1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Budget Workshop
Friday, July 13, 2007
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4
i
V
0
m_
Q
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
2
I N D E X
July 13, 2007
PAGE
Budget Workshop
City/County Joint Operations 3
Library 5
Airport 19
Fire 31
Health/EMS 52
Animal Control 57
Employee Health Benefits 65
Human Resources/Personnel Policies 85
~ --- Adjourned 93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
On Friday, July 13, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., a budget
workshop meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was
held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,
Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in
open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I'll call to order this
workshop meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court
scheduled for this date and time, Friday, July the 13th, 2007,
at 9 a.m. It's past that time now. Nothing like a good
budget workshop on Friday the 13th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, boy.
JUDGE TINLEY: I apologize for this meeting getting
rolled over till Friday. The bottom line was, I failed to
~ post it last Friday for Wednesday, so -- but all is well that
ends well. We're all here and ready to go. We've got a
number of items that are enumerated as per the schedule. The
first is City/County joint operations. For -- for reference,
I'm going to be making the agenda item much broader, very
similar to what I did last year, which will allow us to not be
so tightly bracketed with what we've got here, so that if we
get rolled over into other areas, we won't be outside of the
agenda and so forth, so we're going to be in a position to
have a little bit more latitude. The second item that I need
to bring to your attention is, the second meeting is scheduled
7-13-07 bwk
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
for next Wednesday, the 18th. I will not be present for that
meeting. And, coincidentally, that's when the two budgets
that I'm most directly involved in come up, but that's fine.
If -- if there's any desire to change that meeting to next
Friday, we can still do that, but I'm scheduled to be out of
state, and I cannot change that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, you can't.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I can't. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that item, Judge, I think
it's important that we're all -- I mean --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably change it to Friday.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Friday doesn't seem to be a
problem there?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I like the idea of all of us
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Otherwise, we'll go back and
we'll rehash again anyway. Let's try to get through these
things one time only.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, make it for the 20th?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, I appreciate y'all's
cooperation in that, but I cannot -- cannot avoid my
commitment. It isn't for me, but it is for somebody else.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems like Betsy's involved in
7-13-07 bwk
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
JUDGE TINLEY: The youngest daughter is becoming
I wed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You better be there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. That is a life or death
situation for me, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right. The City/County,
we've got -- I think we're going to be sorely lacking
information, because we don't have it from the City. Our
meeting is scheduled with them, joint meeting, for August 6th;
is that right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: That sounds about right. And I
suspect they're going to be presenting us with specific
information, but let's do what we can for right now. Library.
Commissioner Oehler, what do you have on the library?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What was proposed to us was
a --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What tab are we on?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's the last one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see it.
JUDGE TINLEY: It'll be 26.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I do not -- I'm waiting for
7-13-07 bwk
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
that budget proposal to come from the City, and it should be
here somehow or another, if they decide to release it to us,
in the very short near future.. I've got Jody working on it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Keeping it secret?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's the same, basically, as
it was presented last year. They tried to have a 2 percent
increase over what we -- or what y'all budgeted last year,
which was about approximately $8,800 more. And I told them
that I couldn't see us doing that because they'd increased it
so much the year before.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Generally, I mean, because of
other matters, I tend to meet with Mr. Hofmann on a somewhat
regular basis, and he has several times made a comment about
the library that, you know, I'm a little bit puzzled by.
But -- you know, and it's that he feels that we are past
issues with the library because of the comments I made, and he
felt that the Court kind of went behind at our last joint
meeting. And my recollection of my basic concept or comments
were that the County would do a flat amount of funding, and
they'd kind of do a lot more, you know, operations the way
they wanted to. But I don't recall anything being formal.
You know, I think that's -- I said we were going to fund a
certain amount and leave it at that; the City could do what
they want. I haven't recalled -- or don't recall us having
25 ~ any further discussions on that, of us changing the operation
7-13-07 bwk
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
structure of the library, but evidently he seems to think that
there's something in the works.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, in that -- I'm sorry,
I Bill.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In that same discussion, it
was also talked about us zeroing out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, long-term, it was going
from a certain amount to zero.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Start coming down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Over 10 years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Year after year, it was
going to start coming down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't -- you know, but
nothing's happened, to my knowledge, though he seems to --
he's twice brought it up, and I just kind of passed over it,
because -- I mean, yes, there was a discussion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's take formal action and
get that thing rocking.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like Bruce's suggestion
that we trade our piece of the library for their piece of the
airport.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think that the -- you
know, anyway, I think that's something that we need to, I
7-13-07 bwk
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
mean, find out if they really want to go down that path. I
mean, it's not a big issue this year, 'cause they're keeping
the funding basically the same, as I understand it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you remember at the
joint City/County meeting, he kind of threw out a challenge to
City Council after all that discussion that the ball was sort
of in their court in terms of what they wanted to do, whether
they wanted to own it and operate it totally by themselves,
whether they wanted a library district, or there might have
been a third option. If there was, I don't recall what it
was.
JUDGE TINLEY: Third option was we make a specific
sum contribution, period, and that's it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that we kind of get out of
the arguments over the budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We just fund what we think is
appropriate, and that's it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But having done -- having
said that to the City Council, I don't recall any responses
back. Have you received any responses back?
JUDGE TINLEY: No. And there's no question in my
mind that Commissioner Letz put them on notice --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
7-13-07 bwk
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
JUDGE TINLEY: -- that we don't want to keep doing
this, and here's what I see as the options available. That
followed behind the -- the disclosure that, well, what we
really need is a whole brand-new facility. And I think
probably the thinking was, if you're going to start on
something brand-new, that would be a good time for you folks
to start on it and just leave us out of the game.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think -- and I think
they're doing that. I mean, Councilman Gross, I know, very
much thinks that whole facility needs to be abandoned and a
new library built somewhere else in town, and I don't know
what happens to that property. And I think they are looking
down that path. So, I think it -- maybe it's appropriate
that, you know, we fund it at the same level we did last year,
like I think has been discussed.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know they're looking down
that path, because that's one reason why there's not any more
budget plan, or proposed from the city side of what they want
to do in the future with that building. They are not going to
fund hardly anything, and I don't believe anything at all
other than regular maintenance. They're not going to do any
major renovation or anything like that to that building,
because they are looking -- they're redoing their five-year
plan, and that is one of the things they're studying, is what
they're going to do about that library. Because they realize
7-13-07 bwk
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That poses -- you know, that
still poses an issue for us.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Hmm?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If they make that
determination that a new facility is needed, and I don't think
anybody will argue that, then -- then that poses a question.
Are we going to participate? To what extent? Or if not,
what's our -- what's our role?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we fund a flat amount,
because we feel -- I mean, I don't have a problem with funding
a flat amount, because I think it is a benefit to the county,
as long as the county people get to have use of it, you know.
And I don't care if they have to pay a fee; that doesn't
bother me at all, but I think it's a -- it is good for the
community as a whole to have a good library.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think that -- you know, to
me, it's kind of a -- backing down to a point and then level
it off, and we'll continue to fund it at that level. And, you
know --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Until they -- you know, at
some point in time, if they want to come back with something
down the road and say, "Well, we need additional funds to help
7-13-07 bwk
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2_`
do this," and -- and the Court could make -- could have the
option at that time to either fund it or not fund it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just doing a flat fee is a lot
better than a partnership.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I like -- I asked them where
they got the $8,800 or $8,900 increase, and they said, well,
that was based on a 2 percent projected increase. And I said,
well, you know, I don't understand that at all, you know,
because I can't see that you're going to expend all the funds
that are in there this year. Antonio is -- he's overspent in
some, but it wasn't really his fault; it was, like,
electricity. You know, utilities have gone up because
everything has gone up. But other -- other areas of that
budget are still running at, you know, 35, 40 percent of the
money left in those line items. And whether he's going to try
to spend it all at the end of the year, I don't know, but --
and I mentioned to the Judge a while ago, it seems to me
that -- that, you know, we fund this, and that we need some
kind of a recap at the end of the year of what moneys are left
over. And, you know, it seems to me that that either needs to
get -- be applied against next year's contribution or be
returned to the County.
JUDGE TINLEY: Applied with permission.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: To next year's contribution.
7-13-07 bwk
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: With permission from
Commissioners Court to do so. But just give --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've been down that road.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- giving them a check and
then not getting an end-of-the-year balance of what those
funds are left over that aren't expended, I don't think -- do
we get anything like that, that you know of?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, not that we're aware of.
But I think, under the current scenario, we are entitled. If
we change it to a flat fee, you know, if they come under -- I
guess they keep -- which I don't have a real problem. I think
we may be funding at a lesser amount, but I think under the
current -- we haven't changed any relationship at this point,
and that needs to be worked out during the next year, if we're
going to.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, I missed that
piece.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I said we need to -- if we're --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The relationship?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the library, we're -- City
and County, if we're going to change to what, you know, I
think most of us probably --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Anything other than a 50-50
relationship.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. We're going to fund a
7-13-07 bwk
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
flat amount, and that's it; they can do what they want. And I
think -- but that needs to be reduced to a contract or
interlocal agreement between the two entities, and get rid of
the current agreement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, last year we gave them
$8,800 --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever the number was.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four hundred --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 450.
JUDGE TINLEY: 443.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, 443. And then this
year we're going to give them 443 on top of that 443, and the
next year we're giving another 443 on top of that 443. Is
that what you're saying?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm saying we -- I think I have
no problem with one more year doing 443. Then I think go down
to 400, then 350, then --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or maybe we leave it at 443. I
mean, you know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd rather see us attempt to
reduce it, personally, to a point of -- just an example, this
is just a number, pulling it out of the air -- $200,000, and
7-13-07 bwk
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
then maintain that 5200,000 from --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or adjust it every once in a
while, every now and then as we see fit. Yeah, I agree.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Or trade one of the joint
services for another. One do one and one do the other
individually, independently of the other.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm all for that, what you're
saying. I just don't think that they'll go for that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They aren't going to go for
that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They probably won't go for it,
but, you know, I -- anyway...
