1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Special Session Wednesday, September 5, 2001 9:00 a.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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 z 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On Wednesday, September 5, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., a special meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerx' County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. It's 9 o'clock on Wednesday, September 5, Year 2001, and we'll call to order this special meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. We'll take up the nonbudget items first. First item on the agenda is consider and discuss authorizing Road and Bridge Department to roll the parking lot at Antler Stadium. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm going to pull this one right now. I found a local contractor -- Edmund Jenschke, Incorporated, is going to donate that service to the booster club, and I'm probably going to put the item back on the agenda in a little bit more general format, to get an interlocal agreement in place with the K.I.S. D. in case something like this comes up in the future. Whether -- you know, from either party. And I think it's a better way; we're not trying to scramble. But, this one is pulled at this point and taken care of in another manner. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Good work. Thank you. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Did you also include 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 the other I.S.D.'s? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. I think -- yeah. JUDGE HENNEKE: We'llnext take up item -- look at Number 5, consider and discuss the approval of consolidating polling locations for the Constitutional Amendment Election and approval of polling locations. Jannett? MS. PIEPER: Thank you, Judge. After going back and doing a study of the last several Constitutional Amendment elections and us having less than 5,000 voter turnout and the cost being enormous, I think it would be wise if we consolidate into one polling place per Commissioner's precinct. And, I thought that each Commissioner could pick out his own polling location. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to consolidate mine at Trinity Baptist Church, please. MS. PIEPER: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If that was a question. MS. PIEPER: That's a question. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what you wanted. JUDGE HENNEKE: You are right on the ball this morning, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Great. And could I 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 consolidate mine at the Hill Country Arts'? MS. PIEPER: Hill Country Arts Foundation? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN:. Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would consolidate Precinct 2 at the County Extension Office on Highway 27 East. JUDGE IIENNEKE: Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: First I have a question. You're going to -- is there going to be a -- are you going to be at Municipal Auditorium as a -- MS. PIEPER: The Municipal Auditorium will be under construction, so there will be no voting there. The early voting has been changed to Zion Lutheran Church. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But there will be -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: But tkiere will be early voting at Zion -- MS. PIEPER: Yes, two weeks of early voting. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then I'll put mine at Calvary Temple Church on Highway 27. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Do we have a motion to approve consolidating polling locations and approval of polling locations as -- for Precinct 1, Trinity Baptist Church; Precinct 2, the County Extension Office on Highway 27 East; Precinct 3, the Calvary Temple Church on Highway 27 East; and Precinct 4, Hill Country Arts Foundation on 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 Highway 39 West? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve consolidating the polling locations as indicated. Any further 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: Let it be clearly understood that this is only for the November Constitutional election. MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir. And we will have notices posted at all the election precincts that are not being used. JUDGE HENNEKE: So, every place where people are used to voting, there will be a notice posted by the Sheriff which says -- MS. PIEPER: That states where they're -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Voting is now here. MS. PIEPER: Right, where they need to go. JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Thank you Jannett. MS. PIEPER: Thank you. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Now, let's turn to the main business at hand. Before we start, I want to just make a few comments about some of the underlying reasons that we find ourselves where we are today, in the sense of struggling with the difficult budget. As you all know, when it comes to numbers, I look at things very simply. And I was preparing some numbers, and last year in the budget we adopted, we estimated the ad valorem tax revenue at $7,237,850. If you take the appraised value of the property roll in Kerr County today, multiply it by the current tax rate of .3513, you come up with $7,429,942, which is an increase of $191,586, which was kind of what we started out to play with. Then you take some things that, really, we don't have a lot of control over, and you subtract those. Our Auditor told us that the cost per employee of medical insurance went up $450 per employee, which comes out to $119,250. Workmen's compensation premium increase went up $39,000. Liability insurance went up $3,500. Those three items are an increase of $161,750. If we add to that increase the increase in the City of Kerrville fire contract, increase in the First Responder Coordinator contribution, as well as the increase in the First Responder expense contribution, which three items total $28,000, you come up with a total of $188,750, which means we have a 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 grand total of about $2,500 left from the ad valorem tax increase with which to fund cost-of-living increases, additional employees, additional equipment to fund the County government, which is why we find ourselves where we are now. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Would you repeat those two numbers for me, the total increase because of the reappraisal, yielding how many dollars total? JUDGE HENNEKE: Simplistically, the total increase in ad valorem property values in the city -- in the county of Kerr resulted in $191,586 additional dollars of tax revenue. The six items that I've outlined as cost increases total a hundred -- $188,750, which means that leaves us less than $3,000 in the -- in additional revenue generated by the increase in tax -- in appraisals of property here in Kerr County, which is where we find ourselves today. And it's our job to deal with it, and I think we're doing it in a very responsible and proper manner. It's entirely proper, and the correct way to do financing, to incur debt for long-term projects such as the radio project, such as the jail, such as the renovation of the courthouse annex. Those projects, in my opinion, should not be funded from general Maintenance and Operations. They should have specific -- what I like to call sunsetted taxes attached to them, so the public knows exactly what it costs 9 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 to provide the facilities that the County needs in order to operate. That's where we're headed with the radio project. That's what was done with the new jail. The renovations to the courthouse annex was dollars, we wouldn't be talking today. This thing would sail right through; we'd be done. We'd be rocking and rolling towards finalizing this thing. But we don't have them, so we're going to have to make the adjustments and find the dollars in order to finance the County government, which is our constitutional responsibility. So, I think those figures are interesting for the public to know so they have a better appreciation of the struggles that we in County government are facing. I noticed with interest that the U.G.R.A. today has been proposing a 16.75 percent tax increase over last year, so we -- we are not the only ones faced with finding additional dollars to fund our mission. Fortunately, our additional dollars do not near approximate the increase that the U.G.R.A. is forced to consider in order to fund their mission. Hopefully, today we can finalize this so that we can begin the process of having the public hearings and move toward resolution by the end of the 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 month. If we can't, then we should come back again and keep picking at it till we get there, because we don't have any choice. Technically, we have until October 3rd to approve the budget, pass the budget, adopt a tax rate, because the certified tax roll was not delivered until August 3rd and we have 60 days after that. I think Tommy would go nuts if we ran a 3-day window where we didn't have a budget and were operating under the old budget, and that's something I think that we can certainly avoid. We have the time to do that if we want to push on. Before we ask Tommy to give us the explanation for the most recent budget summary, and also Barbara has a few comments, let's see if anyone has anything they'd like to say before we kick it off. Today I'll start to my left. Commissioner Griffin? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: My only comment, I think -- I think we're ready to deal on this thing and get it taken care of. I think -- I know how much time everybody has put into it; the Judge, the Auditor, the Treasurer. The Commissioners are trying to build this thing and do it right. We're going to have to -- as the Judge indicates, we're going to have to make better some things that this Court didn't have anything to do with, but it's our responsibility when it comes to that to do it, and I think the Court's ready to do that. JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan? 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a couple comments. One, going back to some other things that were done that -- I guess, permanent improvement-type items that have been done out of budget, such as the remodeling next door. Since I've been on the Court, the Ag Extension Office was built out of budget and the -- and the old courthouse was completely done out of budget, which was -- as I recall, those two things were a little over a million dollars, maybe more than that, that were paid for out of budget. So, it's not just that remodeling next door that has been done. There's been a great deal done out of budget. We've done a lot of upgrades and -- you know, in other areas, as well, that are almost going to be in the permanent improvement category. I think the thing that no one anticipated, sort of -- certainly, I never had -- is the amount of the insurance increases that we were hit with this year and hit with last year, too; tremendous increase the past couple of years, and that's something that is hard to forecast. So -- and I don't disagree at all that, you know, that $400,000 that is being spent on this maybe should have been done -- handled differently, but at the time when it was looked at, and the way we operated up to that point, it was hoped that we could get through a major construction period without doing a tax increase. That may not have been a correct 12 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 assumption. I think it needs to be, you know, looked at. The other comment I have is -- and going back to -- I debated whether I was going to bring it up or not. It's a letter sent to the Judge, but it was copied to every elected official, from Paula Rector. I took great offense to it. I think that one thing that we had not fallen into the past couple of years is name-calling. And, I think that we've all -- every elected official present has done a very good job in looking at things. And then I got a copy of the letter that was sent to Fred from Paula where she refers to members of this Court as "primitive thinking," as only interested in brownie points so they can say, "We didn't raise taxes," and things of that nature. And I see zero value in any elected official making comments like that. There's absolutely no reason for it. And, what is said is not true. Every member on this Court, this budget cycle, has talked about raising taxes. I'm probably the furthest and the most opposed to raising taxes, and I think I was quoted in the front page of the paper as raising taxes, or agreeing to raise taxes for law enforcement. So, I think that it's -- you know, I'm -- I don't understand why Ms. Rector wrote that letter, and I totally disagree with it, and I just think it does nothing but hurt the whole budget process of cooperation that we've been working on. Since I've been a Commissioner, everything 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1/ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that she has basically wanted in her department has been funded, as in every other department. We have done major improvements in the county during that period, so I don't know where she's coming from saying that, you know, we are in a mess right now, or about to be in a mess. I think we have, probably, an extremely strong fund balance in all areas in this county, as we've had since I've been a Commissioner, and we have funded every department, every elected official, almost every request they wanted. The area that has had probably the closest scrutiny has been the Sheriff's Department since I've been a member of the Court, and that department has, likewise, received a number of improvements. So, I just don't understand that. I think it's a -- I don't understand why she wrote the letter. I think it does nothing but hurt the process. JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Last time we met, I didn't have a great deal to say about this process. I listened, and i'll continue to listen today. But, believe it or not, in the interim I've done a lot of thinking about where we are with this particular budget. County government runs because we have people. It runs good because we have good people. Last year we spent a good