actual -- the total salary for these people are. And, in fact, what David's saying, I'll agree that we can probably do that, or Barbara or whoever, if that's in this, and add the supplements for those that get it, because 1 think that that is -- you know, is something that should be very public. MR. MOTLEY: Let me also say, I don't think we collect 100 percent of the court costs that are assessed against the counties that send people here for mental health hearings, but -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, procedurally, if we're not doing something right, the way the Judge is being paid, we need to procedurally correct that. 93 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 JUDGE HENNEKE: I would assume that since the money that's collected is going into the general revenue, that that step that David's talking about has been taken at some point, but we could correct that first meeting in October if we want to. Sheriff? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I -- this may -- and I hope it doesn't open a can of worms, Judge, but what I'm kind of wondering about now -- evidently, what he's talking about are fees, right? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And those fees are now being supplemented into a salary supplement for yourself. Doesn't every department here, including my own or Linda's or the Tax Assessor, don't we have the same type of fees? Such as when we serve warrants, there's a warrant fee that the county we're serving the warrants is charged, or civil papers, that there's a fee that they -- JUDGE HENNEKE: You have to look at what the statute says you can do with that fee. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: The statute says that Kerr County is entitled to charge a $50 fee for every hearing that I hold for out-of-state -- out-of-county prisoners, which can be then used to supplement my salary as County Judge. And the reason behind that is, very few counties 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 94 have a mental hospital, so they don't get burdened with that. The fee on warrants, the fee on court costs, do not contain that -- that connector. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I just -- I haven't looked it up, 'cause I don't see any difference -- a fee's a fee and a salary's a salary. I mean, I just -- I have a problem -- if the County's going to pay a salary, we ought to pay a salary, just like mine or anybody else's. If it's fees -- 'cause they all end up in the General Fund. That's what we all operate off of, is that General Fund. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. MR. MOTLEY: We're all supposed to be salaried officers, because we have over 20,000 population. That case, the letter opinion -- it's Number 98-053 -- said that -- the law actually says the Judge who holds a hearing under this section may assess, for the services of the Judge, a fee in an amount not to exceed $50, as a court cost -- not as a salary supplement -- against the county responsible for the payment of costs. They go on to point out about the other section I mentioned, that -- where there is a salary supplement provided at a rate set by the Commissioners to the Judge for holding hearings away from the courthouse, and that's the -- that's the deciding language in the opinion. They said in this very same section of the Health and Safety Code, the Legislature has 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 95 shown well that they know how to distinguish court costs and salary supplements. And this prosecutor was saying the 50 bucks that goes in there ought to go to him as a salary supplement, and the A.G. said they -- they're providing for salary supplement here, and these are provided as fees to be paid as courts costs. And if they're intending it to be a salary supplement, they would have said that. JUDGE HENNEKE: That's what you need to do, is to give us a roadmap as to how to get to where we are. MR. MOTLEY: That'd be fine. JUDGE HENNEKE: If that's what you're suggesting. MR. MO'PLEY: That would be fine. It's this section -- it's in Chapter 159 of the Local Government Code. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. You write me a memo with the roadmap of how we need to get to where we are. Because, since this has apparently been going on for a number of years, I'm wondering why this has never been brought up before. MS. UECKER: I think Judge Edwards was the one that separated it out. It used to be all together. Judge Edwards -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Perhaps one of the County Attorneys before would have brought this to someone's attention, if it's being done improperly, because it's been 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 96 in every budget that I've been aware of the same way. MR. MOTLEY: Well, Your Honor, I think the reason maybe -- maybe it came to light, so to speak, at this time is because this model that has developed for possible use is -- you know, the stated goal is everybody would be treated fairly and equally when you compared the salaries of Kerr County people to the average salary of the 19 counties. If this is, in fact, county funds from the General Fund, that salary figure would be much higher, which would generate a lesser adjustment to get to 60 percent of the median or whatever. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Other counties -- other counties have this same fee separated from the base salary, just as we have done in the model. Now, whether that's right or wrong, I'll rely on the legal expertise to tell. MR. MOTLEY: Did somebody survey those counties for the particular deal about whether they have two different budgets and such for this? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. No -- yeah, Barbara called all 18 counties. MR. MOTLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Other than us. And we have her raw data for each -- each public official. And, the reason we did it the way we did it was 'cause this makes 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it an apples-to-apples comparison -- MR. MOTLEY: Sure, I think that's fair. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- with other counties, and has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that other counties who have supplements like this -- now, they may do theirs right and we do ours wrong. MR. MOTLEY: I don't know. But -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But, the point is -- is that other counties somehow have -- some have other supplements, some don't. And, by the way, one of the things I noticed in the data is that there's some county -- some counties who really can hide what they really pay their county officials, because they do it in travel. They'll have -- they'll have -- MS. NEMEC: $7,000 in travel. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- $35,000 salary and $10,000 in travel. So, they're -- MS. UECKER: No, I don't think that's correct. And those that I called, that's what we consider conference money. They call it travel, but that would be like our conference and education money, is what they call travel. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, they've got some County Commissioners in some of these other counties that -- MS. UECKER: Well, County Commissioners, 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2L 2: 2 2 :hat's a different story, but I'm talking about District ~lerks that have that line high. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm not saying that they all do it for all positions. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Some counties have a lot -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's move along. MS. NEMEC: I would just say this, to clarify David's question. When I called the counties, I would ask them if there was -- like, for the County Judge, for example, do you pay any type of salary for mental health hearings? Do you pay Juvenile Board? Do you pay anything that our Judge got a different salary for? I would ask those questions, and I would put it down on the supplement side of the survey. Same for County Attorney. They gave me the base salary, then I asked what was the state supplement that that County Attorney received, and the same for County Court at Law, the same for all positions. So, it was noted on the salary survey. Then, Commissioner Griffin chose not to include any of those supplements iii any of our -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The Court actually did; that was a ground rule we assumed. We -- MS. NEMEC: So it was done the same for all the elected officials, I believe. - 99 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 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. MR. MOTLEY: Well, and that's fine. You know, all I'm saying is, it seems to me, in order to do that properly -- and, again, I question why the -- why the $10 per hearing salary supplement is apparently not being given to the Judge, and it should be. And then this $50 per hearing is to be converted into money which could be used for salary supplement or to pay salary in the county court. JUDGE HENNEKE: Even if we're -- MR. MOTLEY: It maybe should be run through this procedure that I mentioned. JUDGE HENNEKE: If you'll give us the roadmap, the procedure, we'll -- 1'll put it on the agenda the first meeting in October and we'll make it legitimate. MR. MOTLEY: Okay, I'll be happy to do that. JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? Okay, Barbara? MS. NEMEC: I don't know if this is the proper time to bring this up or not, but you can tell me. I had called our consultant, Nash Consultants; he did our survey last year for all the employees, and I've called him on different occasions for different reasons. And, I think there's going to be some on the agenda for 'Tuesday of -- of the ones that he did not approve or agree with. There was one, however, that I talked to him about yesterday, and that 100 was the Assistant County Attorney's salary. He said when he recommended they be a 25-5, that was the starting recommended salary. He had never intended that 25-5 to ever go to a 25-1, which we do anytime someone leaves that position, and so I'm just throwing it at you to see how we can fix that. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lE 17 lE 1~ 2C 2: 2: 2. 2 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we fixed it. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, what we -- what I think we need to do -- what is a 26-1? About the same as a 25-5? MS. NEMEC: Not at all. Well, it's -- a 26-1 is $24,123, and a 25-5 is $35,851. So, if you want me to, I can go to a 27-1. A 26 is the highest this goes to, this schedule. I can -- I can put in a 27-1 and see what that comes up to, and maybe we can correct that in the budget. JUDGE HENNEKE: But, you have a 27 schedule. We'll try to correct that position, see how close it comes. Anyone else? Funding issues? Linda, do you want to make a pitch for your scanning stations now? MS. UECKER: Now, wait a minute. You just told me a while ago we were going to do this some other time, 'cause I wasn't prepared. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we'll give you another S shot at the apple, too. I thought just as long as we were k putting out dollars, we might throw that in, too. j SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Are we going to go 101 ,.