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now, what's wrong with doing
what we talked about in terms of systematically reducing it
down to what we think is an appropriate level, like, this year
cutting it down to 400, next year 350?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you need to -- I think
we need to get an agreement in place prior to doing that, or
simultaneously with doing that. And that can be done. We
can, you know, put them on notice that we want --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We could do that if we
establish what we think is our baseline number.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Probably need to get
25 ~ the Judge to write them a letter and tell them of our intent,
7-13-07 bwk
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
and then -- and then come up with some kind of formal
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can decide. And, I mean,
it's going to be arbitrary. You said 200,000. I'd probably
be comfortable at 300,000, or 250, somewhere in there. And
that's where we'll continue to fund it, at that level, and
pretty much they can -- you know, as long as they're using it
for library purposes, they can do what they want.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think last year what
we talked about was, over a period of time, three or four
years, whatever, getting to that level that we were
comfortable with for our sustaining relationship basis.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'd say we take -- you know,
if we start at next year -- or we can do it this year; doesn't
make any difference to me. We can maybe reduce it 50,000 a
year till we get to what we want.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's where I'm at. That's
what I would --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Four.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 400 this year, then 350, then
300, so in three years we're there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
7-13-07 bwk
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What are you going to base
that theory on?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's all arbitrary,
Commissioner. It's what we feel we're comfortable with, based
on --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We think it's worth that much to
the county to have that library available to -- you know, for
j the public.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have an obligation to
Kerr County -- Kerr County taxpayers that live in the city.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But, by the same token, the
bulk of the statistics of use are in the city, not in the
county.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're right. I asked those
statistics, and you're exactly right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we just have to figure
out what we're comfortable with and what makes sense.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think a way to get the whole
discussion moving forward is to do what Commissioner Baldwin
said, but I'd just do it at the meeting, say, "Here's our
proposal."
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I'm not sure, under our
agenda, if we can take any action --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand.
7-13-07 bwk
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: -- directing that to happen at this
~ point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're probably right. That
would be the place to do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or put it on our next agenda.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or you can do that, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That way, we can authorize --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just do it at that meeting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or do it at the meeting, okay.
~ All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is Bruce going to make that
presentation?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. They don't like
me. They can start not liking Bruce.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can help you spell cuss
words; that's about the extent of it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I can't figure out why I get
assigned with this.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Either I'll bring it, or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Letz would love to.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think it's Letz'.
JUDGE TINLEY: He will continue to wear the black
hat, right?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Turn him loose.
7-13-07 bwk
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Have we crashed and thrashed
the library? Okay. Where do we go now?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question,
~ though.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have revenue projections.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question, back
on the library issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to go down to the
300,000? Is that the --
MS. HARGIS: Everybody get one?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I mean, don't we need
to have some kind of agreement on a number?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We do. We need to know what
our benchmark is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 300 I think is fine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 300's fine with me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a big number, but it's a
reduced number.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not a lot different
than other counties have done with their relationship on
libraries with cities.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. What are we looking
at?
7-13-07 bwk
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
19
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We could take up the airport
next. Ms. Hargis just gave me the number.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we're -- that's on Page 63, I
think it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Previous page.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it's City/County operations.
Airport operations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks like we budgeted 195 for
~ this year.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have no information --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, other than what came in today.
The City has not, in advance, provided me with anything with
regard to --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But they did give it to the
Airport Board at the last meeting, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner Letz and I both
'have it, and both misplaced it, but there's the number.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Believe it or not, it's
going down. It was 195 this current budget year. It's going
to be 188,334, and that breaks down to 155 is our share of the
contract for services, and 33,334 is our share of the grant
matches.
7-13-07 bwk
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You said how much? 180-what?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 188,334.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that's what they're requesting?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what the Airport
Board approved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like a request to me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure does.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they're obviously --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We discussed at our last meeting
that there's a lot of discussions going on as to Airport
Manager and a new Airport Manager going to be hired and all of
that. The feeling by the Airport Board was that there will --
there may be budget amendments, but that -- internally in the
Airport Board budget, but this total is a good number to work
off of. And if there's -- you know, if it happens to be on
the high side, then it would be reflected -- reduced in next
year's budget. So, it's what we think is a good number.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Jeannie.
Appreciate that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, could we -- could we
go back to the library just one more time, now that the
Auditor's in the room?
7-13-07 bwk
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- and tell her what our
thoughts are, and then get a response from her?
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you going to let her take
Commissioner Letz' black hat and send her down there, or what?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's not a bad idea.
Or take --
JUDGE TINLEY: She seems enthusiastic about that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ready to put that hat on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She could take Commissioner
Letz with her.
12
13 good idea.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- yeah, I think that's a
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:	I just --	I'd	like	to hear
what she has to say about that.	She may -	- she	may	know
something to head us off or change some numbers or something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- the discussion at our
last joint meeting was the -- the County would come up with a
flat funding fee that we're going to get -- that we want to
fund the library at, get rid of the joint -- just give the
City a check every year, and that's our portion, and it would
be reduced from the current amount over time down to a number.
We have come up kind of -- kind of with the number as being to
get to 300,000 as an annual contribution, and do it over three
25 years.
7-13-07 bwk
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
2~
2.`
MS. HARGIS: Okay, and then be finished. I don't
think -- I think they're preparing for it. This is going to
be a bad year for the City, but I don't -- there's money in
that donation account; a lot of that could be used this year.
And then you have the Friends of the Library, so -- and they
have a lot of money too, I understand, they need to give. So,
I think they'll be fine. It'll give them an opportunity to
budget for the next three years. I think it's fair.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'd go from 443 this year to
400 this year, then 350, then 300, and leave it at 300 for --
and then, you know -- and, of course, I think the County would
be open for -- if certain things come up, you know, they need
additional funding for a certain thing, we'd consider that.
But, you know, this is more to separate the bickering.
Basically, we give them an amount; they can do what they want
with it, as long as it's used for library purposes.
MS. HARGIS: And there wasn't really -- after that
meeting last year that they -- everybody was really responsive
to that. There wasn't any conflict over it, so I think
that'll be a good idea. I think that moving towards them
owning the library or paying for it totally would probably be
a good thing. They are having a facility plan done. I think
you know that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. HARGIS: And that may make a big difference in
7-13-07 bwk
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2~
the next year, because Scott Gross wants to move the library
from that location to a one-story brand-new building where the
space is better. You lose so much space because of the
roundness of the building, and to repair that building was
just going to be really expensive. And I think -- you weren't
necessarily there, but I think the balcony can be done, but it
was, like, a lot of money just to sheer it up to take the
weight, and it really wasn't worth the money to do that.
And --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I was there. I missed one, I
think. But the deal is, if they start doing any renovation of
that, they're going to have to meet all the A.D.A.
requirements, because it is not all A.D.A. compliant at the
moment. If you leave it alone, you don't have to do it, but
as we well know, if you start changing things, you're going to
have to come into compliance, and that's going to be very
expensive.
MS. HARGIS: But I think this facility plan that the
City's going to get is for their whole -- all their
facilities, but I know that's one of their plans.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think our thought is we'll
make a proposal at our joint meeting coming up, and then
get -- if we agree on the concept, then we'll work to a new
interlocal agreement that reflects that, as opposed to the
current interlocal agreement. 'Cause nothing -- you know,
7-13-07 bwk
24
1 I so --
2 I
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
MS. HARGIS: I don't think you'll get any objection
from it; I really don't. Now, maybe Kristine won't think so
-- don't put that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll get the objections.
_ __,..,nn u7TT T TAM4: GOOd deal .
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything more on the airport?
That seems to be pretty well nailed down.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioners Williams and Letz have
rett active basis. So,
both been participating on that on a p Y
let me make an observation at this point. Ms. Hargis has beer.
kind enough to furnish us with a revenue projection. I
Let me explain why. For
certainly hope this is conservative.
example, it shows ad valorem taxes, 6.875, which is $300,000
less than what was shown in the -- in the fund balance summary
that was given to me here less than a month ago, where our tax
revenue was 7 million, 175. Apparently that was -- I think
that was a hard figure, the 7.175.
MS. HARGIS: Yes, it was.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, the ad valorem tax component of
-- of going into next year, at least based on this estimate,
is $300,000 less.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARGIS:	And	I don't know	why.	I	just	went in,
and he told me he made	the	projection,	and so	I	just	pulled
7-13-07 bwk
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
27
2<
2:
2~
2
it. And I don't know if these are -- I'm sure they're real
preliminary, 'cause -- but I haven't -- haven't done it. I
mean, I can go back with the preliminary roll and figure it if
you want.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have the -- do you have the
initial tax roll information from the Tax Assessor?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Jeannie, on J.P.
fines, midway down, it shows -- unless, my line's off, it's
showing J.P. 4, 139,000; J.P. 3, 77,000.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Got a lot of interstate.
MS. HYDE: J.P. 3 is kicking.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think J.P. 3 is way ahead of
J.P. 4 this year.
MS. HARGIS: These are for next year. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I'm saying. This
year's numbers are higher. That number may be -- I'm
wondering where the projected number came from. Last time I
talked to Kathy, she thought, you know, she was ahead of any
other precincts.
MS. HARGIS: Please understand, Tommy's not here,
and I really --
} COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just something to look at.
~ Because -- I mean, it's not a huge number, doesn't have a big
7-13-07 bwk
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
2`
budgetary impact one way or another, but I know that J.P. 3
has -- and it may be just that J.P. 3 could go up, which will
give us a little bit more revenue. I don't think J.P. 3 --
nothing's changed out there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a couple of
questions on Page 2. County Prosecutor salary supplement.