bit -- good deal of money on people. We intend to spend another large sum of money this year on people. And, in my opinion, that's money 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 well spent. I don't think that there's a county that I'm familiar with, in terms of government, that has a better group of elected officials than this county has, nor a better group of employees. So, if the Sheriff, for example, stands in front of us and tells us he needs four more deputies, and he needs four more support people, and he needs whatever -- whatever, in addition to communications systems to provide the law enforcement for this growing county, then this Commissioner is ready to support his contentions. The same applies -- the same logic applies to any other department head who, in good conscience, stands before this Court and makes a compelling case to improve the services that are rendered to Kerr County. Let's not lose sight of the fact that, over the last ten years, this county has grown 20-plus percent. That means that the amount of service provided by the County has equally grown by 20-plus percent. If you consider that, then you also have to consider that the projections for Kerr County over the next 10 to 20 years is another 50 percent in growth. we face those same numbers when we talk about water. We're facing the same numbers when we're talking about budget. So, if the Sheriff or other department heads say we've got to do whatever we have to do to keep the level of services that people expect in place, don't lose sight of the fact that if 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 you don't prepare for the future, you're going to find yourself in the same boat all over again, trying to play catch-up. Whether other courts did or did not fund the annex or other projects from special sunset taxes, as the Judge says, and put them in the M and 0 budget is -- it's done. We don't have the two cents that was spent or continues to be spent on the annex. So, if we need the money to do what we need to do, then I suggest that we get on with the business at hand, and I'm prepared to support a tax increase commensurate with the needs that have been presented to us by our elected officials and department heads. JUDGE HENNEKE: Buster? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Fred. What I wanted to say is I thank you for your work as the chief financial officer. I don't know of a tougher job in county government to do, particularly this budget year, and you've done a tremendous job, and I thank you for -- for taking on that task and -- and doing what the good people of Kerr County have hired you to do. As y'all know, I travel around quite a bit and visit other counties and lots of Commissioners Courts, and there -- I have not found one anywhere that has a county government run as well and smooth and courteous and kind as this Commissioners Court. The 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 County Attorney just yesterday was in Williamson County, which about triples or quadruples our county, and he made Lhe comment to me this morning that we are much more professional and caring for our people by far than even Williamson County. And, I think that's a tribute to you gentlemen that work hard and have a sincere interest in and concern for our people. And, Bill, you used -- you used a word picture that is one of my favorites, and what we're doing here is for people. That's what it's all about. And, I think that we have -- since this Court has been sitting, that we have focused not only on the taxpaying public out there, but the people that are employed by us and that we're responsible for. And, Fred, you used one of my favorite words, and that's the word "sunset." And -- and I would hope, and I think that we -- I haven't discussed this -- we haven't discussed this in detail, but I just feel sure that when we vote in a little while to raise the taxes in this county, and possibly maybe earmark it for a certain area, that there would be a sunset. When that -- I just think iL's good business, when you -- when you set up a project and -- and set up money to pay for those projects, when that project is finished or completed, then that taxing mechanism should be completed also. so -- and, again, I also support the -- the 17 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 elected officials that have come in. I don't think there is one of them that comes in here asking for anything that they really don't need to run their office. And, again, Fred, your comment about our Constitutional duty, we are -- our job is to provide for these offices so that they can run in a -- in a fashion that meets the needs of the taxpayers, and I think that's what we're doing today. It's tough, but -- and it's not for sissies. But, if it was easy, everybody would be up here doing it. JUDGE HENNEKE: Amen. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So that's my comments. I'm ready to rock and roll here. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, thank you. Sheriff, do you want to -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I'll start it off. JUDGE HENNEKE: No. No, we 're not ready for that yet. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're not? JUDGE HENNEKE: Have a seat. We need some overall look first. I think Tommy and Barbara, and then we'll come to you. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. 'Cause some of tYiis may deal with the overall -- JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll come back to you. Tommy, do you want to give us a brief rundown on the latest 18 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 summary which was handed out? MR. TOMLINSON: I handed out a summary that reflects the changes that -- that were proposed the last meeting we had. The Treasurer has the details on what those were. They're all -- they're all related to adjustments that were made to salaries and -- and in different offices, so she can explain that better than I can. So, Lhe page that I -- that I have -- that I gave you reflects the changes. That's really the only -- only comment I have about -- about this summary. But, I would -- I would like to echo two things that -- well, one thing the Judge said and that Commissioner Williams said about -- about funding a long-term commitment with -- with a specific tax rate, and that we look at -- we do long-term projects because we expect, you know, population growth in the county, and we do those -- we make those improvements to be able to provide -- provide services for long-term for the growth of this county. And, by funding those things with the debt over -- over the useful life of the project, effectively, what happens is, with growth in population and -- and increased values in property year after year after year, the effective cost of that project per taxpayer goes down every year. And, so, what happens, it -- in my way of thinking, it -- it allows the potential users of -- of this service or 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 product that we deliver to be paid for by the people that are going to come here in the future. And, so -- I mean, so I think that's a compelling reason to -- to fund long-term projects with a specific tax rate. COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that question, on the annex renovation, which is $445,000 or so that the Judge mentioned, can that be designated as -- can we still designate that as a -- as, I guess, as a separate item, budget-wise, or we could put it out, sunset that portion as one, and then radio equipment as a separate item and sunset it separately? MR. TOMLINSON: In the budget summary and in the tax rate schedule that's in the budget, we had -- it already does that. What happened was that -- that the rate necessary to -- to £und that debt was moved from -- from Maintenance and Operations. So, in effect, it lowered the Maintenance and Operation rate and -- and placed another -- the rate necessary to retire that debt into -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Separate fund. MR. TOMLINSON: -- to a separate fund by itself. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many years remain on that? MR. TOMLINSON: I think four, I believe. 20 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 WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's five. MR. TOMLINSON: Maybe it's five. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think five. JUDGE HENNEKE: I signed -- one of the first things I did when I took office in January of 1999 was to sign the actual note, seven-year note. MR. TOMLINSON: So, it cuts off in four. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Comes off in '04? MR. TOMLINSON: 'O5. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 'OS would be the last tax year. JUDGE HENNEKE: You had a question? COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other question I had was a memo or e-mail that you sent to -- to the Judge on the 31st regarding Road and Bridge and their fund balances, and a $170,000 adjustment you thought was warranted. MR. TOMLINSON: Well -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was wondering if that is reflected in these numbers. MR. TOMLINSON: I just made an observation that -- that in 1999/2000, the -- the budget for Special Projects, the level -- the total of that was, like, $276,000 or $280,000, and it had been for -- for some years, because that amount is -- is close to what we actually collected in zl 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 that field. In '99/2000, we added $200,000 to that for -- for funding anything that was related to the High Water Bridge project, okay, and the next year and this year it was also added to that -- to that budget, and that $200,000 has not been used. The -- for 2001/2002, the total of that budget is the same; it's still at $476,000. So -- but there's -- there's $80,000 in the budget for the High Water Bridge project. So, by my math, it's -- there's $120,000 extra in -- in that -- in that budget that wasn't there in '99/2000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 120 or 170? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it's 120. But, there's another issue also, and in 2000/2001, there was an increase of the operating budget for Road and Bridge by approximately $50,000. Part of that was for -- was the increase in salaries that -- as a result of the study. The other part of it was a transfer of $25,000 from -- from the Road Districts to do some work on -- on the road districts, on those roads. So we actually transferred x25,000 of funds from one -- from the road districts fund into Road and Bridge Operating. Well, this year, for 2001/2002, the bottom line -- or the total budget of Road and Bridge Operating is still the same as it was last year, but there's no provision to transfer $25,000 from -- from -- from the road district funds, so you add those -- those two issues 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 together and you get -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. But those -- that is not reflected in the budget summary you handed out today? MR. TOMLINSON: No, I didn't change anything. I just -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: That was just an observation that I wanted you to see. JUDGE HENNEKE: Just so everybody's clear, the budget summary you've handed out today is basically the result of the last workshop we had after the -- and the add-ons that were discussed at the request of the various elected officials. MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. JUDGE HENNEKE: So, the memo that I sent out, this is the one with the -- with the big deficit; that's what we're looking at here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: With the 200 -- so, added in $253,000? JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That list of add-ons -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- are all included? JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. Is that correct, Tommy? 23 1 2 J 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: So, everyone knows where we are.- Okay. Barbara, you had a few things you were going to clarify with us? MS. NEMEC: Okay. Last week, I went ahead and did the -- redid the position schedule, and I sent a copy to each department so that they could verify if it was correct or not, and we do have a few corrections. I'll give y'all the good news first. In the Sheriff's Department, we are actually getting back $16,720 from their Part-Time line item. They no longer have a part-time employee, so I wasn't aware that that line item should have been deleted. And then there was one position, the criminal investigator, that is an open position. We had it at a 21/5, and it should be a 21/1, so that's another savings of $2,907. Then, in the Juvenile Department, I -- I guess this is right. I had no explanation on -- on it when I received it back, but I had the Juvenile Supervisor's salary at $96,817, and he marked it out and put $44,588. So, that's a $2,229 savings there. Okay. Now, for the increases, in the County Attorney's office, adding the cost-of-living to the first assistant attorney, I had him at a 21/1, and so we need to move him up to a 21 -- I'm sorry, a 28/1, and so he should be a 28/2. And that's $965. 