^.. r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 lL l; 1< 1 1 1 1 1 2 L L through the individual budget items now'? JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy's going to rerun the budget and circulate it to everybody. Everybody will get their budget the way it's been saucered and blowed, and then we'll have another meeting next week and we'll go through everybody's budget and do some finalization. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 'Cause if Linda makes -- that was the whole deal, is that some of us may want to make that pitch. And -- and I also am not prepared to make that pitch today, 'cause I don't know what the pitch needs to be made about. MS. UECKER: Well, and I -- I think there may be an alternative answer for the Sheriff and I. I mean, the Auditor will have to tell me, but I don't know how much money is in that Records Preservation fee. That might be i able to fund at least one scanner for each of us. JUDGE HENNEKE: Y'all can take a look at 3 I that. 9 MS. UECKER: Yeah. 0 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, when Tommy runs the 1 figures, he's going to come out with an actual dollar, is 2 what it's going to show? Okay. And, a lot of times there 3 may be -- in that group, there may be 10 different items 4 that we ask for. Are you going to be available, whether we :5 can come to you and decide which one of those items -- r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 102 individual items are not included in that dollar -- JUDGE HENNEKE: I'll be here all -- I'll be gone Wednesday at AACOG. I'll be here Thursday. May or may not be here Friday, but I'll be here next week, too, so -- MS. UECKER: The other thing I wanted to say is that I agree with the County Attorney, in that the 5 percent for the department heads is -- you know, when I saw that and looked at the 60 percent of what, you know, may be discussed for elected officials, plus the 2 and a half percent, is way less than the 5 and a half percent that they're going to be getting in addition -- I mean, plus they'll get an additional 2 and a half percent. And, where did the 2 and a half percent come from? As COLA? JUDGE HENNEKE: That's -- that's less than the actual -- well, we don't know exactly what the COLA is, but it was my -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: C.P.I. JUDGE HENNEKE: C.P.I. It was my feeling as to what was probably a legitimate cost-of-living adjustment for Kerr County. MS. UECKER: I know that's the figure that's been used for as long as I've been here for COLA. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we did a 3 or 3 and a half the first year I was Judge. We've done others before. MS. UECKER: But I know that the state index 1c 1" 1~ l~ 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 V J 1 right now is almost at 4. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: But the state is a biannual, 3 too. They don't do it every year; they only do it every two 4 years. You got to keep that in consideration. 5 MS. UECKER: I think the national index is at ~ 3.2, or -- ~ JUDGE HENNEKE: And it's a budgetary number. 3 We've got to start somewhere, and we can ratchet it one way 3 or another. It simply was a -- you know, an effort to ~ reflect the fact that the cost-of-living has gone up, but without also taking into consideration budgetary needs of the County. MS. UECKER: Another question I have is, any merit increases for any departments are gone this year; is that right? JUDGE HENNEKE: Unless you funded them out of your existing budget, there's no merit pool out there available. MS. UECKER: Okay. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And realize, too, I think that -- that when you get this budget -- this next budget runback for your department and it's got a scanner that's not there any more or whatever, that that's your opportunity then to say, well, hey, I've got the -- this is my bottom line now; I may want to move some stuff around in 104 ~. ~-- here to -- to make this budget more -- to make this budget number more efficient. I may want to move some stuff around. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. l~ 1` lc 1' 1' 1 2 2 2 2 L MS. UECKER: Well, in my case, I won't have that opportunity, because I kept mine at the same line, and the only -- except for a $400 receipt printer. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Scanner? MS. UECKER: The scanner is the only thing I asked for. I mean, that's it. JUDGE HENNEKE: Y'all will have a chance to scrub your budgets before we take any action, I guarantee you. MS. UECKER: When do you think -- JUDGE HENNEKE: That was my next question. Tommy, when do you think you can turn these around and get them out again? COMMISSIONEK GRIFFIN: I'll get the run to 3 you on the salary stuff. ~ JUDGE HENNEKE: He's got it. ~ MR. TOMLINSON: I think that's more of a 1 Treasurer question, because she's the one that's going to 2 have to develop the numbers for the salaries for each 3 department. q MS. NEMEC: I'll work on salaries all day 5 tomorrow, give them to him tomorrow afternoon, and maybe he 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 can start on his Thursday. JUDGE HENNEKE: If we were to plan another session next Wednesday afternoon, do you think that's comfortable, that you could get to the -- the individual departments their budget by Tuesday, mid-afternoon? MS. NEMEC: I'll have mine done by Thursday morning. Whether I do it tomorrow at 5:00 or tomorrow at 10 p.m., I promise I'll have my stuff to him Thursday morning, no matter how long it takes me to get it done. JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy, do you think by Wednesday afternoon? MR. TOMLINSON: I think that's okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: So, we'll plan on doing this again Wednesday afternoon. MS. SOVIL: 1:30? JUDGE HENNEKE: Want to go 1:30 or 2 o'clock? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1:30. The earlier, the better. JUDGE HENNEKE: 1:30? Buster's got to get to football practice. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Buster's got to get to football practice. JUDGE HENNEKE: And we'll -- the Auditor said he will get budgets out to you as soon as possible, hopefully not later Lhan Tuesday mid-afternoon. So, you'll inc have Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday to look at them. I'll .-. F 8 9 y 10 11 12 13 •-- 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .~-~ 25 be here Wednesday morning, if anyone wants to come in and ask any specific questions. MS. UECKER: Wednesday morning next week, you mean? JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. If anyone wants to come in now and ask any questions about what's happening, come on in. Okay, last item we have -- Paula, do you want to talk to us a bit about my request about schedule? MS. RECTOR: I think, at this point, since we do not even have a proposed tax rate, we're still kind of throwing it around. What I did do is print a schedule and some summaries. There's also a comparison of tax increases on one-cent increments above the effective rate, which is on the last page, just to kind of give you an idea of what kind of revenues would it generate if we were to consider raising the tax rate. And, just my -- my two cent's worth is that I think if we're going to do it, now's the time do it. Our economy is real stable right now, but I think we're going to start seeing some changes in the next few years. Our values have been up for the last several years and we've been able to maintain the tax rate of the same rate for the last six years, but I think that we may be looking at some problems if we don't take a look at -- at raising it just slightly. I do agree with Tommy that that's probably something that we ~n~ need to take a look at, but I did run some summaries t i f E i E i 1 10 11 12 13 r 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-~ 25 comparing levies, comparing rates, comparing tax levies from last year to this year, that type of thing. Just something for y'all to kind of look at. As far as the calendar, we really can't follow -- or make any scheduled dates until we have a proposed rate. Once we get to that point, then we can go back to our calendar and plug some dates in. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okav. Anvht~rly ha..o ~,,., questions of Paula? Thank you, Paula. MS. NEMEC: We're just real concerned about the 2 and a half percent for the department heads cost-of-liviny, plus an additional 5, and the increases that are on here for all other elected officials. I ;ust ~.,a„r t„ throw that out wkzen you're doing your numbers. JUDGE HENNEKE: Understand that the goal on elected officials is to bring us up to the median of all the counties over two years. So, the following year, you know, we're setting forth a program where we would get an additional significant increase, which the department heads may not get. So, if you want to tie yourself to department heads, that runs both ways. If you want the 5 percent this year and then don't get any next year, then -- we want to be careful about that. I think what we want to do is stay with a consistent goal of being at the median salary for counties L V V 1 our age, and getting there in a reasonable or rational 2 method, rather than being concerned -- 3 MS. UECKER: Well, we'd be better off -- ~ JUDGE HENNEKE: -- with what Len ma y get. MS. NEMEC: The thing is, we don't make > 560,000 plus the 5 percent on top of that, so we wouldn't ' benefit from that like some other department heads are going to benefit. 1( 1] lL 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only thing I got to say, if Tommy can figure all this out, I hope y'all got him as a department head. He's going to have the fun job. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's what I always say, is, gosh, it's just amazing how we go through this process and then we get another run and it's right. You know, I just don't -- you know, I -- it's a fantastic system, and once it gets all the numbers in it, it can crunch it. JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy's the best. JUDGE HENNEKE: Not going to give him a raise; we'll clap for trim. Okay, we're adjourned. Thank you all. (Commissioners Court adjourned at 4:02 p.m.) 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1~ lE 1. 1F 1~ 2( 2 2. 2 2 2 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF KERR The above and foregoing is a true and complete transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. i DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 2A'th day of August, 2001. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk BY : _~_ ~J9!~-~C ----- Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter i I 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF KERR The above and foregoing is a true and complete transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 27th day of August, 12001. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk B Y : ,/ ~Z Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter ORDER N0.~7185 RGGROVRL OF F'RDPOSALS FOR RADIO GROJECT On this the Slst day of R~ag~_ist, c@@]. upon motion made by Commissioner Lets, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the Co~_ir•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@, that the Co~_ir•t a~_ithroize Trott Coinm~_tnications and the Sheriff, as well County Attorney, to negotiate best and final price and contract with Daily Wells Communications of San Antonio, Texas. /^'~