Remind me of what that is.
JUDGE TINLEY: That -- this is -- County Attorney
salary comes in two components, the county component and then
some comes from the state. Off the top of my head, it's
approximately -- I can't give you an exact figure, but
somewhere around $30,000.
MS. HYDE: $33,500.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where do you see that
number?
MS. HYDE: 'Cause I put together something for y'all
in a little bit. You might -- I don't know; maybe you want
it. I've never been -- I've never been involved in this, so
I'm really not sure what to bring. So, by george, y'all got
lots of stuff. So, what I did --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's hold off for a minute.
MS. HYDE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's do one question at a
time here. So, that's his supplement from the state that he's
donating to the county?
7-13-07 bwk
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: No. No, that -- this is funded in
from the state and then paid out through us to him.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
JUDGE TINLEY: As a part of his salary.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: But it's a separate budget component,
because it's a state supplement that comes in to this county.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we do your supplement the
same way?
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we do your supplement the
same way?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it comes in -- it's paid in to
the County Treasurer, and then it's paid out to me, just like
it's paid out --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that on this -- are you or.
this list?
JUDGE TINLEY: I would
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
to know this stuff.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I
Ms. Hargis -- I only asked for i
feel -- I feel real fortunate to
see it come in the door.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
assume so. I don't know.
Well, Judge, you're supposed
just got this today. And
t about 20 minutes ago, so I
have -- I was surprised to
Okay. And then the next one
7-13-07 bwk
28
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
is H.A.V.A. compliance funds, 294,000. Is that kind of the
same thing? Of course, not a supplement, but it comes in from
the federates and then is disbursed properly, or -- I mean,
tell me about that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question about
that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think we got any H.A.V.A.
funds that are going to be coming this year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would be surprised if we
had any coming this year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got that big chunk last
year -- last time to get the equipment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, in the final analysis,
this -- that line will be deleted?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would think so.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And then, going down a
little ways, House Bill 66. What is -- what is that? I don't
recall what 66 is.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that relates also to the --
to the County Attorney, if I'm not mistaken.
MS. HYDE: I thought that was the one that went for
the judges. Wasn't this -- it wasn't H.B. 66.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Isn't that the County Court at
7-13-07 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
Law Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's his revenue.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
MS. HYDE: Part of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's his supplement?
MS. HYDE: Part of it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think, just from past
memory. But it's kind of --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're probably right.
64,000 bucks. It's not big enough for the judges, I can tell
you that. So -- maybe one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Under the County Court at Law
budget, it shows a separate budget, H.B. 66. And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we change that name so it --
instead of saying H.B. 66, can we say County Court at Law
Judge supplement?
JUDGE TINLEY: We probably need to at least show a
parenthetical, County Court at Law.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see yours on here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ah-hah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They took it away.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pat, you may want to check on
I that.
7-13-07 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
JUDGE TINLEY: You guys are going to have to help me
out here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's 15 grand, isn't it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe his is lumped up under
various refunds up above.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Thank you for the
explanation. Now, I'm assuming that there will be a more
accurate update coming soon.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, as soon as you get the
release from KCAD, right?
MS. HARGIS: Yeah, on the taxes. But we should be
able to get a better idea on all the other revenues, I would
think, now. I'll get with them Monday and we'll just get it
done.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with the Judge that
the ad valorem taxes --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Too low.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- should be considerably
higher than this. I know I made a contribution from my ad
valorem taxes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And mine are going up
10 percent. I don't know about yours.
I COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: About 10.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mine's up 10, so that must be
7-13-07 bwk
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
pretty much what they took.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So why is this going down?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Except for Jonathan.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, fire contract. That's, I
think, the page following, is it not?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I apologize for not having
that. I -- for some reason, I just assumed that it had come
straight to the Judge. He generally calls me and we sit down,
and he hasn't done that, so I just assumed it went straight in
to the Judge. And I also assume that it'll be presented to us
at our meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's probably when we're
going to get it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or I can call.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Either way, at the meeting. I
know I -- again, from my numerous visits with the City
Manager, he feels that we are -- this is way underfunded, and
I would anticipate, though he has not told me, that there will
be an increase here. Which probably -- you know, and I told
him that if they would give us more than one truck, we could
probably consider giving them some more money, and that was
where the conversation ended. But, anyway --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Always end on a high note,
7-13-07 bwk
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I just know -- I would
anticipate that they would like to have this increased, and it
would probably not be a bad idea of increasing it. I mean, if
we -- you know, almost propose increasing it. Just thoughts.
Because they -- I mean, it is very important to the county. I
mean, I think that they don't look at it the way I think it
needs to be looked at, but I think it could be an increased
amount.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, god.
JUDGE TINLEY: Possibly --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 43,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: You -- your weekly breakfast meeting
with the City Manager, maybe you should be doing that maybe
twice a week.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Come on, Jon. Come in here
with firm numbers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He volunteers this information
to me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do
tacos or does he?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do
that number, Jeannie? Possibly?
MS. HARGIS: I'm waiting.
there's supposed to be a letter on i
you buy the breakfast
-- we haven't had --
you have any insight into
And I just called, and
is way over here as we
7-13-07 bwk
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
speak, this morning, so it should be here pretty soon.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, on the volunteer fire
departments, I think we ought to increase them this year if we
can. We haven't, I don't believe, in a couple years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We haven't done it in
several years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think we need to go to
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I totally agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because their costs have gone up
greatly, you know, just from a fuel standpoint, if nothing
else.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, the thing is, they put
out one heck of a service for not a whole lot of money
compared to what we pay the city of Kerrville.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's do it this way, though.
Let's increase it by a flat number, because not everybody --
you know, some of them you have -- you only give $1,000 to.
You don't want to raise from it 1,000 to 15,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, let's give a $2,000 or
whatever --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All those that get 13, we
take them to 15.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other ones go to two.
7-13-07 bwk
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the other ones we give
just whatever. I'm curious as to why --
JUDGE TINLEY: Seems like a pretty good increase,
two. Maybe 1,500?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go to two.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've got a couple of them
over 13,000. I wonder how they got there. Center Point and
Mountain Home, both of them are a tad over for this budget
year. I'm curious as to how they got over.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Those are normally based, from
past experience, on the costs of their insurance, both.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Both --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know that Mountain Home is
~ that way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- Mountain Home and Center
Point?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't know about Center
Point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the two that caught
my eye.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ingram's at 16.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ingram's up to 16 also.
That's interesting, 'cause we only --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Budgeted 13.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We budgeted 13, but they've
7-13-07 bwk
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
gotten 16. That's kind of interesting. All of them are
budgeted at 13 except Tierra Linda.
MS. HARGIS: Now, I just --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, the current budget is
13, though. I would estimate actual is 2005 and '6. But
13 -- whatever it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's not any of them that I have
here as of March 31 that have been paid more than authorized.
Divide's the only one that's drawn all the money.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, I think 15 and 2, or 15
and 1,500 for the ones that are -- Castle Lake and Tierra
Linda.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got 2,000 already
written in.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
go to 15,000. Still w•
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
lot of benefit.
LETZ: Okay, 2,000.
OEHLER: 2,000.
LETZ: On those two. The rest of them
irk?
OEHLER: Yeah.
LETZ: Not a lot of money for a whole
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the Castle Lake out
there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the area you gave me down
25 ~ in Bandera -- near Bandera, that corner.
7-13-07 bwk
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're going to increase
I that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, to 2,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 2,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In that area, more and more,
percentage-wise especially, homes are being built in Kerr
County down there. That's a pretty good area.
JUDGE TINLEY: All that Privilege Creek activity,
isn't it, Buster?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, Privilege Creek is
over the hill.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other side of the hill.
This is -- this area is so -- so confusing, it's served by
Southwestern Bell. No one's figured out how they got there,
but Southwestern Bell serves this area instead of Hill Country
Co-Op or Guadalupe.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does Castle Lake VFW come
out of Pipe Creek?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it's Pipe Creek, is what
it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. I know where that
is. There's no Kendall County roads leading to it. It's
Bandera County roads, and partially Kerr.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a Kerr County road that
goes into Kendall County.
7-13-07 bwk
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
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, there's one that goes
from Bandera into Kerr into Kendall.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need to find out if we can
use Kendall County roads. We need to find out if our fire
departments can use the Kendall County roads.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We only repair our piece.
The other two pieces have gone to hell in a handbasket.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's go back to this over
13,000 thing. The actual at 2005-2006, which, in my mind,
that was last year, how did it get over 13?
JUDGE TINLEY: One possible explanation would be
because of some wildfire funds -- FEMA funds that came in.
They -- they got some money. Tierra Linda also got some of
that, and you see that theirs is above, too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, if they -- if they get --
if they get donations, does it show up in our budget as well?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, but that -- it could have
been off the Sheppard Rees fire. Some of that stuff took a
long time to process through, and then it could have been --
they may have had more FEMA funds from another source.
JUDGE TINLEY: These were under the wildfires --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- we had in some areas, and you
7-13-07 bwk
38
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
money and it came through the county.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. It's a pass-through.
JUDGE TINLEY: So we had to bring it in and then pay
it out, but it was actually their money for their
participation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We did not spend over 13,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Of our county tax --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This was that same declaration
that was statewide by the governor, the same way the big fire
was up north, Buster, that burned that town up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's part of that same
disaster declaration.
JUDGE TINLEY: You can see there are three
departments; there's Mountain Home, Ingram, and Tierra Linda.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: And we did -- actually, I handled the
submission of all of that information in to FEMA, and then
they brought the money back to us and we -- and we distributed
it back out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would explain it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Good explanation.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What's the --
7-13-07 bwk
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Look at Jody; she acts like
she's got something.
MS. GRINSTEAD: There's the preliminary numbers and
there's the official, the copies.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Here we have the preliminary
for the library.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are those all the same?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't know. Let me find
out.