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: He dOeSn't get a Step increase. The cost-of-living just -- MS. NEMEC: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: -- adds to that base, so he stays at a 28/1. The salary just goes up by the 2 1/2 percent. MS. NEMEC: Okay. The problem is -- that's what I did, because he is classified as a 28. So, I left him at a 28/1, because I felt in order to move him up a grade, they needed to come to Court. That's what the provisions say. So, when I submitted this to the County attorney, what happens is, if you leave him at a 28/1, he's ending up getting his same salary. JUDGE HENNEKE: But you add the COLA on top of his -- of his salary. MS. NEMEC: Well, the problem, again, is that he -- they were all at a 25/8, and so the closest one to reclassify them at to stay in his salary and not get a big increase was a 28/1, but that kept him at the same salary that he was getting as a 25/8. And, so, when you redo the schedule and you add the 2 1/2 percent, it just left him at the same amount, so that's why I left him there. But, then -- now the County Attorney is telling me he should be moved up a step in order for him to get an increase. JUDGE HENNEKE: He doesn't get a step zs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 increase. What he does is he takes his salary, whatever we set it at, 38 -- whatever it is, and you add 2 1/2 percent to it, and that's his new salary. His new salary as a 28/1 will be his existing salary plus 2 1/2 percent. MS. NEMEC: Well, 2 1/2 percent is a 28/2. JUDGE HENNEKE: But all the steps move up to 2 1/2 percent. MS. NEMEC: The thing is, he wasn't a 28/1; he was a -- it's confusing. He was a 25/8, and if I would have put him at a 29/1 -- well, we don't have 29 on this schedule. But, for example, let me show you here. He was a 25 -- well, actually, he wasn't -- okay, he was a 25/7, okay? Which, in the new schedule, it's $38,610. But we reclassified them to make their -- their grade higher, because the intention was not for them to get 25 and revert back to a 25/1. So, in order to adjust that, I put him at a 28/l, which is $38,609. So, it did not give him an increase. The only way to give him an increase is to move him a step -- and that will give him a 2 1/2 -- JUDGE HENNEKE: But the -- nobody gets a step increase as a result of COLA. They stay in the same step. The step is just increased -- the salary for that step is just increased. MS. NEMEC: Well, what happens is we redo the -- the step and grade schedule, and that's how you end 26 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 up. Doesn't matter to me. Just -- I'm just presenting -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think maybe the thing was, was that he was a 28/1 under the old schedule. MS. NEMEC: Right. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's -- he was -- he was -- his salary was set at 28/1 under the old schedule. Under the new schedule, that will go up 2 1/2 percent, so he's still a 28/1. But he's making 2 1/2 percent more than he was. MS. NEMEC: He's not making -- he's making the same salary. JUDGE HENNEKE: That's before the COLA. MS. SOVIL: No. JUDGE HENNEKE: You can't give him a COLA on top of his existing salary and have him make the same salary. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What's his salary at? JUDGE HENNEKE: $38,610, I think. MS. NEMEC: Okay. And a 28/1 is $38,609. COMMISSIONER LETZ: After the COLA? MS. NEMEC: Yes. The new schedule, the 28/1 is $38,609. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The problem is he was a 25/7. It's through the change from 25/7 to 28/1 that -- where the problem comes in. z7 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: Make it right. MS. NEMEC: Okay. Okay, 28/2 for him. JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. MS. NEMEC: And then we have -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much? What's the difference? MS. NEMEC: $965. That's 2 1/2 percent of $38,609 -- 610. Okay. Then we have the first assistant that should have received a longevity increase, so, that's 19 -- I mean, $919. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Whoa. MS. NEMEC: 'Cause he's been here a year. JUDGE HENNEKE: Travis? Travis' position? MS. NEMEC: The assistant attorney. MR. LUCAS: I don't think that I'm the first, though. That's what Motley tells me. MS. NEMEC: No, you're second. You're on second. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That was my question. Are we talking about the same position? MS. NEMEC: That other guy. The 28 -- the 28/2. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: First among equals. MR. LUCAS: Yeah. MS. NEMEC: You're first to us, Travis. 28 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 MR. LUCAS: Oh, thanks. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much was it? What? MS. NEMEC: $919. Okay. Then I believe that you all approved a position -- a 12/1 position for Road and Bridge; is that correct? So that would be $17,520. JUDGE HENNEKE: That's -- that was already in the Road and Bridge Department budget. Correct, Leonard? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. MS. NEMEC: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: So that's not an -- MR. ODOM: It's just another position. MS. NEMEC: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: But it's not an increase in dollars. MS. NEMEC: Okay. And the District Clerk's office, there were -- she had -- she came within her budget, so she was allowed to give a couple of merit raises, and so, with the two merit raises that she gave, it comes out to $1,982. JUDGE HENNEKE: I had some money for merit raises in the calculation of this bottom line. Is this $1,982 in addition to those merit raises, or are those the merit raises? MS. NEMEC: Linda, had you submitted these merit raises to the Court? Or am I the first -- 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. UECKER: No, they were in my original budget request. M5. NEMEC: They were in her original budget request; however, I don't really know what you're looking at, but what I gave Tommy and he put in the salary line items did not include this. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Well, at the workshop we had, which we've been talking about, Linda stood up and said, "My merit increases aren't reflected," and I added dollars into the totals which are reflected in this summary for those merit increases. So, the increase you're talking about is actually already in this number we're looking at today. MS. NEMEC: Okay. And then, also, on the position -- the last one is the position scYiedule for the Tax Assessor/Collector. I believe y'all -- and you might have it in those numbers, too, but I did not give it to Tommy; I was not aware. I think there was a new position approved at a 12/1, which is $17,520. JUDGE HENNEKE: That -- you're right, that was not included in these numbers. MS. NEMEC: That's all I have. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much? Seventeen -- MS. NEMEC: $17,520 for the 12/1 position. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you gave us 30 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 $20,000 back and took $20,000 out. MS. NEMEC: More or less, yeah. That's it. Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. MS. UECKER: Want to hear something funny? JUDGE HENNEKE: Sure, Linda. MS. NEMEC: We're ready for something funny. MS. UECKER: I'm taking -- I advertised in the paper for applications through this Friday, and the application form has requested salary. And, 90 percent of them are requesting entry level, $30,000 a year. JUDGE HENNEKE: That is funny. MS. UECKER: Isn't -- isn't that funny? That's kind of what I thought. You're in the wrong county, honey. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. First, in Barbara's schedule -- employee schedule that she has printed out that went to Tommy, we did give back the part-time salary, the $16,720, 'cause I don't have part-timers any more. But also in there -- and I don't know if her dollar amount and if Tommy's figured this in. One thing I will say is that it does have the position for the extra investigator for the Sheriff's Office, and it does also have in there the four patrol positions. They already figured in what she's already turned in, which I know in some preliminary stuff 31 1 .-. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Judge was saying about cutting those down to two and that. The one thing I will say in regards to this, and I think it has affected every department head and every elected official in their respective departments, and I think the public and everybody has seen this, especially in the last year with the Sheriff's Office. And, not getting at -- the Sheriff's Office kind of, you might say, bogged down or took a slow -- very slow growth over the last number of years with a lot of things, and this Court, unfortunately, has had to help us in the Sheriff's Department, help my department play catch-up to where we would could actually do our jobs effectively. I'm elected to have law enforcement or provide law enforcement for the citizens, and I'm elected, I feel, more than just to provide law enforcement. I feel I'm elected to provide efficient law enforcement. And I think y'all -- that the Court has agreed with that, and that's kind of the stance we have taken, at least in the years that I've been in office. Currently, the way it does, if I don't get those four positions or things for patrol -- first off, we're averaging in most cases three patrolmen on duty at a time. And, I know Jonathan had made the comment about this and you're all aware of it; you all agree it's a problem, because I can't hardly provide what I would call efficient law enforcement averaging three patrolmen on duty at a time. 32 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 can't hardly provide what I call efficient law enforcement on doing criminal investigations when each investigator has anywhere from 70 to 90 cases on their plate that are active investigative cases. So, I would sincerely -- I don't know what it's going to take. I'm -- I own my home here in town, too. No, I don't want a tax increase, just like the last guy doesn't. Especially this year, since I just had to buy my 16-year-old a vehicle. But, you know, we have to face those, and the County has been very, very fortunate not to have a tax increase, and 2 think you, as the Court, has done great over the last eight years in not having one. But, my problem is, the radio system -- we've had officers -- it's -- I'll be honest. I get chills when I think about it, because of one certain videotape that I've watched, and I think it's a miracle we have not had an officer killed because of the radio system we have. I have one incident where, just out by -- by the flashing lights at the airport, we had an officer got a guy out on a routine traffic stop, which you may want to try and call one, was going to arrest him for driving while intoxicated. Had him, you know, put his hands on the trunk of the vehicle, and when the officer grabbed one arm to arrest him, the guy swung around and hit the officer. They both went down, and they were in a very serious fight late 33 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 at night, and the officer -- you can watch the video and actually see it and hear it; the officer called 11 times trying to get backup and trying to get help out there, and that got out, walked over, and you can actually see him walk over and look down at the officer and the guy fighting. Thank goodness the passenger didn't have a weapon. Thank goodness he decided not to get involved, at least against the officer. The officer's hollering at him for help, hollering at him to go to his car to use the car radio to try and get it, 'cause he can't do it on a portable radio. He could not get out. And, I think y'all understand this. That's why that radio project started long before I took office, and I appreciate that. But, we're at a point to where things are getting serious for us to be able to provide effective and efficient law enforcement for the citizens. I saw an article in today's paper about the fire department -- the EMS getting burnt out, you know, the paramedics, because of the call ratio they have. We're facing the same type of problem, especially the investigator that comes to work, or even wakes up every morning knowing he's still got 70 cases to look at, and he can't get to them all. And you've got victims calling all the time wondering, why haven't you looked at my case? Why haven't you gotten to this? So -- 34 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 so, it is serious. The one thing that is not in here that I did ask for in the original budget, and then I'll explain some of this, is the $16,720 -- and you said give 20 and take 20. Well, there is one other position that I did ask for in the original budget which I think I need to expound a little bit on, and that's a records clerk. I know we associated that -- I asked for two for the scanners, if we got them, and I realize that's cut out. I don't have -- I have a records clerk that does warrants and civil and keeps up with all that and the flow. We traveled over 43,000 miles this year alone in picking up people wanted in other counties. We've got over 1,500 warrants, umpteen jillion civil papers, so that's a constant, definite full-time job. I have a C.I.D. secretary or clerk, criminal investigation, that helps prepare all the cases actually before they're sent over to the County Court or the District Courts, and that is a definite full-time job. What we're doing right now on patrol, the majority of the paperwork, really, where -- where the officers have to do all their reports, they have to do them on everything. The new laws -- you know, we have to keep stats on all the ratio profiling stuff, which it's every contact they make, whether it's traffic, whether it's pedestrian, it doesn't matter; they have to fill out forms 35 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 on them now. And then there's just -- they've inundated the majority of it is we're averaging so many calls that I'm getting officers spending way too much time sitting at a computer in the office. If they can tape record their reports out in the field without having to come in, that will help put more officers on the street at a time, and what I would really like to have funded is the basic records clerk for patrol, which would just about take back that $16,720. I don't know what a records clerk is. I figure I've got one that's a 14/l, which is $19,339, which would make that $2,619 difference. The -- the thing that I will have to do if these positions stay, mainly the patrol positions and the investigator -- yesterday we had one of our old cars kind of bite the dust permanently. It was a car we've been trying to get through. It's a seven-cylinder, because eight don't work on it, and it threw a rod yesterday and that did it; the only thing we can do is replace the motor. I don't have the funding for it. I don't think the car is worth putting another motor in, okay, and I just think it needs to go bye-bye. And, if this year's changing, the one thing that I will have to do with these positions -- and some of my guys won't understand it, but I think that we are at the size of department where we're going to have to seriously look at it 36 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 and probably institute it, and that is a fleet division. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Fleet division, where they could not take cars home any more. That -- you know, maybe we can figure a way to rotate through some of that, but I understand there's no way I can ask for the Court to give us cars for every officer we have so they can take them home, and I realize I have to give a little and we're going through a lot of growing pains and things like that. You know, we look at it; the jail wasn't built that long ago for 192 beds, and I've hit 180 in there several times this year. You know, we're trying to keep it at that a lot, but 150 of those will be our own inmates, okay? So, that has grown. And the thing is, when my department grows that bad and that much in that short a time, I know it affects Linda's department, it affects, you know, the County Clerk's, it affects the County Attorney's and the D.A.'s, and everything is growing in this county in leaps and bounds. It is a beautiful county, but I don't -- I don't know what it's going to take to fund. I hate to see a tax increase, and I'm reluctant to say yes, we need one. But, unfortunately, to get the things that I need in that department -- and I think that the Judge can even attest, we've cut back the budget last year; we've scrimped. I can -- I've done everything I can do to wring the most 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S efficiency out of that department that we can wring, but over the last two years or year and a half that I've been We can go with more filing cabinets and more stuff over the scanners until hopefully next year, and the County can look at an overall records management, like Commissioner Letz had suggested, and getting all that stuff done. But, I have got to have the capabilities, and it takes y'all to help me have the capabilities to provide effective law enforcement. JUDGE HENNEKE: Questions or comments? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a comment with regard to the scanners requested by the Sheriff, and -- and others. I guess it stands to reason that if all of the work functions are increasing because of the -- of the demand, the paperwork increases commensurate with the increase in everything else. And, if you stand there and say that you need a records clerk and that you feel paperwork is increasing by whatever dimensions, then I say that the scanners are a small price to pay for efficiency. And that would apply to the District Clerk, as well, and anybody else who's asked for one. I had the notion in my head at one time that, yes, maybe we could create a central location and staff it accordingly to do records management and so forth, but if your paperwork is a mile high, you're not gaining on 38 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it, and if this will help you gain on it, then I don't have a problem with it, personally. And that would go for Linda's, as well. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I agree, and the scanners are something -- they're $16,000 each, because they are -- they go into the County system. They aren't just a scanner we buy from -- for our P.C. and that. But, if -- if we, as a county, can find -- I don't know. Software Group, I Lhink, gets ten times the amount of money that we should have to pay as a county for their maintenance fees and things like that, but I don't know if there's another computer system out there that we can get everything done, 'cause we are tied together for the jail, the Sheriff's Office, the courthouse, District Clerk, County Clerk; it all ties in, and it really helps us all do our job a little better to see what's going on through the courts with these guys or through probation and that. But -- so we need that stuff. But, you know, my real dire needs, I couldn't -- I can add more file cabinets; I can do that. I don't want to. I think the Sheriff's Office and jail has never had any kind of computerized records management system for old records. We're back on software now, but I still got to get other records into that system, records like autopsies, records like, you know, certain forms I don't want created 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 by the system. So, that is very important. But I'm having -- I'm having a real hard time. I know I can't get everything that we really need. If we need to forego the scanners this year and work on a total, overall deal for the County, then we'll forego the scanners and hopefully come up with a better solution next year for that. But, the records clerk to type in patrol reports into the system so they aren't coming in like they are now. And, I've added more onto them, because the system has expanded to where, on average, if a guy takes one offense -- if he takes a burglary report, he may spend 30 minutes at the scene taking the burglary; he's going to spend an hour and a half doing his reports and the paperwork that goes along with it, and that hour and a half is in the office, because it's in the computer system. If I can have him where he can dictate it on his tape recorder or he can just hand-scribble it out, we have a records clerk at the office that he can just turn it in from out in the field and then that records clerk can type that in for patrol. That would save us a lot and keep more people out on the street, more at a time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you ever take a breath? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, I have a -- I 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 have a question about a comment you made that I can't quite figure out why you made it. Somehow, you veered over into not having enough automobiles out there, but you were talking about the possibility of not allowing deputies to take their -- their personal cars -- or not personal cars, but their -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Patrol car. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- patrol car home and you may have to shift it over to oth er people. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And your comment was they ma y not understand that. What does that m ean, exactly? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. One of the things we have -- the City pays quite a bit better tha n the County does. We all know that, and one of the County officer's fringe benefits has been that they g et to take a patrol car home. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That they use it for their personal use? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. No -- well, they'll use it driving back and forth to work. A lot of my guys are younger guys that are a single-car family, all right? Wife needs the car to go to work in. And -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Much like me. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- with this, they have 41 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 -- they have the patrol car. They can come to work and go back home, plus it's available if we have an emergency out in the county to where, if we have to call them directly in from their home, all right. It has saved us from having to send another car by to pick them up. It has, you know, Thank goodness, even this year, with the major things we have, and there hasn't been probably three times that I've had to call people directly out to get in their car and immediately go to work. We can work around that. I know -- and what I'm saying, by dragging the cars into it, I'm having to give up and the guys are going to have to give up, okay. Now, we had -- this morning I walked in, and we've gotten hit with some thefts and some burglaries down on the east end, and it's been pretty constant the last few days. And I had a patrolman walk up to me and said, "Can I come out at night and walk around the streets down there and see what we can do?" And I said, "Well, you may end up having to do it on your own time. We don't have it to where we can work the schedule where you can do that." And his response to me is, "I'd rather do it on my own time than keep taking these reports." Because that's the point we're at. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, if you went to 42 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 a -- excuse me, Bill. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're probably going to ask the same question, but I was going to ask, Sheriff, are you investigating the possibility of finding grant money for installation of laptops in the patrol cars, which would assist you in records management? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where do we stand in that? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's a good question. I don't -- I've got to see how the radio system comes in, okay? Most of those like the City's gone to, that's an L.C.R.A. system that they went to to provide that wireless communication. We're looking at grants that -- you're talking anywhere from 30 to 40 laptop computers, okay? The City -- I think Chuck had right at $90,000 he invested in that system, and then there are continuing fees and everything else to do that. The only problem -- and I don't -- if we can get it, and this is one of the big deals with -- if we stay with Software Group. If everything worked out, the system, to me, as far as what the City has, okay, they don't do their reports on that system. They can run criminal histories. They can run vehicle registrations. It does not go straight into their system, so they still have to come in to do reports. 43 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 If and when we go to one, I want it to where it will go directly from that laptop computer into our system, okay? Into the county-wide system. That's the only efficient way to really get the best use out of it and -- and prevent the guys from having to come in. And, there is a lot of Software Group stuff that has to be done, as y'all know and have fought with all year; licenses and -- the computer license, you're talking 40 more licenses that would have to go out, and I don't know what Tommy would say that would cost, but it's going to be, you know, horrendous with the tees Software Group's getting, okay? But, yeah, we are constantly thinking about that type of deal, and -- because with our system, we have photographs in it, we have prior reports in it, you know. The guy in the field can pull up the photograph the guy's looking for, he can do his reports there, he can pull up all our in-house stuff we've dealt with. That's, by far -- that could be very, very effective. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I've got to get to that base line where we can provide the essentials first. COMMISSIONER LET2: I had a different question. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you go with the fleet system, how do you envision it working? I mean, you're 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 going to have half the deputies take the vehicles home and half don't? Or -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, and that we'd have to look at. Some, you know, where you rotate. The type of shift we work, they work four days on and then about three days off. Then, what you'd have to do is maybe the ones that are on the four days get to take their vehicles -- vehicle home during those four days, all right? 'Cause it's three different shifts, and you rotate. Then, when they're off, their vehicle parks at the office, and the next shift that's using them -- we have one overlapping day a month in there that you'd have to figure out, but it can work. My biggest problem and what I would have to, I think, do to make sure they're taken care of, anytime you have two different guys driving a car, unfortunately, you may have something go wrong and one says, "Well, I didn't do that; he did that. He drove it." I've been through a fleet-type deal. We would have to have one person where -- right now, the one taking care of our cars is our warrant sergeant. He's the one responsible for that. And, what I would end up doing is have one person designated -- probably, like, our administrative sergeant -- that would fill in when a sergeant's off and -- and one of his other primary duties would be as fleet manager, where he can go 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 out every day, he can check the cars, he can look at cars, make sure that there's good maintenance. Because the whole thing on those, you're going to run miles up on those, 'cause you're running them a lot more. You've got to have a very detailed maintenance program for them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- I mean, I -- I think it's a -- if we make the change to go to a fleet system, I think you have to look at salaries again, because I think that part of the compensation package for that department is the vehicle, and if you're going to, all of a sudden, require them to start getting another vehicle, I think that needs to be looked at. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree, and that's a hard problem. Now, if we work it, at least this year, where when they're on duty their four days, they can take it, that will help. Okay? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you finished, Sheriff? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm finished. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not through with him. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, go ahead. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have one more comment to make. It's probably not a very popular comment, but here we are dealing with our Kerr County Sheriff and 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 46 needing records clerks and secretaries and all that kind of thing, and as you know, this County provides a full-time secretary for D.Y.S. And, D.P.S. is some of my favorite people; the secretary over there is a personal friend of me and my family. But, separate the friendship out and look at it from reality. Here we are providing a state agency with an employee, and we're not even taking care of our own Kerr County Sheriff. I know it's a little bit late in the game to even address that, but rest assured, I think that I will get it on the table next year, that the State of Texas needs to start picking up their own tab in that arena, and we need to start taking care of our own folks. Do I hear a "hear, hear" or an "amen"? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hear, hear. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Amen? JUDGE HENNEKE: On the scanning issue, that's important, but the more that we talk about it, the more I think it needs to have a better look at it before we approach it, because it has so many ancillary costs. It's one thing to go out and buy three or four scanning stations, 516,000 apiece, and then maybe add a person or two to man those scanning stations for the departments that don't have them. But then you have to look at what it does to the memory capability of the mainframe, and then you have to look at what it does as far as licensing fees, and then 47 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 annual maintenance costs for software are concerned. And, I think that before we do that kind of records management, which is -- is becoming desperately needed -- and I really appreciate the plight the department heads are in -- I think we have to have a better handle as to what the overall cost is, because it's not just three scanning stations and a records clerk. And, if we were to approve the scanning stations in this budget, then we will not have budgeted for the extra cost, being the additional memory, the license fees, and the maintenance fees, and that will probably come up somewhere in the neighborhood of $30,000 to $40,000. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I think, too, that we'd have to look at the total architecture of such a system -- computer architecture, I'm talking about, because you'd obviously want backup capability when you have a scanner down, to be able to scan with another scanner that gets the same job done while you have a scanner down and so on. That's not -- that's not just going out and buying scanners. It's a computer architecture -- computer system architecture question, as well, which has far-reaching budget implications, potentially. So, I agree. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we go back to -- I've forgotten whose suggestion it was that we set up a committee of department heads and Shaun to look at this problem and present a plan for addressing it in the next budget cycle. 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I know that's putting it off a year, but I think we're better off to do it with full knowledge of what it's going to cost and what the impacts are on the computer architecture than doing it piecemeal and finding ourselves in a position where we don't have the dollars, and we may do more permanent negative impact on our computer architecture. So, I really think that, in all prudence, we need to pull this back and -- and suck it up another year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One follow-up question, though. I don't disagree that's a better way to approach the subject; that's fine and dandy. But, do I still understand, Sheriff, you need a records clerk, even though you don't do scanning? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, definitely. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I thought. JUDGE HENNEKE: Records clerk. And that's why I didn't mention records clerk again. The records clerk that he's asking for is related to patrol reports. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Which is 17 -- no, 19. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I believe -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Fourteen. MS. NEMEC: 14/1. JUDGE HENNEKE: Which is $19,000. 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Nineteen -- MS. NEMEC: $19,818, plus benefits. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems -- I mean, just to kind of move this along a little bit, if we make the Road and Bridge adjustment, which is a -- I mean, $120,000 or $170,000, okay, you know, we get there. And if we take the tax anticipation note on the annex and do that as a -- that amount as a tax increase, and sunset it when that is retired in five years, that should give us the flexibility to do a couple of things. That's a little bit more, I think, than the Judge -- more of a tax increase than the Judge talked about in his memo, but it would give us the -- a way to build the fund balance a little bit to approach the scanning -- the big capital outlay we're going to have next year. I mean, it's going to be a big capital outlay, no matter how you do that scanning approach. And, I would also really be in favor of not separating out the radio system, because I really have a -- a little bit of a problem. I don't mind us paying out of budget over a couple years, but it's -- that's really not a capital improvement item, in my mind. That is a -- or a permanent improvement. It's a system. And, if we could figure out a way to pay that out of budget, as opposed to having a designated -- you know, I think it's better -- I'd rather just designate the annex costs. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The deal's about the 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 same. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think it's -- I'm not sure what that does, but if do you all that, I'm not sure what that does to the bottom line. I think it gives us a little bit. JUDGE HENNEKE: Linda? MS. UECKER: I have a question. Why would the Sheriff's records clerk start at a 14/1 when the County Clerk's and mine start at something less? JUDGE HENNEKE: That's my question, too. I thought all clerks started at 12's. MS. NEMEC: That's what's been the records clerk for -- MS. UECKER: If that's the case, then we need to make some other adjustments somewhere. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think that was the -- the Nash study that put some -- now, I do have one -- no, receptionist. A receptionist is a 12/1. MR. ODOM: 12's and 14's were not changed with the Nash study. JUDGE HENNEKE: That's just -- you're asking why. Well, you know, 'cause. And it was something that Nash had the opportunity to look at, and apparently didn't feel needed any adjustment, so I can't answer that question. Hut let's go back to the -- to the budget issue. I mean, 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what Jonathan raises, 440 -- what is the tax anticipation note, Tommy? $458,000 a year? I think it's right at that, 440-something, 458. MR. TOMLINSON: $440,000. JUDGE HENNEKE: $440,000? If we -- if we raise taxes to cover that, which would be just over 2 -- about 2.1, 2.2, 'cause each cent is -- each cent is $211,824, I think. It would just be over 2 cents if we did that, plus we put -- MR. TOMLINSON: 2.08. JUDGE HENNEKE: 2.08. Okay, 2.08. If we did that, plus we pulled the Road and Bridge back $145,000, we'd be there. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It was my understanding that in that neighborhood of -- imposition of tax, about 2 percent or something around there, that we would then have the funds to meet all those requests that we discussed at the last workshop. We would -- four patrolman and all that sort of thing, including the other reclassifications and all those things that were done, and that we could balance the budget to do that. Is that -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Does that appear to be correct? JUDGE HENNEKE: With the pull-back from Road 52 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 and Bridge, yes. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. Do we need a motion? JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think we need a break and we need to think about this and come back and -- and run it that way. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, before we take a break, I talked with Leonard yesterday. I don't know if you've talked with him or not, and there's a -- a chance that Leonard's -- or Road and Bridge is not going to finish their sealcoat program this year. And, I don't know if -- Leonard, have you talked to Tommy about it? MR. ODOM: No, I haven't, not yet. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's about a $50,000 amount that he told me he was probably not going to be able to get to, just because of the weather. He'd like to roll that into next year. I don't know that -- how we can do that. I mean, you have to -- you know, you have to increase next year's budget by 50, you know, in that line item, and it will come out in the -- in the wash next year, because he's going to have a -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Going to turn it back this year. We use it next year, but it's going to be increasing the budget for a year to do that. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's what we have 53 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 to do. We can't carry the funds over, allow this year's funds -- MR. TOMLINSON: We just increase the -- the fund balance -- the beginning fund balance. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. So -- but I think we need to do that. So, Leonard, is it $50,000? Whatever the amount is, I mean, 'cause I don't think we, just because of -- because of a weather delay, we want to cancel projects that are already in line for next year and push all that back a year just because of, I mean, something we planned on that we can't get to because of the weather. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I had a similar suggestion. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Pushed back any. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Schedule-wise, it would be pushed back? MR. ODOM: It would be pushed back. What I don't get this year, I'll pick up and finish the beginning of the year. That's a third of my oil money right there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You wouldn't lose the funding, I agree. I had the same conversation with Leonard yesterday. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think that these adjustments need to be made in whatever that line item is for the oil, where the oil comes from. Emulsions, I guess. 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fred, your comments about scanners and looking at it for next year; now you're talking about planning, and this -- this is a foreign -- foreign knowledge from County government, as you understand, so we need to really be careful about throwing those kind of words around. JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm glad you brought us up short on that, Buster. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, Judge, final thing, I would like to go over that where you're saying, "save and except the following items" a little bit, some of those, just because we have -- you know, if we go with the 2.08 percent tax increase, you know, some of those I still have a question about. And you go down to the D.P.S. -- they're not big amounts, but -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Now, understand that these "save and excepts" are not reflected in this. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: So if we want to make any of these, we have to -- we have to do those. I mean, the dollars that -- the budget we're talking about balancing does not exclude any of these items. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It does not exclude; that's the point. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it includes them? 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: It includes -- includes the -- the two new deputies, it includes the truck for the Maintenance Department. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: It includes the travel fund. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's only if we didn't do something. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I understand. But I think that it's -- some of these, specifically Item 11, I mean, which is D.P.S. radar -- same of these things, I mean, I think if these were items that were on the chopping black, just because we -- if we're going to have an increase, we still should look at them and maybe chop them, you know. I go with Buster on this, is that I -- it's hard to fund some of these items sometimes. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, let's take a 15-minute break, and first thing when we come back, we'll address those items. Okay. (Recess taken from 10:15 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, let's reconvene. It's 10:30 here on the day of this budget workshop. We were going to talk about whether we wanted to go ahead and effect any of the "save and excepts." Before we do that, I will note that the numbers that are reflected in the budget 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 summary does -- does include two scanners for the Sheriff's Department, and in light of my conversation -- of our discussion, not my conversation. In light of our discussion, I'm suggesting that we will take that out. It should be a $32,000 credit at this point. So, Jonathan, you're the one who appropriately brought up the fact that we should look at some of these items. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: So you can actually start off with Number 11, D.P.S. radar units. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's probably easier to start either at the top or the bottom. JUDGE HENNEKE: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll start on the bottom and go up. First, elected officials' salary. And, as I understand, the way this is written, it gets kind of confusing. It's up to 33 percent of the adjustment to get us to parity with other counties, but no one is to receive more than 10 percent increase over their current salary. And, I mean, I can live with that. I probably would -- you know, this morning I came in here lowering that to 25 percent; you had a bigger change. It doesn't make a difference to me. I still think we need to go through the exercise this year and get a citizens' committee to review them and come out with a recommendation for next budget 57 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 year. But, since no one's going to get more than a 10 percent increase, maximum, and then there is, as I understand, no -- there's no COLA in addition to that, so it's a 10 -- JUDGE HENNEKE: No, the COLA is in addition to that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: COLA is in addition to that? JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, you know -- to me, its a little bit high, but that's just my personal feeling on that. On Item 2, under department -- the department head salary increases, it would be limited to 2 1/2 percent and the COLA. We give a credit of -- and right now, there's a credit of $5,000, and that was a 5 percent increase plus a COLA -- as I recall, I think a 5 percent increase plus the COLA, which would be a 7 1/2 percent increase. So, that would come back in -- that's already in, so leave it in. Conference budgets, I think that -- that's something that probably needs to stay the way it is in the current budget. Foreman's truck, I think, needs to stay in. Just my opinion. As we're going down, if someone disagrees, please speak up. The scanners we already discussed; they're out. The -- well, the deputies for the Sheriff are in. And, increase in J.P. supplement for mental patient hearings, I 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 don't have a real problem with leaving that in. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's in now. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in now; leave it in. New truck for the Maintenance Department, I think that needs to stay in. All miscellaneous budget requests will be deleted. Personally, I think it should come -- I mean, I Lhink that should come out, but I don't want to get us in a situation where we have budget amendments, and that's kind of what we're using as a budget amendment right now. I'd almost rather us use that as a -- put that in Contingency or take it out altogether. I don't -- it has to come -- the word "miscellaneous," it has to come before the Court before it gets transferred, anyway. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It can be spent out of Miscellaneous, can't it, Tommy? MR. TOMLINSON: We have. And it's spent on items that you can't really -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's hard to classify. MR. TOMLINSON: -- classify. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's not that much money one way or another. MR. TOMLINSON: $100 to each department, I think. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leave it where it is. Fund part-time supplemental bailiffs. I don't even remember 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 discussing that. JUDGE HENNEKE: In the courthouse security budget, there's a line item, $9,000 for bailiffs, which is intended to give the Sheriff some funds to provide a bailiff if we have two courts going on at the same time and two bailiffs are necessary. I mean, it's in addition to Chuck Brecher's salary. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If they're running two or more courts at one time, we have to have, of course, people in here in each court. It would help fund that. The only other way that I can do it is put off-duty deputies in there and pay them overtime, because I can't pay them a separate salary for that. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And this, in essence, is a sort of a contingency fund anyway, 'cause it only gets spent -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If we need it. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- if we have two or more going at once. So, it's almost like a designated contingency or something. Of course, we could throw it into Contingency, and this -- and -- and for budgeting purposes, and then be prepared, if we have two or more, to take it out of Contingency to fund an additional bailiff. That's another -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather take it out 60 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 altogether, and if we need it, come back to Contingency at that time. I mean, 'cause -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But I think if we do that, we ought to increase the Contingency a little bit. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's a total unknown. It just would cost more to pay overtime to a regular deputy than it would -- that, I don't know. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's a good point. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But we could fold that into -- JUDGE HENNEKE: How many times in the past year, Sheriff, have you had to provide an additional bailiff? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Probably five or six times in this last year, with the -- where you had either too many inmates, you know, going up there, or you had several courts going at one time. DODGE HENNEKE: I'm not sure inmates would qualify, if you had to have -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: When it's guarding security at the courthouse -- because, see, Bruce's court has 30 at times up there, okay? And we try and provide a lot out of the jail. Chuck helps a lot, but then if you also have hearings in each of the courtrooms and they 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 scatter them out, which they have done to a -- you know, probably five or six times this year that we could have really used it, what we did was pay overtime. MS. NEMEC: Judge, Tommy might know the answer to this better than I do, but that courthouse security is out of a special fund where we get funds from -- I don't know, things that we charge. And, I -- I don't know if Contingency would be the -- JUDGE HENNEKE: There's not enough funds in that -- not enough money that fund to fund the -- the contingent bailiffs, which is why we have to add money to that. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But if it can just be taken out, put in some contingency where we have it, we can turn in the time that we have to have somebody part-time up there and have a place to pay them. JUDGE HENNEKE: We're going to budget for it. I think we ought to budget it out of -- not the Contingency, because Contingency goes away. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It sounds like that's probably -- I take back what I said, because I didn't realize we had five or six times this year -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- where we paid overtime. 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much money, five or six times? I mean, what's that translate into in dollars? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If you're guessing they're one-day hearings, one afternoon and that, probably five or six times over the year, it may have been about $5,000 total with the number of officers. And then, like, when they did Reichenau over in Boerne, we still had to have an officer over there with that one the whole time. MS. NEMEC: Because you have to pay retirement benefits on that amount, too. SHERIFF HlERHOLZER: DO you? MS. NEMEC: On overtime. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If we do overtime, but if we have that fund in there, it's just a part-time contract-type deal, whatever. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can some of this be picked up with the increased number of deputies? I mean, if it's not very often that you need it? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only thing you're looking at there is overtime for a deputy. Okay? It's hard to schedule them during their normal hours to do it, and it's overtime, which ends up costing more than what that would. You may -- we may try and cut it down to $5,000, from nine to five this year, and see if we can do it there. And, if something happens, we may have to pay part of it out 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of Overtime. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's do that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I understand what Rusty's saying, but I don't know why we'd want to put it into Contingency. I'd want to put it in the Bailiff's line item. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I took that back. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, you took it back? Okay. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Took it back. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No more take-backs. From nine to five? COMMISSIONER LETZ: D.P.S. radar would not be funded. I think we ought to take that out. Every communication -- I mean, I talked with Buster, and I think someone else just said -- anyway, I think we should take that out, and -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Not fund. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- not fund radar for D.P.S. I really think they ought to fund their own equipment. I don't know why they come to us. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, if we don't get D.P.S. to step up to the plate and do what they're supposed to do, I think we could probably -- if we were to end up doing radars, that we ought to have a policy that we will 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 replace radar a maximum of once every three years. Is that a pretty good policy? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I asked one of the troopers the other day why they do it every year, and they said, really, it's for maintenance purposes on them, and for how much time they have to spend in court and rely on the radar unit. Our department, there's no way we'd replace them every year. We have a good maintenance program that we keep them maintained, we keep them certified, and I'm sure D.P.S. does, too. Now, that -- the actual life of the radar unit, when I took office, we had two. I haven't had them long enough to tell you. I know we've been in there a year and a half with some, and they're still working well. We've had to send a couple off to be worked on. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I just don't think we ought to replace them every year as a matter of policy. When we have a radar unit that's approaching the end of its life cycle -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Even then, it's -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- it should be repaired, and then we ought to replace it. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think you replace them as they go out or as you start having problems with them. You may have one unit that does real well. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In some D.P.S. areas, 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 the counties kick in and lease units for them, and they're automatically replaced every five years, which is a -- some of the D.P.S. people really like the program a lot. Very simple. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We might look at that if we continue to fund radar units. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It seems like -- seems like that if the D.P.S. people were really interested in keeping their program upgraded, then they would come over here with that thought and try to participate in our process arrd our program. I'm really ugly toward them today, aren't I? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hope you don't get stopped on the highway. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't, either. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Judge, I think Judge Wright had a question. JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, Dawn? JUDGE WRIGHT: Last year, when theirs was replaced, they passed the old one on to my constable. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good. JUDGE WRIGHT: So they are coming back to us. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But if they're good enough for the constable, they ought to still be good enough for D.P.S. 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE WRIGHT: You've got to remember, D.P.S. writes a stack of tickets like this every day. And -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty said that, not I. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have a hard time getting through the county, myself. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Make sure you obey the speed limit on the highway going home. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's move on to the list, Item 21, for the finish-out on the annex. To me, that needs to be continued. I mean, we need to get that done down there. I don't see a reason to postpone that. Isn't that -- I believe it's for -- JUDGE HENNEKE: For the Treasurer's office and for the County Attorney's office. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those need to be redone. That needs to be continued, I think. Then the park funds -- you know, that's one of the things, I think if we delete them, we'll add them back on at some point. I think we need to fund the parks. I think they -- but that $5,000, looks like that was $2,500 for those two, but didn't we add $2,500 for Flat Rock? JUDGE HENNEKE: No, $27,000 for Flat Rock. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. That's for the -- but that's the L.C.R.A. grant. Did we add any -- did 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we add a maintenance item? JUDGE HENNEKE: No. Glenn informed us that he could handle it out of his existing park maintenance budget. We didn't add any for that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right. JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else have any comments or suggestions or questions? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I have is -- of course, I was just the one talking -- we talked about Road and Bridge and the hundred and -- well, $120,000, and as to what that exact amount should be and how it should be divided. I was a little unclear. I thought there was more of it left in the High Water Bridge. I didn't realize it was disbursed. As it is, I still think we need to recoup some of that, but the exact amount, you know, I would kind of leave it up to how the budget balances. MS. NEMEC: I have a question. On the elected officials, doing the 33 percent and not over 10 percent, has anyone figured what that would be for us county-wide, for elected officials? 'Cause I know on the last model, it was just, like, 4 percent, so I'm just wondering what the percentage would be. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the latest run. It gets -- most of it doesn't have much effect on -- MS. NEMEC: On ours. 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Has almost none. MS. NEMEC: May I share this? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure. JUDGE HENNEKE: You know, I -- I understand the -- the reluctance and the political reality of the elected officials' salaries, but I want to say that I think that -- that cutting the adjustment from 60 percent of equity to 33 percent of equity really does a disservice to tkie elected officials, because at my request Larry ran the numbers on the adjustment, and the total adjustment for the County Treasurer, including the 2 1/2 percent COLA, is $1,200. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a hundred bucks a month. MS. PIE PER: Not after you take out taxes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A joke, Fred. JUDGE HENNEKE: You know, every little bit helps. Out of that hundred bucks a month, they'll probably end up with 40 in their pocket. But -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or less. JUDGE HENNEKE: -- you know, the amount is -- is diminimous. MS. UECKER: And why do department heads always end up with the five and the elected officials always end up with something like half of that? 