MS. HARGIS: Do you want me to go make copies?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Everybody gets one.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: At this point, I have a participation
form. Mr. Benham, you wish to be heard concerning the
library, I presume?
MR. BENHAM: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sorry we haven't moved the podium
here. If you'd like, you -- no, that's okay. He can just
remain in place there, if he can speak loud enough for us to
hear, and I think he can.
MR. BENHAM: I think that's a safe assumption, Your
Honor. Thank you. I got back in town after nine days out of
state very late last night, and didn't discover that this
meeting was to take place until I started going through the
papers this morning. So -- and I do not have any
7-13-07 bwk
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
documentation of what I'm about to say, but I can provide it
if you wish it. I got down here just as fast as I could. If
I may ask your indulgence, this is the first meeting that I
have attended since Commissioner Oehler was elected, and I'd
like to congratulate you, sir.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thank you.
MR. BENHAM: On your -- if you're as assiduous in
your work as Mr. Nicholson was, the County will be very
well-off, and I'm sure you will. I would like to simply urge
you to be as generous, and especially as responsible in
allocating funds to the library this year as you have tended
to be in the past. If you do that, you will not only be
helping this county, but you will be in line with adjoining
counties. I am sure that a friend who lives out on the border
of Kendall County will attest, Comfort has doubled the size of
their library. Gillespie County is putting more than a
million dollars into upgrading their library. Junction is
spending a good bit on theirs. Harper's library has done so
well that the -- it's moved into a new location, and they are
adding books and computers and facilities and so forth. I'm
sure you know that the good folks in San Antonio just voted a
500-plus million dollar bond issue, which includes a lot of
money -- I don't have the figure with me, I apologize, but a
lot of money for a new and upgraded library. So, there is
recognition in this part of the world that libraries are very
7-13-07 bwk
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
My wife and I just spent the last week and a few
days in Virginia and Maryland, and we passed one very nice
public library after another as we drove through those
communities. So, libraries are not obsolete by any means.
People still use them. The other Commissioners, sir, have
heard me say this library is used by more people per year than
live in Kerr County. If that were -- if you drew a parallel
between here and Houston, they'd have to build a library that
would accommodate over 4 million people a year. So, this
library is used heavily. It is a tremendously valued and
valuable resource for this community. I know money is short.
I've served on -- I've never had the job you gentlemen have,
for which I admire you, by the way, but I have served on
school boards. I was president of a property owners'
association for 12 years, and I'm president of a couple of
local organizations, and I know how hard it is to stretch the
money.
I'll tell you one quick anecdote on that. When I
was on the management committee of our high school back in
Houston area before we moved here, the principal came and
said, you know, "I've got a terrible problem." He said, "I've
got all these parents who are insisting that their children
have to be in the top 25 percent of the class in order to get
into a college, and I can't put more than 25 percent of the
7-13-07 bwk
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
class into the top 25 percent of the class." He said, "If you
can help me come up with a formula, it'll sure take a lot of
pressure off me." Well, we weren't any more successful than
he.
But, joking aside, I know that money is scarce. I
don't envy you your jobs in trying to find the funds. But
just please keep in mind as you're allocating money for the
various departments that -- I just heard you talking about
fire departments. I was vice chairman of a fire department
before I moved here, one of the biggest volunteer fire
departments in Texas, in fact. We served an area with over
65,000 people, and we had mutual aid agreements with a half a
dozen fire departments around us. And, in fact, the city of
Houston called on us for help on occasion. So, I -- nobody
respects and appreciates volunteer fire departments more than
I do. In fact, I now live in a home that's outside the city
limits of Kerrville and is served by a volunteer fire
department. But while I very much appreciate the importance
of public safety -- I wouldn't take a penny away from public
safety or anything, but please find the money to keep this
wonderful library functioning as well as it does. And that's
what I came to say. If have you any questions, I'd be happy
to try to answer them, from memory, again. I don't have any
figures with me, but I've been at this long enough, I think I
know most of the numbers. So --
7-13-07 bwk
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Benham?
MR. BENHAM: Yes?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Benham, this is not a
question, but just kind of an update as to what we discussed
before you got here. I think you were probably at the last
joint City/County meeting, but at that meeting, the idea was
floated that the relationship on the library between the City
and the County should change, and that the County should fund
a flat amount and the City would run the library. I mean, we
would just -- you know, that whole concept. The City -- it
was kind of in the city's ballpark to kind of look at
facilities, look at where they were going, and they are doing
that right now. But I think that will be brought up again by
me at the meeting, and I know Bruce -- based on a discussion
we had earlier, I think there's support on the Court to go in
that direction. I think the amount will be reduced over time,
but not doing it all at one time, down to -- you know, we've
come up with a somewhat arbitrary number of 300,000 a year
funding for the library. And -- but -- and there could --
based on what the City's plans are when they do their facility
studies, that could be, you know, increased -- decreased over
a longer period of time. But I think this year, the funding's
pretty much -- we just got the letter; they've actually asked
for -- asked for a $13,000 increase over last year, and I
think we were going to put in the same as last year before we
7-13-07 bwk
44
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
saw this letter. But, anyway, I -- directionally, I think
it's going in a direction to make it more a city library, with
the County that's funding a -- a check, and would not be -- we
would no longer be involved in the operation side of it.
MR. BENHAM: If I can respond to that, Your Honor,
the Friends of the Library as a group, and I individually,
will certainly work with you in every way we can to try to
work out whatever's the best formula for the library and the
taxpayers. I will say that an awful lot of people who live in
Kerr County outside the city limits of Kerrville use that
library. I see people there I know from Hunt, Ingram, Center
Point. It's not just a Kerrville library by any means, and I
hope that the -- that you'll keep that in mind as you -- as
you work on this -- on this funding program. I can certainly
see the value of an efficient operation in which only one
government entity is responsible for the day-to-day operations
of it. I wouldn't argue with that concept for one minute.
But please don't -- as you're heading in that direction,
please don't think of it as the city of Kerrville library. It
is a library that serves the entire area. In fact, we have
people -- somebody mentioned Tierra Linda a minute ago. We
have people who come in from Tierra Linda and pay $25 a year
to use this library, because they like our library better than
the one that's closest to them in Gillespie County. So, it's
not even just a facility that serves Kerr County, but it is a
7-13-07 bwk
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
facility that serves Kerr County, as well as the city of
Kerrville, and please don't forget that as you're trying to
deal with all of the details of this budget process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there's a definite
commitment from the Court -- certainly from me, and I think
from the whole Court, to fund the library. It's just how you
do it and where the -- I mean, under the current scenario, we
hear the argument that city -- the residents of the city of
Kerrville are already paying, I mean, the lion's share, 'cause
they're paying both the county and the city part. But,
anyway, that's kind of directionally where we're headed. I
think it will work better. I certainly support the City's
facility plan to come up with a way to make a better library,
because I think there's a lot of efficiencies in the
infrastructure or the structure itself, as opposed to -- I
mean, not the -- the way it's done.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Benham.
MR. BENHAM: Thank you for your time, gentlemen. I
appreciate it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's get back --
MR. BENHAM: The rest of them have heard me say,
Mr. Oehler, that I know there's a lot more grief than
gratitude in public service, and I very much appreciate the
work you folks do. Thank you, gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
7-13-07 bwk
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. We need kind words
occasionally.
MR. BENHAM: Well, you deserve them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Based on the
communication we just got from -- from the City, their request
for the city fire contract is 175. And I don't know what the
pleasure of the Court is there. It -- based on Commissioner
Letz' comments a minute ago, it seems that may be the time to
talk about that, because the level of service that's being
provided, it appears from that letter, continues to be
restricted to one active pumper truck. That's something we're
going to have to take up in our meeting. Maybe -- maybe the
175 is appropriate if more equipment is made available.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, also, Judge, in here it
says that, "I am proposing contributions can incrementally
increase over the next several years." I would hope we
wouldn't leave that kind of verbiage anywhere. You know, if
we can say the next three years or something like that, but
not several. What is the definition of several? Is it 10 or
2, or -- kind of thing. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, my simple response --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like the idea of where
they're heading.
JUDGE TINLEY: My simple response to them is that we
budget from year to year, and --
7-13-07 bwk
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1°.
2C
27
2~
2:
2~
2.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- and we can only tell them what
this year is going to be. We can't make any commitment for
any time beyond that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good response.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's -- there are other
possibilities that loom out there. You and I have talked
about those, about standing up another department or
departments to serve the area that the city currently serves.
Based upon our current contributions, that would cost us, if
we stood up two departments, $30,000, one for north and one
for south.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've got to stand them up to be
able to do that. I have a question on the numbers. The way I
read this, they're saying that it costs 300 -- almost 395,000
per truck for that fire department per year, and I don't know
how many trucks they have. Seems like quite a few, from what
I -- I mean, they've got three stations, getting ready to
build a fourth, you know. So, I mean, they have at least 10
trucks. So, I mean, that department costs $4 million a year?
MS. HARGIS: All -- the whole department? Yeah.
Yeah, when you're looking at -- the problem, even when I was
> doing it last year, you have a crew of three.
~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
~ MS. HARGIS: But that's seven days a week, 24 hours
7-13-07 bwk
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
a day. So that, you know, you equate one crew, which is one
person, as $100,000. When I was dealing with my volunteer
fire departments, it's pretty much what it is. You give one
crew, one person -- not a crew, but just one man, that serves
the fire department seven days a week, 24 hours a day, that
equates to about 100,000. In a volunteer department, you
wouldn't pay as much. But the entry-level firefighter makes
about 40-something thousand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I guess --
JUDGE TINLEY: Sorry?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if that --
MS. HARGIS: Sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: How much?
MS. HARGIS: 40.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if that number is -- but if
you're looking at it on a per-truck basis, the level of
service in the city, if you need five trucks, they send five
trucks. We get a maximum of one. So, I mean, I think that
you can't look at it the way they're putting it in their
letter, because the level of service is nowhere near the same.
You know, he's putting in his letter that that truck costs --
that we should -- our proportionate part should be 355 -- I
can't read the numbers -- 395,000. But the level of service
is nowhere near what they want for the -- I mean, for -- or
7-13-07 bwk
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
they're giving to the residents of the city of Kerrville. So
I think I don't -- I mean, their logic doesn't make sense to
me, because they're saying it costs $395,000 for a truck, if
you look at it pro rata. However, you're not going -- you're
going to get 20 percent of the service in the county and we're
going to charge you that same pro rata amount. That doesn't
make sense to me. And that's what -- you know, I've never --
I don't know how to get that across to the City Manager or --
and City Council, for that matter. Because it's, you know --
JUDGE TINLEY: Start having those breakfast meetings
twice a week instead of once.
MS. HARGIS: Well, when we were looking at it, we
were looking -- your contract calls for one truck. That's
what the contract calls for, so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But one truck's usually not
sufficient, in reality.
MS. HARGIS: Yeah, in reality, if there's a fire,
they're going to send more than one truck. They send one
truck --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They don't --
MS. HARGIS: They send one truck and then they send
your volunteer fire departments. Now, if your volunteer fire
department's unavailable, then they'll probably send -- it
depends on how they have it, and I don't know this, but this
is from my volunteer experience; they call them box cars. And
7-13-07 bwk
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
so the first box car is probably that one engine. The second
one may be one of your volunteer fire departments; I don't
know. And then have you a third one, and it may be the third
car that goes out if your stations don't respond, if it's a
big fire. I don't know that, but you have to have a certain
amount of crew on a fire truck for them to even get out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I understand that part of
it. But, I mean, they -- my recollection is they've been
pretty adamant that we get one truck.
MS. HARGIS: When it comes out?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm thinking of the house up
north of town that burned down several years ago. They sent
one truck, and that was not sufficient to fight that fire.
MS. HARGIS: And they didn't send another one?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. They said the volunteer
fire departments came out of Center Point, whereas if
Kerrville would have dispatched two, they probably could have
saved the house.
MS. HARGIS: Well, if I might put myself on the line
here, if that's the truth, then that's what you should bring
up, that you wouldn't mind paying more money if you had a
second truck that was going to go out if the fire was that
way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Anyway, that's a --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, the thing is, it's
7-13-07 bwk
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
really --	you	know,	and most all the calls -- the majority of
the calls	are	inside	the city.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're only getting -- they're
only getting periodic calls from out in the county. Whenever
that happens, the volunteers are toned out same time they are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have to remember, though,
he bases all his stuff on per capita, not number of runs.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's all per capita, which I
personally disagree with. But we fought that battle.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And -- but on the per
capita side, I think the other part of that is -- that we went
round and round last year on was that the -- he says yes, but
the county -- the city's backing up the county. And I said,
yeah, and the county's backing up the city, too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, the volunteers --
they've come in and helped right around Kerrville as well.
Anyway...
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Some of our volunteer fire
departments, especially Ingram, you know, has great
capability. You know, it's not as good as what all the
equipment Kerrville has, but they have some pretty fine
7-13-07 bwk
52
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
equipment. They fight lots of fires, and the training --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, they really do.
They're almost equal, actually. I mean, they can pull up to a
hydrant and pump just as much water and -- started to say
money -- as much water as anybody around.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a real problem with
what they're asking for. I just don't like the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree that I like the
idea of	gently	increasing it, but I --	you know, this amount
of time	thing,	I'm with the Judge; we	can't commit one
budget -- more than one budget.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Based upon receipt of this letter,
other than to note that the -- that the proposed County share
is not as we thought, being the same as last year, but a
3 percent increase, other than noting that, do we want to get
into that any further? I guess not. So, we go to -- looks
like we've got health as the next item; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, there's one other
item here, but I don't see a sheet in our packet. That's EMS.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, that's health and emergency
services.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is that?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's 10-630, and that is -- should
7-13-07 bwk
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be under -- well, fiddle-faddle, I don't have the page number
here -- on Page 67, 68, probably 69. Do you find anything
there on 69?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably in Section 22.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Section 22?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it is in Section 22. The only
figure that had -- that had been presented to me was the First
Responder, which is -- is a County obligation for their
expenses. And Commissioner Baldwin got those, as did I, and
they're pretty level. Now, the -- the EMS contract is plugged
in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: EMS.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're proposing we go up
10, 620?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To 220, but we have 244 as what
we had this year, so actually it's a decline.
MS. HARGIS: Supposed to be a decrease.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a decrease. I think
they're --
MS. HARGIS: They did what you recommended; they
went up on the fees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's 220, what they
requested, but I think their second number on there was wrong.
7-13-07 bwk
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It's not 27,000 -- current year's was 244, not 210, as they
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody have anything in particular
to offer there? It's obviously going the right direction.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only thing we need to, I
guess, note or put in here, and I don't know if it comes
directly off of that, assuming we can finally get our deal
worked out with Kendall County on Falling Water and The
Reserve, there is a -- a dollar amount that goes with that. I
think we would -- I mean, to me, it makes sense to reduce this
by that amount.
JUDGE TINLEY: Offset it, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because they're reducing their
coverage area, and that work is being done by Kendall County.
And we're talking about -- it's about $2,000, looks like.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that all?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, not much. $2,000 to
$3,000, I think.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's pretty reasonable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Maybe we can hire them
for the whole county.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does this reduced number
reflect the changes we made way out in west Kerr up on the
plateau?
7-13-07 bwk
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason for the change?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, the reason for it is they've
changed their fee structure, doing what the County asked them
to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did we ever get credit for
taking that amount out of the service area?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't think we did.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a long way out there,
and it's a big area.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's covered by Kimble County
now, right?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right, that's my point.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's a --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There is two areas now that
have been taken away, basically, from their responsibility,
and you'd think we'd get some kind of a decrease for that, but
maybe not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't hold your breath.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it's interesting to see that --
that, in fact, even with increased costs, that the net loss
has decreased by virtue of this change in fee structure, I
7-13-07 bwk
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
think, bringing it more in line with what other departments
and even private insurance, they're -- if you give them a
bargain, they'll sure take advantage of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well --
JUDGE TINLEY: We need --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I think the way you address
it is, on the -- on Page 2 of their letter, population of city
of Kerrville is 22,391 and the county is 24,863. I think you
just manually reduce -- for my area that we're talking about,
that number is going to be a fixed number that we're reducing
it out of that. That's the number that's being served by
Kendall County, and take how many people up in that area --
just reduce that number by the number of people that we're
taking out of the contract. And then, proportionately,
it'll -- the mathematics will come through, and come up with
whatever -- a slightly reduced total.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why couldn't we do the same
thing retroactively for what we carved out up on the plateau?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, let's not go retroactive.
We didn't think of it last year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think that's how you
modify this agreement, is you -- that kind of sets a -- you're
doing it based on the number of people in the served area,
which is the --
7-13-07 bwk
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By reference, retroactive is
only to the formula, not to the dollar amount -- current
dollar amount.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just didn't want to go ask for
a refund. You'd probably make me ask that, too.
JUDGE TINLEY: You got on the black hat.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have to buy the breakfast
tacos the rest of your life.
JUDGE TINLEY: Breakfast is an important meal. You
should try that frequently. Okay, anything more on that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, are you going to talk
about Animal Control?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yep, that's where we're going next.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And if you can -- if you can explain
to me what that means in that letter, I would be most
appreciative.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm working on it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was hoping somebody could.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm working on it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What tab are we going to,
Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: It should be in that same one,
because it's on -- it's the beginning of Tab 22, I guess.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Up to this time, they say
7-13-07 bwk
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
that the City of Kerrville is paying 60 percent, and the
County's paying 40 percent. And I think they want to change
those numbers to us pay 48 and them pay 45.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that doesn't make 100.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 46.6, 48.9.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Do the current numbers,
Bruce -- the City generates 28 percent? I thought they had a
higher percentage than that. That's why we changed it, is
because they had a higher --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll have to get Janie to run
those numbers for us, 'cause that doesn't sound right to me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems low. We changed it based
on the percentages.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, they're taking out the
fact that we don't pick up dead animals, so --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But they told us they wanted
us to do that again in this coming -- this upcoming year.
They wanted to give us a pickup. That's the point I remember
at the joint meeting we had.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Did we ever get the
pickup?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No. And I also asked them
could we have a key to their gas pump where we could fill it
up once a week for picking up dead animals, and they said no.
But if we are going to pick up the dead animals, they did say
7-13-07 bwk
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
they would give us --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I remember that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- give us a pickup. Whether
it runs or not, I don't know, but they said they can give us
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't have a problem
with their -- Animal Control doesn't pick up animals for the
city -- or the county either, so I don't -- that's not an
issue. I think you do it on a pro rata basis, based on the
workload of the previous year. Whatever that comes out to, I
think that's how you do it. That's a fair way to do it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. We're not picking up --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't do it in the county. I
mean, they can't say it's a reduction of service, because
they're -- I mean, you can't use that argument, anyway,
anywhere here in the cost structure, because they don't pick
up animals.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We do pick up some dead
animals, depending on where they're dead. If they're in front
of somebody's house --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the city or the county?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: In the county.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We do it, Road and Bridge.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Road and Bridge does most of
it, but the county Animal Control does do some of it, because
7-13-07 bwk
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I've been around when that was happening.
MS. HYDE: And they've done some in the city, too.