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, 1 don't know that they always do. I'm not prepared to make that statement. MS. UECKER: I've been here a long time. JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah, you've been here a long time. MS. UECKER: You got to remember that. JUDGE HENNEKE: So, I -- in all fairness, I think for a $20,000 -- $24,000 savings, you know, which is less than $1,000 per elected official -- or about $1,000 per elected official, which, when we figure out how many elected officials we have, you know, we're not doing a lot. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about if you increase it -- well, I like the 10 percent cap. JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you know who the 10 percent cap catches? COMMISSIONER LETZ: You? JUDGE HENNEKE: Me. That's the only one it catches. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, but I -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think I still -- I like the cap. I mean, I'm not trying to single you out, but I also agree that the -- the District Clerk, County Treasurer, Tax Assessor -- there's one I forgot -- District Clerk, $1,200 is not much of an increase. And I also don't like, when I look at it, that the Commissioners are getting ~o 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 more of an increase than them, because we're making more. That's the way it works out, as I read this, anyway. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think one of the things -- one of the things you want to consider is what is the total -- what is the total impact on the budget of whatever we do at 33 percent, 2 1/2 percent COLA, 10 percent cap? If you look at the budget increase for this year, the elected officials' salary represents less than ten percent of the budget increase. Less than 10 percent. If you look at it as a percentage of the total budget, it's .25 percent. It's one-quarter of one percent of the total budget. So, if -- we've spent a lot of time on this, where there are probably other items in the budget we need to concentrate on, as well. Not that we should forego this. In fact, we've still got to have anotkier public hearing on this, but at whatever level we set, we're not going to break the bank with -- with elected officials' salary increases. Now, having said that, I think where we are is okay, and we -- we should have a policy that we're going to strive for equity at the average over the next several years, and that that's what we're going to continue to do. And we may have a commission that helps us do that. We may have whatever else. I'm sure we'll get a lot of help on this issue. But -- but what I'm saying is -- is that whatever we do, we can set those numbers, and let's get on 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 to the public hearing and do whatever we got to do. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Larry? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Instead of agonize over that much longer. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If 33 percent -- 33.3 percent, as you -- your chart shows, equates to a .25 or quarter percent impact on the total budget, what would the 60/40 -- what would 60 be? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sixty would be about .35 of 1 percent of the total budget, and it would probably be about 12 percent of the -- I could go run those numbers. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just -- off the top of your head. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But it's around 12 percent of the total budget increases that we're looking at for the year, county-wide. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Someone make a recommendation. I don't have that strong of feelings. Anywhere in that range; it's not that much. I just think that we need to look at it from a commission standpoint and do a final adjustment next year and a final policy next year, but I don't have a problem. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We may have to do it over two or three years. Who knows? But, I think the idea that we're going to pay our elected officials at the average 72 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 of what the data figures that we're looking at, or at the average, is a good thing to do, and I don't apologize to anybody for that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nor do I. JUDGE HENNEKE: It seems to be the last number we need to come to a consensus on. Where are we? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about a compromise? A 50/50 over the next two -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Anybody? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Fifty-fifty with a 10 percent cap, a 2 1/2 -- it's not going to change the numbers very much. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think 50/50 with -- MS. PIEPER: May I make a statement, Judge? You know, we elected officials, we are forever hearing in the newspaper and stuff that we knew what the salary was when we came in. Well, that's true; we've been in the office. We're up for reelection. However, they have to remember that we do have families to feed. I have children. Rusty has children. Barbara Nemec has children. County Attorneys have children. You know, so we -- we have families to raise, and I'm sure the general public would understand that, as well. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Taken to its illogical conclusion -- the idea that people knew what the job paid 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 when they ran for office to its illogical conclusion, that would lead to salaries having been frozen in -- 18-what? MS. PIEPER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Eighteen -- MS. PIEPER: We hope that once we get in, it will eventually increase. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: For any elected official. It's a specious argument. It doesn't make any sense, but we're going to hear it. MS. PIEPER: Right. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So we might as well get used to it. MS. UECKER: Why does it have to be a percentage? Why can't you come up with just a figure? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With that philosophy forever applied to all of the economics of America, we'd be dealing with an 1850's budget. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. Well, the idea that -- that you never increase elected officials' salary because they knew what they were running -- that has the illogical conclusion of saying they never would have been -- they'd have been frozen the day we created the elected officials' position. That's crazy. JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we have -- we have a suggestion that we do a 50 percent with the COLA. 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I -- 50 percent is where I've kind of been nesting for a couple weeks. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'm comfortable with that. It's a nice -- it's just kind of a feel-good thing, from a 60 to a 50. I mean, it doesn't do anything very much to the numbers. It just feels good. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Still be about 10 percent of the -- or roughly, that would be about 10 percent of the total budget increase. It would be about .3 -- about .3 of 1 percent of the total budget. I'll run those numbers again and get you a printout, but if that's the consensus of what we want to do -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there any dissent? COMMISSIONER LETZ: With a 10 percent cap. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: With 10 percent cap. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Still caught in the trap, Judge. JUDGE HENNEKE: Why am I the only one being singled out? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you may not be the only one any more. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You may not, at 50 percent. I think it also hits Commissioners. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it includes 75 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 Commissioners also. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I can go run the numbers right now. I can borrow Thea's computer. JUDGE HENNEKE: Seems to be where we are; 50 percent, 10 percent cap, plus COLA. Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you think that we need to say one more time what the 50 percent means, exactly? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're reading my mind. Fifty percent of the parity adjustment. JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. We're making up half the amount we're below the average. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If any elected official is above the average, they get the COLA. That's all they get. If any elected official is below the average, then what we're going to do is we're going to account for 50 percent of the difference. It would still be below the average, but they account for 50 percent of that difference, and there would still be a 10 percent cap if they bust that on their previous year's salary. So, it is not raising it to the average; it's to something below the average. If they're above the average, they don't get anything. JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy? MR. TOMLINSON: I have two items that I noticed in reviewing the budget. One is the task force. 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The County's agreement to fund the task force is to pay the benefits for the two officers that are County officers. When we adjusted the -- the health insurance benefits, plus the retirement and FICA for the salaries that the task force gets, we need to increase that line item from $16,923 to $19,287. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: That will fund the benefits for two officers that are assigned to the task force. JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. MR. TOMLINSON: The other item is relative to the -- the Benziger Building that we have leased. Our contract, if I remember, is all of that building. we -- we took $6,000 out of Juvenile Probation's budget for rent. Even though they're not occupying that space, I think -- I think we still have to pay the $6,000. JUDGE HENNEKE: Still have to pay the $6,000? MR. TOMLINSON: Right. Because -- because I believe that that -- that the contract for the lease of that building is for all of that space. JUDGE HENNEKE: That's subject to annual appropriation. If you don't appropriate the money -- MR. TOMLINSON: But I don't know -- I don't know when that -- I don't know when that lease -- MR. LUCAS: When the term is? I couldn't ~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 remember. MR. TOMLINSON: So I don't remember. MR. LUCAS: It's been a long time since I've seen it. JUDGE HENNEKE: That was an item that was specifically brought to the attention of the County Attorney when they reviewed that lease, so I'm going to presume that we have the ability to get out, because we were already on the way as far as planning to move the Juvenile Probation Department over at that time. So -- MR. LUCAS: Yeah, I'm almost positive -- like, 99 percent -- that it's, you know, upon current available funding. We always make sure that that's in our contract for any kind of multi-year contract. So, it's in there. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I know that, but I -- but do we have two leases? There's two -- there's two areas that we're occupying. MR. LUCAS: Yeah. I don't remember. MR. TOMLINSON: See, there's the part that Adult Probation occupies, and then there's the part of it that Juvenile Probation occupies. My question is, does the contract for all of that area include both the areas that each one occupies? If that's -- if that's the case, then we -- we contracted for all of it. And, do we -- do we need 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to pay for all of it? Are we supposed to pay for all of it? That's my question. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that should have been addressed in the lease, because it was requested from the County Attorney's office to specifically provide that we would not be obligated for the Juvenile Probation Department when we moved over here. So, I think we should leave it like it is. MR. LUCAS: I think we're okay. MR. TOMLINSON: I just -- MR. LUCAS: I'll pull the lease, but, yeah, I think we're okay. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. And, something hadn't been brought up, and we didn't -- at the last meeting, we talked about some items for hardware for -- for mainframe. JUDGE HENNEKE: Those -- that was included in these items. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay, that's included. Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: The additional $4,000 for memory. MR. TOMLINSON: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: Linda? MS. UECKER: Speaking of parity, last year, when we did the Nash study, I think I made no bones about the fact that I didn't think that they were competent to do 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 evaluations -- job evaluations for county government. But I want to bring the issue back up of the records clerk thing, and I think we need to think about addressing that. And, when you consider also that the Sheriff's 14/1 is even higher than our 14/1 -- and I haven't talked to Jannett about it, but we both have records clerks that have to be bonded and insured, and I don't think the Sheriff's does. I mean, I'm not saying that -- you know, that that person doesn't -- doesn't deserve it, but, you know, if we're going to equalize these positions, then I'd like the Court to think about readdressing that issue. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the difference? Because it's law enforcement? Because -- just because law enforcement is different? MS. UECKER: Yes. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Commissioner, I couldn't tell you for sure. I haven't changed those salaries for our records clerk since I've been in office. What was changed was whatever Nash did. That was adopted. That's why we're sitting at -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why is the Sheriff's Office 14/1 different from the District Clerk's 14/1? MS. NEMEC: I'm sorry. Looking at the schedule, it's not. I'm sorry. It's the same. MS. UECKER: Okay, it's the same. 