Like, if someone's hit a deer in the city and Road and Bridge
can't get to it or no one's going by, they'll go by and pick
it up. It's not like they make it a call, but if they're
going by, they've picked them up and brought them back to the
shelter.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway, I think it's done on
a pro rata basis. Whatever that number is, that's what it is.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll have Janie run the
numbers on that before we get -- before we go into the joint
meeting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're going to have a short
meeting; we're going to get along so well.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you'll notice also that they're
asking that all the administrative costs be carved out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
18
19
20 taking --
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Before those allocations are made.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why would we do that? We're
JUDGE TINLEY: They claim they don't charge us for
EMS, fire, or library administrative costs, which doesn't make
sense, because there are administrative costs for operating a
library, for the librarian and the library -- librarians.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what they're talking
7-13-07 bwk
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
about, "administrative" is payroll and that type of
MS. HARGIS: And they don't charge you for that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When they say "administrative,"
they're not talking about Janie's supervision. They're
talking about a percentage of Eva's and --
JUDGE TINLEY: We're not rolling any part of the --
the general administrative --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In there.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- cost into what we're charging here
either. We're not charging --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I'm saying.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- any part of H.R. We're not
charging any part of Treasurer, of auditing, of legal. We're
not rolling any of the general administrative costs.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, this sentence here, "I
do not believe those costs should be included here." They're
not. I mean -- I mean, I think it's done on a pro rata basis.
To me, that's the end of that discussion.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sounds like a good idea.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: May not be what he wants, what
he said in his letter, but I think that's what we should do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I understand that. But I don't
7-13-07 bwk
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
know where he comes up with his 91,000. Presumably, he carves
out the -- some salary costs out of the EMS budget -- I mean
the Animal Control budget before he then makes his allocation.
'Cause he said if we take those out, their contribution would
be 91,5 rather than 147,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the estimated for the
year next year? Revenue's 200,000. What's 45.6 percent of
200,000?
MS. HYDE: 200,000 -- how much?
JUDGE TINLEY: 200,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 200,631.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 90-something.
JUDGE TINLEY: Times forty --
MS. HYDE: What's the percentage?
MS. HARGIS: 48.5 percent?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 45.6.
JUDGE TINLEY: 91,5, roughly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's where they came up
with it.
MS. HYDE: 91,2.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's just trying to stir things
up by putting that sentence in there. They didn't -- they're
just saying they don't want to pay any costs, and they're not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you saying you're
comfortable with the total allocation split, 48.9 versus 45.6?
7-13-07 bwk
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm comfortable with that
methodology.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do you do with the
other 5.5 percent?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ingram.
MS. HARGIS: Not 100 percent. City of Ingram?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ingram and out-of-county.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if we want to -- that's
~ up --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Ingram has their own animal
control, but they have a contract with us to house their
animals.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do they pay?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Far as I know, they do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the other part. Ingram
pays their pro rata share too, which is fair. I mean, the
City shouldn't subsidize city of Ingram.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That out-of-county, then,
would get rolled into Kerr County, making ours 51 or 52.3 --
52.2.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't really have a real
problem with that, either. I mean, I think --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that's a decision -- a
7-13-07 bwk
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
management decision on our part. If we're taking
out-of-county, I think the City should pay their pro rata
share of the expenses.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or the deficit. Now, I would
have a little bit of a question. It shows revenues, 34,000.
If those revenues -- I don't know how we track that, but if
those revenues are coming out of county funds, as a donation
from a county individual, I don't know why they should be --
get the benefit for that.
MS. HYDE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or if the donations are coming
in from -- I mean, they should pay the pro rata of the
expenses. Now, I don't know if we -- if it's coming out -- if
we have money coming from the city, money coming from the
county, then out-of-county. It's not worth that --
MS. HARGIS: There's some federal money that comes
in of about $7,800. I looked at this the other day. And then
you have Ingram, which is only $3,000 a year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. HARGIS: And then the fees that people pay when
they come to get the dogs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine through the -- I
don't mind the fees. The Ingram part I'm not sure should come
out of that.
7-13-07 bwk
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
JUDGE TINLEY: It shouldn't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That shouldn't come out.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's their cost portion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's coming -- I mean,
that's -- they're not -- they're equal parties to the
agreement. They're paying their pro rata cost.
MS. HARGIS: Yeah. It's a very nominal amount; it's
$250 a month.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, we're basically
okay, as long as the numbers are right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Breakfast up to three times a week?
Okay, have we kicked all that around well enough? Let's talk
about employee health benefits and see if we can wrap that up.
Ms. Hyde has some information on that. Our consultant has
already furnished a proposed budget figure per-employee, and
the proposal that is being submitted by our consultant will
generally have all the available insurance benefits which
comprise a portion of -- of the offers to employee, including
supplemental, to be offered through Kerr County, which would
get us out of the business of -- of doing administrative work
for a bunch of other supplemental carriers or officers or
agents of officers and whatnot. Everything would come through
us, and we'd have a much better handle on it. And, you know,
whatever the employee wanted to select from, they'd have
available. We'd handle payroll deduction and we'd handle the
7-13-07 bwk
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
remittance, and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And beyond that, if they want to
go to some other company and go get additional insurance, they
can do what they want.
JUDGE TINLEY: They're able to do that, but we're
not -- we are not -- we're not put in the position where we're
handling administrative functions for outside carriers or
agents.
MS. HYDE: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Plain and simple.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree, that's a good --
MS. HYDE: Mindy and I have talked about it a lot.
Between -- between both our offices, we do -- although when
the supplementals come in, they say, "There's no problem; you
don't administer it, you do not have to deal with it," we do.
You know, if they have -- if an employee has a problem with
their dental or one of the -- you know, cancer or whatever,
they come to us, and then -- then they go to Mindy, and it's
just been -- it's been very much a struggle. And add to that
when we get the bills, of course, the bills come to us. And
it's also tough on supplementals because these people have
signed up for a year. Once you sign, you've signed, and I
think you had a couple that came to you where the employees
didn't understand that they have to cancel prior to 12-31 of
each year or it's an evergreen. So, some of our people got --
7-13-07 bwk
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
they have two types of the same insurance because they weren't
allowed to come out of the insurance policies. So, a lot of
this -- you know, a lot of this has caused a lot of confusion
for our folks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the -- where are we with
Mutual of Omaha and -- I guess we're changing the base
company, or do we know? Or what's going on with all that?
MS. HYDE: We're putting together an RFP, and we'll
send out an RFP again. Mutual of Omaha has sold.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. HYDE: So, when we talked with our guy, he -- he
feels very confident that the cost is going to be an increase
from last year, but it's not going to be as much as if we went
to the open market to do a complete RFP. If we went on the
open market right now, you're looking at 18 to 22 percent. as
an increase. If we continue to use the man that -- Gary
Looney, and go through his company and work with that company
like we've been doing, he's saying 8 to 10 percent. It's a
huge difference.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The RFP would be for
administrative services, similar to what --
MS. HYDE: We can send out RFP's. He's going to do
the same RFP process that he did before. But based on the
fact that they have a lot of coverage throughout the state of
Texas, he believes that we can get it between 8 and
7-13-07 bwk
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
10 percent, versus 22.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there any plan modifications
that either you or he recommend to -- kind of along the lines
of the health -- what do we --
JUDGE TINLEY: Reimbursements? H.R.A.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The H.R.A. accounts and things
of that nature that are kind of -- that may help hold costs
down, but not really hurt services?
MS. HYDE: As soon as we can get some of the
original numbers coming in, then we can look. Right now, our
H.R.A. is -- is an extremely good plan. I mean, it is.
Unfortunately, the cost of insurance continues to escalate.
Every one of y'all know that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. HYDE: Unfortunately, our employees don't
understand. They don't even understand that it's part of
their compensation for the most part. So, when we looked at
this, what we're looking at is, what is the cost going to be
and what can we absorb as a county? And we know right now
that -- we feel that we should continue with the medical like.
it is for sure, and the plans for sure, but we need to know
what the cost structures are. If it goes up right now, we're
paying "X" amount for an employee, and we also pay the same
for their children, whether it's one child in the family or
whether it's six children in the family. So, some of these
7-13-07 bwk
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
things, you know, yes, we are looking at to see how much cost
we can absorb.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I mean, the
intent that I had when we went with the H.R.A. accounts and
things of that nature is to make the employees get more
involved and more -- understand more about their insurance.
Doesn't sound like we've been successful from that standpoint,
even though we still offer a good plan.
MS. HYDE: I think they've understood --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is more involved. It is
more involved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Believe me.
MS. HYDE: It's much more involved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A nightmare sometimes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If you haven't been using it
or had the occasion to use it, you wouldn't know that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But let me ask --
JUDGE TINLEY: The theory behind the H.R.A. is to
give the flexibility to the employee. They can either elect
to spend that money now or hold onto it for a rainy day fund,
carry it over. So, it -- it gets them -- it gets them into
the system as participating now. Truly invested in the
system? No, because the County's paying all the costs.
They're probably not invested to the degree they need to be to
7-13-07 bwk
70
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: That's true.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- highly interested. But --
MS. HYDE: But most of them this year could judge --
when they come to us and discuss these with us, we've been
able to get a lot more knowledge out there to the employees
that, you know, the H.R.A. is not Mutual of Omaha, or it's not
from Process Works. You know, this is the County paying this.
And I was really surprised, because most people did not and
still -- probably 50 percent still don't understand that. So,
yeah, I am surprised. But as far as people being more
involved --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It is a good thing, though.
There's no way that you can say it's not a good thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's wonderful.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You just got to find doctors
that receive credit cards. Let me ask kind of the same
question, but in a different way. Under the medical -- under
medical, it says a $1,000 deductible, question mark. That
means that there's a question to that. If so, continue the
$600 H.R.A. What about two -- I thought it was $2,000
deductible to start with, but what if we were at $2,000? What
would you do with the $600 H.R.A. then?
MS. HYDE: What do you mean?
7-13-07 bwk
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say you went to $2,000
deductible. Increase the H.R.A. to 1,200?
MS. HYDE: The difference between $1,000 and $2,000
on the reduction in rates is not going to be that much any
more. Insurance companies have caught on to what people are
doing, so the rates are not going to be any better, per se.
It's going to be very nominal in how much it's going to be
better, so what we're looking for is buying power. You know,
it's finding buying power to reduce your rates. Does that
answer it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely not.
MS. HYDE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- let's say we went from
$1,000 -- are we at $1,000 deductible?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Let's say that we go
to $2,000 deductible.
MS. HYDE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right? Would the H.R.A.
increase to $1,200? Or would you --
MS. HYDE: My recommendation would be no.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sorry?
MS. HYDE: My recommendation would be no.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I mean, it looks like a
possible recommendation here, is what I'm --
7-13-07 bwk
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HYDE: No, these were notes when we were
talking, if we could get the deductible down based on cost.
Because it used to be if you had a $500 deductible, your cost
is -- your base cost is going to be much higher.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MS. HYDE: 'Cause your deductible is so low, and
$1,000 -- you know, it was incremental. You know, between
$1,000 and $2,000, the increment is 1 to 2 percent. It's
nominal when you look at the big -- the big picture.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you wouldn't recommend a
change in the H.R.A. number at all?
MS. HYDE: Hmm-mm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Regardless of where the --
MS. HYDE: No, because the cost is still going to be
the same unless we want to pay more towards the insurance.
JUDGE TINLEY: I guarantee you, if you increase that
deductible from $1,000 to $2,000, the employees would notice
it very, very quickly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I know. I know. I would
be opposed to that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because that's painful.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What you're really saying,
Eva, is that there is no -- no more, there isn't any basic
savings for up-front dollars?
7-13-07 bwk
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
MS. HYDE: No, sir. That's why the next line was
$500. We were looking at the difference between $500 and
$1,000. And what I had done is, I had gone out and I had
gotten the rates, because Aetna's still in the state of Texas.
as well, and then Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and I was comparison
shopping on insurance that way. So, when I looked at the
rates, I was looking at the difference between $500 and $1,000
to help prove that we want to keep it at 1,000 bucks. It's
pretty much --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, is there -- I mean, so are
we -- does it make -- is it the same -- going to cost the same
if we go to a $500 deductible and eliminate the H.R.A.?
MS. HYDE: About 10 percent difference.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10 percent, okay. So, there's
still a difference between $500 and $1,000, but there's not
once you get over $1,000?
MS. HYDE: Right, because so many people have taken
advantage of the H.R.A.'s. And then the new one, of course,
that people hear about are the H.S.A.'s, which hopefully we
can get into maybe next year. Not this year, but the next
budget year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the H.S.A. goes with the
employee?
JUDGE TINLEY: Correct.
MS. HYDE: Right.
7-13-07 bwk
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 LETZ: As opposed to being County-owned
~ money.
MS. HYDE: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Eva, on employee basic life
I insurance --
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- it is currently 20K? Or
is it one times the employee's salary?
MS. HYDE: From T.A.C., it's 20K, and from Mutual of
Omaha, it's 20K right now. If you go down through this, what
we've done is made major medical -- our language right now
includes dependent coverage. That dependent coverage goes up
to 25 regardless, and we've had some cost to that. So, my
suggestion to Gary was that it goes to 18, if the child lives
at home and goes to college full-time, you know, similar to
what other insurances have paid. Because, currently, right
now it goes to 25, so that dependent may or may not live at
home, and we cover it until they're 25. Which includes -- you
know, if they have children and --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Why 25? I thought the age was
23.
MS. HYDE: No, it's 25.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we need to bring that in line
with -- and I think -- I think Mr. --
MS. HYDE: Gary has already got it. This is Gary's
7-13-07 bwk
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
tick list. These are some of things that we're definitely
going to modify. We just -- I mean, we don't want to hurt
anyone; we just want to make sure they're dependents, either
living at home or going to school full-time.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There's an interesting
question. Is there a way to not cover dependents'
pregnancies? Because right now, there's not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a way?
MS. HYDE: No, sir. We've answered that question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that's just a rhetorical
question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ouch. What is our current
per-employee figure to budget for -- for health benefits that.
he's giving us? How much per year, per employee?
MS. HYDE: Current? 500 --
JUDGE TINLEY: No. No, projected for the coming
year, for '07-'08.
MS. HYDE: $625.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much?
MS. HYDE: $625 a month per employee.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 625?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Projected?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. That's at 10 percent.
25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: That's 7,500 bucks a year.
7-13-07 bwk
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
MS. HYDE: He can be here on the 25th as well to go
over any other questions that y'all might have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say it again, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: $7,500 a year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $625 per month, per employee.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a pretty nice gift.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's a chunk of money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Eva's comment that most
employees don't really recognize this as -- as truly a part of
their salary and benefit package, the value of it, is
interesting, but that's not unusual.
MS. HYDE: No, sir. Which is why, whenever they
come in to talk to us about this, we talk to them about total
compensation. We've had a lot of employees that have -- that
have been upset; they don't feel like they're being paid
enough money. So, unfortunately, when they come in and talk
to me or Jackie, we don't necessarily make them feel better,
because what we explain to them is if you take into
consideration your total compensation -- so even if you're
making $10.30 an hour, which is our entry level, so your
annual salary is 21,000, you need to add another 7,500 for
your insurance. You need to add another 8 percent of that --
I mean, we have a little form; we can figure it out, and we
show them when the line is done, instead of you making $22,000
a year, really and truly, when you add your compensation to
7-13-07 bwk
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it, you add another $12,000 to your salary. Now, it doesn't
mean anything, 'cause it's not pennies in our pockets, and
that means a lot to folks. But we just -- we're just really
trying to make sure that people understand how expensive life
insurance, how expensive our medical insurance is, and what we
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Eva, what will the
employees' dependent cost per-month be?
MS. HYDE: We're unsure of that at this point,
because what we are looking at is two different scenarios.
One is if you have family coverage, it doesn't matter if you
have one child or multiple children, or if it's a two-child
limit and then if it's over two children, it would cost a
little bit more. I mean, we're looking -- we're trying to
look at what's the best bang for the bucks and how we can keep
it as inexpensive as possible.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we don't have that
number yet?
MS. HYDE: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hargis, I kind of hate to put you
on the spot here, but I think you've probably had the
opportunity to look at various and sundry insurance plans
offered by governmental entities over the years, and maybe
some more recently. Have you had an opportunity to become
basically familiar with what our plan is as a result of
7-13-07 bwk
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: Not yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: This is probably a little out of
school, but, you know, the City changed last year, and it was
pretty detrimental to the employees, and we found that when
you do mess with their health insurance, they would be willing
to give up the money to have the health insurance, because
they don't realize. This -- I'm surprised we haven't had all
the City employees over here, because the insurance plan that
they currently have is not very good. But they're changing
that this year. They're changing that. And it was
unfortunate; we just didn't get the proper advice last year
from our insurance representative. But we have seen people
who would rather give the City money to get them a better
plan, because that's really one of the most important things
to most people today, is their health care coverage. And, you
know, maybe if you showed them a comparison to other places,
what they get, it might be a good idea. What we did is we
actually had some workshops with the employees last year to
show them what they were getting. And you could do a
comparison of other counties, and I think that might make them
a little happier, and if they want to talk to me about it, I
7-13-07 bwk
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
certainly can help them with it. But the way we had it was an
H.R.A. that was $2,000 per family and $1,000 for the employee.
Now, if you're very healthy, that worked out real well; there
wasn't a P.P.O. or anything. The problem is, a lot of people
who had prescription drugs, they ran out of the H.R.A. the
first month. They had no insurance. And then the next
deductible level was 2,000 for an individual and six for a
family, so most of the families were still waiting to get to
the six, so they had no insurance. They're paying
out-of-pocket, 'cause the 80 percent didn't kick in till you
got through the six.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did that cause a significant morale
issue?
MS. HARGIS: Significant morale issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, as I understand from the
county meetings I've been at, we're one of the few counties
that the employees don't pay anything. Majority of counties,
they pay -- and it may be a very token amount, maybe $20 a
month, but it's -- we're one of the few that -- that pays 100
percent.
MS. HARGIS: City employees don't pay individually
for themselves; they pay for their dependents. And, coming
from the Houston area, I'll tell you -- and as an ex-employer
in Houston, the costs were getting so high that most employers
were making -- either getting a very high deductible plan,
7-13-07 bwk
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
which I'm talking $5,000 deductible, or making the employees
pay, because it was just cost prohibitive. My -- because I
had such a small group, I was paying $1,800 per husband and
spouse for my employees, so it was very expensive. And so I
had -- I just had to decide how much I could afford as an
owner, and they had to kick in the rest. And that's what's
happening pretty much in the large metropolitan areas, is the
employers are having to get very creative just to offer health
care coverage. So, your employees don't realize the salary
may not be great, but their -- their health care benefits are
~ phenomenal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the entire
compensation package is a good package.
MS. HARGIS: It is. It is a good package. You
might just need to have some workshops with them and -- and
tell them. I'll be glad to tell them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, Mr. Looney's going to -- he's
still getting some -- crunching numbers on some of the
components of this, and he's going to come to us with some
definitive recommendations as we get closer to putting that
22 out?
23
24
25
MS. HYDE: 'Cause with me looking at the options
we're looking at allowing the employees to get right now,
there is no short-term disability for an employee, or a
7-13-07 bwk
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
long-term disability, so it's caused a lot of discussions when
we've had employees that have had to be out for cancer, or
they've had to have surgery and be out for two or three
months. So, I talked to Gary about -- we need S.T.D. and
L.T.D. Those are a pretty nominal cost, if an employee wants
it, and that way they can be covered for up to six months on
short-term, and then your long-term would kick in at
70 percent of your base after six months. Again, that's a
nominal -- those are nominal costs; we're talking anywhere
from $7 to $10. You know, but a lot of folks have got --
currently, in their supplements, they have short-term,
long-term, and a cancer policy, and they were sold that.