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you sit down somewhere? MS. UECKER: Would I sit down? Okay, I'll be happy to. But, you know, I have a -- a Constitutional duty to run an efficient office, the same efficiency as the Sheriff. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't mean -- MS. UECKER: And I think he's doing an excellent job, but I -- so am I. And, so is the County Clerk. And I don't know what her position is on that, if she's with me on this or not. She can speak, I guess, if she wants to, but I'd like the Court to reconsider that issue. MS. NEMEC: And I take that back. They are on that schedule. MS. UECKER: Okay. MS. NEMEC: I'm looking at this -- no, he's -- the only ones with the asterisk are on our schedule, but he or she did -- MS. UECKER: I never have understood why the Sheriff's schedule is different than ours. I understand that, you know, it is law enforcement and it needs to honestly reflect that. (Discussion off the record.) 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. NEMEC: I believe that that records clerk back then was on that schedule because they had contact with the inmates. Is that correct, Rusty? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You know, and -- and this is something we just have to look at. What it may be, the records clerks that I have technically that are 14/1's are ones that have been there a number of years. I don't know if they've gotten some step increases during that. I don't remember. Because I do have one which we had changed from a -- a clerk to the receptionist back when we did that last change, and that salary stayed at a 12/l. So, I don't know if -- in our actual job duties and job descriptions that Nash wrote out, I couldn't tell you right now if a records clerk is actually a 12/1 or a 14/1. It's something that I will have to look at. MS. NEMEC: I can tell you -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It may be the same and it may not be. MS. UECKER: I think I know where it came from. Back even before Nash, Allison and Associates put all secretaries at 14/1's, all plain secretaries. And that position was a secretary to start with, and then it was a records clerk/secretary, and now has become records clerk. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That may be, and if that is correct, that's something we need to look at more. And, 82 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 to be honest, this additional records clerk that I'm asking for, that would be a full records clerk. If it needs to be a 12/l, as per the County, you know -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sounds like it should be. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- schedule, then that's where it should be. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with Linda, they need to be the same. They're non-law enforcement people. The receptionists and secretaries need to be the same. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: She's dealing with the same type of records we're dealing with. Some -- she has some dealings with subpoenas. If this should be a 12/1, that's what it should be. MS. NEMEC: This records clerk that we're talking about was created not too many years ago, and it was after the Allison and Associates, so they didn't have anything to do with it. I think what happened was, when the previous Sheriff came to Court and asked for that position, the person that was going into that position was a dispatcher. So, therefore, he was certified, and he could be used either there or he could be moved to be a dispatcher, and so that was the reason that that position was put on the Sheriff's schedule. 83 1 2 3 9 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And he still does those same duties. MS. NEMEC: Why is that? Was there contact with the inmates? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The new one would be a 12/1. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think it ought to be a 12/1; solves that discussion. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree. MS. NEMEC: Now, if, at any time, that person leaves that position and someone else is hired that's not certified, then it should go to a 12/1 on our schedule. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. MS. NEMEC: The only reason was 'cause that person had contact with the inmates at some time or another. MS. UECKER: I still love the Sheriff. JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? (Discussion off the record.) MS. UECKER: Thank you for clearing that up. I just wanted to -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Are we where we want to be? Let me just recapitulate. There are three items that we have to move along. Elected officials' salaries, we have determined that elected officials will get an increase of 50 percent of the amount necessary to bring us up to 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 parity, plus the COLA, with the 10 percent cap on the decision makers. In addition, the J.P.'s will get, collectively, $2,400 additional for their services at the State Hospital. Secondly, we are approving a budget, with the revisions that we had made today, specifically adding a records clerk for the Sheriff's Department; that was the major revision we made today. We deleted the two scanners for the Sheriff's Department, and we deleted the D.P.S. radar units. MR. TOMLINSON: Is that both of them? JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, both. We reduced the amount for part-time bailiffs to $5,000, and we made some other minor changes. The only other major change is, we've moved approximately $120,000 out of the Road and Bridge Department budget. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Special Projects. JUDGE HENNEKE: Special Projects. And the third item that we have considered here today is to raise the tax rate by 2 cents, which is effectively the amount necessary to amortize the -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 2.08. JUDGE HENNEKE: 2.08, thank you, to amortize the remaining debt on the courthouse annex renovation. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That will be sunsetted. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the concept is 85 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 sunsetted; it's a sunsetted tax. We can't enact a sunsetted tax, but it is with the understanding that when that tax anticipation note is paid off, then the -- the Court will review and reduce the tax rate by that amount. Is everybody clear on where we are? We need to take specific action on each of -- each of those three items. Okay, Paula. Make sure I get this right, okay? When we get down to the -- MS. RECTOR: When we get to that item on the agenda. JUDGE HENNEKE: First item is, we need to set a public hearing on the elected officials' increases. We have to put notice in the paper at least 10 days in advance of that hearing. I'm assured by our faithful Daily Times correspondent that if we get it done this afternoon, we can get it in for tomorrow's paper, early afternoon, which means that we can have the elected officials' hearing on Monday, September 17th, at 10 o'clock a.m. Simultaneously with putting the notice in the paper, we'll be sending each of the elected officials the required notice of their increase. Do I have a motion to set a public hearing on the elected officials' increases for Monday, September 17, at 10 o'clock a.m.? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 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 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court set a public hearing on the elected officials' compensation increase for Monday, September 17, at 10 o'clock a.m. here in the courthouse. Any questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Second item we need to do is to approve the proposed Fiscal Year 2002 Kerr County budget and set a public hearing for that as -- Sheriff? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That does -- that's the four deputies, the investigator, and the records clerk, is what you're discussing now? JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: Approve the budget and set a public hearing on that, and my suggestion is that -- let's see. Paula, we have to do the budget before the tax rate, right? MS. RECTOR: We can do it on the same day, but it has to be two different -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Agenda items. MS. RECTOR: -- items. Yes, two different agenda items. 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, we would approve the proposed FY 2002 budget and set a public hearing on the proposed budget for 10:30 in the morning on Monday, September 17, Year 2001. Do I have a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Baldwin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court set a -- approve the proposed FY 2002 Kerr County budget and set a public hearing on same for 10:30 a.m. on Monday, September 17th, Year 2001, here in the Kerr County Commissioners' Courtroom. Any further 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: Now, Paula, we need to set the proposed tax rate, specifically .3715; is that correct? MS. RECTOR: .3721. JUDGE HENNEKE: .3721. MS. RECTOR: The 2.08 increase over the 3513. JUDGE HENNEKE: So, three-seven -- MS. RECTOR: Two-one. JUDGE HENNEKE: And set a public hearing. 88 1 2 3 4 J 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. RECTOR: Set a public hearing and a record vote. JUDGE HENNEKE: We have to take a record vote? MS. RECTOR: Yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Can we set that before we know what the number is on the radio -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we have it, yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It balances out. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. I need a motion to Set the proposed FY 2002 Kerr County tax rate at .3721. We'll hold the public hearing on same for 11 o'clock in the morning on Monday, September 17, Year 2001, here in the Kerr County Commissioner's Courtroom. This is a record vote, so I need a motion to that effect. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court set the proposed Kerr County FY 2002 tax rate at .3721. We'll go in numerical order. Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Aye. JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aye. 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aye. JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Griffin? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Aye. JUDGE HENNEKE: For the record, the County Judge votes aye, as well. I believe that, unless someone has something, that concludes our business today. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me ask one other question. We talked about a meeting on the 29th to approve the tax -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Those will be to officially adopt the budget and the tax rate. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. And the Certificate of Obligation. Don't we have to do something on that? JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll have to do something on that, too. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right, on the 24th. So, the 24th is really sort of a drop-dead date for having all the numbers on the radio system and all that locked up and -- JUDGE HENNEKE: And we can amend either the budget or the tax rate at the meeting on the 24th. We are not laid in stone, what we've done today. We do have the ability to make amendments to those. 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's on any of -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And elected officials' pay raise, the whole deal. JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything we want to do. Okay. Any other questions? Thank you all. We're adjourned. (Commissioners Court adjourned at 11:12 a.m.) 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 8th day of September, 2001. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk BY : --~ - ~ G ----- Kathy Baiik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter OI~DER N0. c72~3 AF'F'ROVAL_ DF C:DNSDI._IDATIN(:i TE-IE: PULLING LCICRTIDNS FDR THE CONSTITUI-IONAL AMENDMENT' EI_EC;TI.DN RhID Ap'PRDVAL. OF THE F'OL.LINCi L-GCRTIONS On this the Sth day of September ~c~07., upon a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded 6y Commissi.oner Griffin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-L>t--Q~,the consolidation of the polling locations for the Constitutional Amendment election and appr-oval of the palling locations. Consolidated polling locations for' each Precinct are as follows: Precinct 1-Trinity Paptist Chi-irch Precinct ~='-N.er-r- County Rg. F_xtention Office-Hwy c7 E Precinct 3--Calvary Temple Church-Hwy '~7 p'recinc't 4-Hill Co~_tntry Arts Foundation Early voting will be condo-icted at Zion L~-stheran Chi-arch. ORDER N0. c'7'_'~4 F'IJPLIC HE(-~RIIUCi FQR F'f20F'OS'F_D ELECTED OFFICIRLS SRLRRIES FOR FISCRL YERR 2~k11 /c~0c On this the Cth day of September- c'~Q~1, ~_ipon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Let:, the Co~_irt ~.inanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-Q~,setting Public hearing for Proposed Eler_ted Officials Salaries for Fiscal Year c~Z~~i/c00'c' for Monday, September 17, '001 at 1~:0~a. m. ORDER N0. ~7c:c:5 F'URLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED RUI)GET FOR FISCRL YEAR L001/~2~0'c: On this the Sth day of September•~0Q~1, upon motion made by Commissioner Ral.dwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Co~_irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the F'r•oposed FY c2i0~=' b~.idget and se+, a F'~ablic Hearing on the F'r•opnsed L3i.adget for Monday, September 17, c001, at 10:3 a. m. ORDER ND. :7cc6 PROPOSED TRX RRTE/RECORD VOTF_ SETTING pUPLIC HEARING ON P'ROP'OSED TRX RRTE FOR FISCRL YEAR c@@1/::@@c On this the 5th day of September '~@@1, upon motion made by Commissioner Let z, seconded 6y Commissioner Griffin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@, to set the proposed FY ~@@'~ F(err^ Co. Tax Rate at .;_,7c1, and to set a F'ublir_ Hearing on Proposed Tax Rate for Fiscal Year c@@1/c@@c for Monday, September 17, c@@1 at 11:@@ a. m. The F'r-oposed 'tax Rate Record vote was as follows: Commissioner- Baldwin-yes; Commi<.asioner Williams--yes; Commissioner Let:-yes; Commissioner Griffin-yes; and Co~.inty J~"idge iFred Henneke?-yes.