Well, you don't need that. Your short-term and long-term
covers cancer; it's part of catastrophic illness, and it
covers that.
So, I'm not saying that we need to be, you know, big
government telling them what to do, but we do need to make
sure that they -- that we try to help them understand what
they're buying or what they're not buying. And that's why,
when we put this plan together, we wanted to make sure that
they understood, yeah, you can buy this, but you don't need
to. You know, they can buy a catastrophic cancer and it's
just for that, but they would not have short-term and
long-term disability. There is a difference. But if they
have long-term and short-term disability, it does include
7-13-07 bwk
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
cancer, so we wanted to give them some options so that they
could see what they could get. And then, also, he's looking
at -- it's not -- I have it on here as a 401. We can't do a
401 as a government, but it's a 453, I believe, a 453 plan, to
allow employees that would like to to start something similar
to a 401. No matching from the County at this time, because
we match in the retirement fund. But I think that if folks
could see something like a 453, you know, especially if they
start out at a young age with the County and they work their
way through retirement, it's a pretty darn good nest egg, and
it's good on taxes. It's pre-taxed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Only thing I want to add is
that Mr. Looney is notoriously last-minute coming in here.
Would you encourage him along to get in as early as possible
so we can look?
MS. HYDE: He was going to be here Wednesday,
Commissioner Baldwin, but it changed, and he was already going
somewhere today. So, he was going to be here Wednesday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a poor excuse, but
okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: We changed the meeting date on him at
the last minute. We can't have those discussions any more,
right?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to have to post the
7-13-07 bwk
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
meetings timely, right?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Are you going to make Ms. Hyde
aware that next week's meeting has changed to Friday as well?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, that it's going to Friday
instead of Wednesday next week.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And everybody else that needs
7 to know.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
i new one.
MS. HYDE: Write that on the list.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll -- I'll get Jody to publish a
MS. HYDE: Did you share this with them?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure what you got. Does that
relate to health insurance? That relate to health insurance?
MS. HYDE: Sort of. Just that top page, our credits
that we can get back.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is -- this is the casualty and
liability --
MS. HYDE: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- insurance. That's not under this
particular -- that's -- that's going to come under our
nondepartmental, which will be next Friday.
MS. HYDE: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: But, yeah, that's good news for a
MS. HYDE: Okay.
change.
7-13-07 bwk
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Why don't we take a break for
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go ahead and come back
to order. Next item we've got on our schedule is
reorganization issues. I realize this was taken from a matrix
that had been previously -- and do we have any reorganization
issues to talk about at this time?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so, not that I
have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What would -- what would be a
reorganization?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think this matrix was brought
forward from last year, and I think at that point, there were
some issues that we were dealing with with Maintenance, for
example, and some other things.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Human Resources.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pre- Ms. Hyde.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would say that there may be
a -- might be a change coming on the booking person at the Ag
Barn. I don't know if you want to classify that as a
7-13-07 bwk
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
reorganization.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think that's a
reorganization. That's just more a change in --
JUDGE TINLEY: Job description.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Change in duties.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I really think -- I mean, I
don't see -- I don't have anything that I can see. I think
everything is sorted out pretty well since the last couple
years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have any.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I see that things are working
fairly well the way they are.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: In some areas.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Only change I'd like is we
start eating at 11:00 instead of 12:00.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a major reorganization. ~
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's pretty major.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that be just for you
or for everybody?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, for everybody.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Human Resources and Personnel
Policy. I don't know if that's one or two different items. I
think the personnel policy issue probably is one that's -- the
7-13-07 bwk
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
Human Resources, I think we've pretty well got restructured
last year going into this year. That's why Ms. Hyde is with
us today. Which brings us to the personnel policies. You've
been working on that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A new Personnel Policies
handbook.
MS. HYDE: This is the first draft. Here's the
first draft. And here's -- just in case y'all didn't have
one --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Y'all notice, that means we
have a left-handed H.R. person; the staples are on the
opposite side.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. I'm going to have to go
through and restaple all of these, 'cause I can't work this
way.
MS. UECKER: Start writing with your left hand.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You let your right-handed
assistant do the stapling.
MS. HYDE: Well, let me explain something, though.
If you use --
MS. MAGENHEIMER: I was trained in right-hand
stapling.
MS. HYDE: When you go to write notes and such, even
for a right-hander, there's more room for you to write your
25 notes.
7-13-07 bwk
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's order in your
madness.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do you figure that?
MS. HYDE: 'Cause it makes sense to a left-hander.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have one of those that works
for me, and they think differently. I will agree with that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They are different.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: You're not talking about your wife?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. She doesn't work for me,
believe me. I think it's the other way around.
~ MS. HYDE: This is just a start. We had eight
people that came to the committee meeting to discuss it, and
this is just what we've started with. We're by no means
finished.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. But it will -- the goal
is to have this finished so it's in our budget, correct?
Personnel -- doesn't it go in our budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't we have to adopt this?
MS. HYDE: The goal is to have it by October 1, yes,
so that we can -- we can have it to you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And there were a couple of us
sitting around this table that did attend this meeting, and
there were other participants, and it went on for quite a
7-13-07 bwk
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I while.
JUDGE TINLEY: Other elected officials.
MS. HYDE: We had our District Clerk, Linda Uecker.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wasn't there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You couldn't have been.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wasn't invited to that
~ meeting.
MS. HYDE: What I'm trying to do is invite only two
at a time, 'cause you guys told me that I can't do more than
two at a time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine.
MS. HYDE: But the County Attorney will be there
every time to make sure that we haven't messed up the
Sunshine.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Next time you go in my place.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all right, I'm happy to
come in at the end.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You gave us a copy of the
old one? Is that all this is?
MS. HYDE: Just a copy in case y'all don't have one.
That -- but that's the old one.
MS. UECKER: Did you include the amendment that was
never included into the old one?
MS. HYDE: No. There's an amendment that is about
25 pages long that I don't think anyone else, except for a
7-13-07 bwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
89
JUDGE TINLEY: The existing policy?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
MS. UECKER: It was approved.
MS. HYDE: It was approved, and there's an order on
it, but -- and I didn't make y'all copies of it, 'cause, no
offense, I wasn't going to redo all of it and try to insert it
into where it needed to be. I've gone back and pulled as many
orders as I could where policies were changed, but they were
never distributed or broadcast.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Obviously, there's some review and
perusal that needs to be given to it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you -- as part of your
process, are you looking at -- or do we care what other
counties do?
MS. HYDE: Sure, absolutely. We've looked at --
let's see, corral, Harris, Gillespie, Denton, Hood.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's good. I mean, don't
worry about Harris too much, but the rest of them sound like
they're good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hood has always been a county
that we've compared ourselves with through the years.
Basically, the same size.
7-13-07 bwk
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hood County.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's Cranbury?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know where it is.
MS. UECKER: Cranbury.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's Cranbury, isn't it?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. I thought maybe I could travel
up there just to see firsthand.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You like Cranbury, huh?
Cute town.
MS. HYDE: Just kidding.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, obviously, that's going
to require some time and study on our part to --
MS. HYDE: As we get the drafts, like this portion
of the draft, the very last couple of pages will tell you that
this has not been approved by the committee or anything for --
to go on. But the rest of it, y'all, please look at if you
have any suggestions and let us know, because as we put this
together, each draft, you'll get a new one. So, the next
sections will be different than this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So our first step will be
to restaple them; then we can read it and get it back to you.'
(Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin, will 11:15 be
7-13-07 bwk
91
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
okay?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Today? I've got one more
question.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to go back to the fire
contract with the City and just clarify something, and then a-
question. And you -- you brought up the fact that -- I think
you were saying that counties -- the law does not allow a
county to commit one budget after another, or into future
budgets.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that --
JUDGE TINLEY: It -- except in cases of certificates
of obligation, bonded indebtedness, things of that nature. No
government can.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then -- that's my
question, then. Can the City do that?
JUDGE TINLEY: No. No, they're -- they're basically
under the same -- they can do long-term debt under the law
just like we can, which will commit beyond the current budget
year. But, no, we can't do that. That's why, for example,
these contracts -- these installment contracts where Leonard
buys equipment that is paid over a period of three years, or
we buy the Sheriff's automobiles, there are clauses in that
contract that our obligation to continue performance is
7-13-07 bwk
92
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
contingent upon the governmental body budgeting funds to
perform under that contract. But if we don't budget the
funds, we got no further obligation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And I understand all
that, and I knew that. How could the City Manager possibly
ask us to commit in multiple years?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know that he's asking us to
commit, but rather putting us on notice that they're not -- at
least their intention is that they're not through ratcheting
up that cost.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's more of a policy statement
from their perspective.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just to let us know the
rent's going to continue to go up.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's essentially how I see it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we're doing the same
thing in reverse with the library. We're going to let them
know the rent's going to continue to go down.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is 11:15 satisfactory?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think -- I think Buzzie's
still doesn't open for a couple more months, but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Couple more months?
7-13-07 bwk
93
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: They burned down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can go to the one in Comfort.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We could go to the one in
Comfort. This guy hauled me to Center Point the other day for
a hamburger.
MS. HYDE: It's a great hamburger.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a great hamburger.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Best hamburgers in Kerr
~ County.
MS. HYDE: Am I done?
JUDGE TINLEY: If I'm included in that vote, I go
down there generally at least once a week. They've got a nice
little Mexican food restaurant there, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Very good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Further into town.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's gotten better, I
understand.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, gentlemen. Is that it? We'll
be adjourned, then.
(Budget workshop adjourned at 11:17 a.m.)
7-13-07 bwk
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
94
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 17th day of
July, 2007.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
Kath nik, Deputy County Clerk
Y
Certified Shorthand Reporter
7-13-07 bwk