1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Tuesday, August 21, 2001 11 1:30 p.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X August 21, 2001 2 PAGE 3 1.1 Report by Trott Engineering on proposals for Radio Project, selection of preferred vendor, 4 authorization for Trott Engineers to negotiate best and final price & negotiate contract with 5 preferred vendor for approval by the Court 3 6 1.2 Consider retention of outside counsel to assist 7 in negotiating contract with radio project vendor -- 8 1.3 Discuss issues relating to FY02 budget 16 9 10 1.4 Discuss schedule for adoption of FY02 budget 106 11 --- Adjourned 108 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 1:30 p.m., a special 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in 3 the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's 1:30 p.m. in the 8 afternoon of August 21st. We'll call to order this special 9 session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. First item 10 on the posted agenda is to consider and discuss report by 11 Trott Communications on proposal for radio project, 12 selection of preferred vendor, and authorization for Trott 13 to negotiate, in conjunction with the Sheriff and the County 14 Attorney, best final price and contract with the preferred 15 vendor for approval by Commissioners Court. Mr. Lucas. 16 MR. LUCAS: Commissioners, I would just -- is 17 this on? I guess y'all can hear me. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. 19 MR. LUCAS: How's that? 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Try it again. 21 MR. LUCAS: There we go, we're on. 22 Commissioners, I'd just like to reiterate that it's the 23 counsel from the County Attorney's office to not disclose 24 the specific amounts that were bid from the vendors. We 25 have authority under the Local Government Code, because we 4 1 actually fall in what's called the Competitive Proposal 2 Procedure, to have those prices remain secret. We're about 3 to enter negotiations, and there's plenty of authority in 4 the Local Government Code, case law, and A.G. opinions that 5 would actually encourage us and the -- to protect taxpayers' 6 dollars, to not disclose those figures. Thank you. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any 8 questions of Travis on that issue? We can discuss price as 9 a factor in the deliberations without revealing the numbers; 10 however, we are cautioned not to reveal the numbers until we 11 have concluded the actual negotiations for the project. So, 12 with that caution in mind, Sheriff, do you want to introduce 13 your colleague there? 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: George Weimer. Y'all 15 have all met before and spoke with him. He's with Trott 16 Communications. He has their analysis of the three 17 proposals that we have received, and I'll let him give that 18 to you first and answer any other questions. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Welcome, George. 20 MR. WEIMER: Howdy. I'm George Weimer with 21 Trott Communications in Irving, Texas. We did get three 22 proposals. The proposals generally followed the -- the 23 guidelines of the Request for Proposal, RFP, that was issued 24 by the County. And the evaluation -- we had actually five 25 different evaluation criteria that were used, as stated in 5 1 the RFP, and that included the technical compliance, 2 reliability of the system design, vendor references, 3 acquisition maintenance and operational cost, and 4 implementation schedule. As we went through the proposals 5 and rated each vendor based on the -- the score, and that's 6 on the -- the top of the second page, the vendors were rated 7 according to those five criteria. And, as you can see, 8 the -- the ratings of the three vendors, Dailey Wells had a 9 score of 88 out of 100. Motorola, 79 out of 100, and, Tyco 10 M/A-COM, 73 out of 100. That's basically the -- what we had 11 scored according to the RFP. 12 If you look on the last page, there's -- we 13 did ask in the RFP for a five-year cost to operate the 14 system, in addition to the purchase price, and those are the 15 costs that were estimated by the three vendors, and that 16 includes site leases and contract maintenance on the 17 systems. So, basically, what we -- what we have is the 18 option to -- to get best and final offers to take care of 19 any inconsistencies with the RFP, and make sure that the 20 County gets the system that it asked for. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone have any questions -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- for Mr. Weimer? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Weimer, I'm going 25 to refer to the vendor proposal evaluation scoring -- 6 1 MR. WEIMER: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- chart that you 3 prepared for us, and I'm going to refer to these as Column 4 1, Column 2, and Column 3. 5 MR. WEIMER: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. From left 7 to right. Tell me, if you will -- or tell the Court, if you 8 will, the -- the differences in technical compliance as 9 between Column 1 and Columns 2 and 3. 10 MR. WEIMER: Columns 2 and 3 had essentially 11 the same design. Column 1 had less sites, and there was 12 less area covered by that -- that proposal. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. So, there 14 would then, in fact, be a technical compliance deficiency? 15 MR. WEIMER: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that a fair 17 characterization? 18 MR. WEIMER: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Let's follow 20 through, if you don't mind, for just a minute. 21 MR. WEIMER: All right. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On Page, what would 23 be 3 of your letter -- again, I'll refer to them as Columns 24 1, 2, and 3, left to right. Specifically, I'm referring -- 25 I'm referring to tower lease, and the difference -- the 7 1 differences in Columns 1 and 2 is significant. Can you 2 explain that? 3 MR. WEIMER: No, sir, I can't. That is a -- 4 a cost estimate that was provided by the vendor based upon 5 their design. If you -- if you have less sites, obviously, 6 the lease should be less. The total difference, I can't -- 7 I can't explain. What it is, the vendors, based on the site 8 that they proposed, were to provide assurances from the site 9 owner that the site lease would be available and to estimate 10 what the cost would be. There could be some differences in 11 construction costs, but they were not identified as such in 12 the proposals. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I follow up that 15 question, the same -- you know, Column 1, 2, and 3 that 16 Commissioner Williams stated? You mentioned that Column 1 17 had a lower coverage which was, you know, caused -- or 18 resulted in a lower compliance score. 19 MR. WEIMER: Yes. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much of a lower 21 coverage? What is the coverage of the county compared to -- 22 between those two, or between Column 1 and Column 2? 23 MR. WEIMER: The vendor stated that they 24 complied with the required 95 percent coverage, but still it 25 was in an area that -- that I feel is necessary for 8 1 coverage. And that's the type of issues that we can cover 2 in the best and final offer, so I would not expect that 3 deficiency to remain in the contract. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, all -- all three of 5 the proposals met the 95 percent -- 6 MR. WEIMER: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- criteria? 8 MR. WEIMER: Yes. One was less than the 9 others. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions of 11 Mr. Weimer? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have one, now 13 that I see it. Looking at it again, Judge, on the first 14 chart on Page 2, Line Item Number 4, could you enlighten us 15 a little bit about the scoring between Columns 1, 2, and 3 16 on Line Item Number 4? 17 MR. WEIMER: Yes. What I did on -- on that 18 particular item, we did a linear scale from the -- the 19 lowest cost to the highest cost. That was done just on the 20 -- on a linear sliding scale. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Weimer, on Page 3, 23 the tower lease for five years, and then the maintenance, 24 and it says four additional years. Is that additional to 25 five years? 9 1 MR. WEIMER: The first year is covered under 2 warranty, which is required to be included with the 3 equipment cost. So, the -- the first year maintenance is 4 basically free. It's included in the cost. So, we're 5 talking about the cost of contract maintenance for years 6 four -- two, three, and -- and four, in order to make it a 7 complete five-year -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see what you're 9 saying. 10 MR. WEIMER: -- operational cost. So, I 11 think it's important that you know what this is going to 12 cost you over the -- the five years operations in the 13 system. And, that's the way the RFP required. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going back to the vendor 16 references -- 17 MR. WEIMER: Yes? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we scored all three 19 columns equally? 20 MR. WEIMER: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They'd all done 22 comparable types of work? Or -- 23 MR. WEIMER: We required that -- that they 24 have at least five references, all vendors have five 25 references. We did -- we knew a lot of the systems that 10 1 they referred to. The ones that we didn't, we did call the 2 references, talked to them, and they all spoke very highly 3 of -- of the vendor. I would not expect the vendor to put a 4 bad reference in a proposal, but it happens occasionally. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In your opinion, I mean, 6 from the -- all three vendors are equipped and able to 7 provide the system? 8 MR. WEIMER: Yes. I have worked with all 9 three vendors before, and all three are more than capable of 10 complying with -- with the requirements of the County. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: One quick question. 12 When would -- how long will it take to get the best and 13 finals out, the request for the best and final, do you 14 think? 15 MR. WEIMER: I'm thinking two to three weeks 16 after the contract. We should, within -- probably by the 17 end of next week, have the final dollar figure, but it may 18 take another week or so to get the final contract 19 negotiated. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 21 MR. WEIMER: I'm aware of the time crunch 22 that you're in for budgetary purposes, and I think that we 23 can meet that -- that requirement. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions from the 25 Commissioners? Sheriff, do you have anything you want to 11 1 add? 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only thing that I 3 would add is, after consulting and visiting with Trott, who 4 we've hired to do the consulting and the engineering of it, 5 and in going over the proposals myself and seeing what the 6 system's comprised of, I think that Trott will admit all 7 three proposals have some deficiencies, and that's why we 8 need the best and final offer, the negotiating part of it. 9 But, I would -- at this time, I would recommend that the 10 Court consider authorizing us to go ahead and start best and 11 final offer negotiations with Column 1 that's on your table 12 from Trott. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we can reveal the 14 name. I think that's part of the public record, so -- 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think -- yes. Dailey 16 Wells. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, it's your recommendation 18 to the Court that the Court authorize negotiations for best 19 and final and contract with Dailey Wells as the preferred 20 vendor? 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, at this time. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a motion to that 23 effect, or anyone have any questions of the Sheriff? Let's 24 do it that way. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Rusty, I have a comment. In 12 1 the negotiation, I would like to know whether or not the -- 2 the future maintenance -- or if they have the opportunity to 3 change the -- my experience with -- with maintenance 4 contracts is that you can get a better deal when you try to 5 negotiate the extended maintenance up front. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's included. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Each of the proposals has -- 8 MR. TOMLINSON: But does it say if it's -- if 9 it's negotiable? 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: We'd have to look at the 11 specifics. I think that's a good point and one that we'll 12 take into consideration when we're doing the best and final. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: 'Cause I know -- I know that, 14 historically, the maintenance agreements, that's where you 15 can really get hurt, is -- is by having an open-ended 16 agreement where they -- where the vendor can change that 17 amount on a year-to-year. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we'll factor that into 19 the discussions with Dailey Wells. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only last thing I may 21 add, Your Honor, is that I understand from Trott the way 22 this works is you can -- the Court could authorize 23 negotiating with all three of the vendors for their best and 24 final offer, or they can authorize starting with the one -- 25 or with one of them and trying to negotiate that way and see 13 1 if we can beat the time frame limit you're on, and I 2 understand that's the way that works; is that not right? 3 MR. WEIMER: Yes. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And authorize trying to 5 do it with one of them or all three of them. 6 MR. WEIMER: Obviously, if we had to work 7 with all three, it would take a lot more time to do it. You 8 know, and we really don't know how long it would take for 9 the vendor to get back with the answers, but if you're 10 working with the -- the best-score vendor, then what that 11 does is put them under as much pressure as everyone else to 12 get things done on time. To answer the maintenance 13 question, the maintenance cost for Years 2 through 5 were 14 included in the proposal, so they -- 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Fixed price? 16 MR. WEIMER: At a stated price. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Agreed-to price. 18 MR. WEIMER: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Contract price. 20 MR. WEIMER: So that price would be included 21 in the contract for the -- at least for the first five years 22 of the system. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Gentlemen? Any further 24 questions of Mr. Weimer or the Sheriff, or anyone else want 25 to offer anything at this time? 14 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make the motion that 2 we authorize best and final negotiations with Dailey Wells. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 5 Griffin -- Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner 6 Griffin, that the Court authorize Trott Communications and 7 the Sheriff, as well as the County Attorney, to negotiate 8 best and final and contract with Daily Wells Communications 9 of San Antonio, Texas. Any further questions or comments? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question. 11 In the unlikely event that we don't like the best and final 12 number and the contract terms, we are still at liberty to 13 consider other proposals; is that correct? 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that correct, Travis? 15 MR. LUCAS: That's right. That's exactly 16 right. The Local Government Code says that the actual award 17 of the contract shall be made to the responsible offerer -- 18 bidder -- whose proposal is determined to be the lowest 19 evaluated offer resulting from negotiation. So, we could 20 have several. 21 MR. MOTLEY: But it's just authorized him to 22 talk to one right now. We would have to come back to 23 authorize the others later. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I understand that. 25 Let's don't be locked in -- if we don't like the terms of 15 1 one we authorize negotiations with, we can then proceed to 2 authorize negotiations with somebody else. That's the 3 thrust of my question. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or 5 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Thank you, 10 George. We appreciate it. The second item on the agenda 11 was placed on there by myself, because at the time I did the 12 agenda I'd not had an opportunity to talk with Mr. Motley, 13 the County Attorney, as to the availability of County 14 Attorney resources to negotiate the contract. David has 15 assured me that he will make available the necessary 16 resources in order to get the contract done on a timely 17 basis. I would prefer for the County Attorney's office to 18 be involved rather than outside counsel, because they have 19 the in-depth and everyday knowledge of the workings of 20 county government, but the restrictions and unique 21 situations that places us in. So, at this time, we do not 22 need to take up the second item on the agenda. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Now, down to the hard 25 part. 16 1 (Commissioner Letz left the courtroom.) 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Just lost a Commissioner when 3 we got down to the hard part. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No comment. 5 (Discussion off the record.) 6 (Commissioner Letz returned to the courtroom.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: The next item on the agenda 8 is consider and discuss issues relating to next year's 9 budget. I sent out a memo to each of the Commissioners -- 10 an e-mail to each of the Commissioners dated Monday, the 11 13th of August, outlining the general situation with regard 12 to the budget. Wearing my budget officer hat, what I'd like 13 to propose that we do today is make some concrete decisions 14 regarding funding issues, and then that we ask the Auditor 15 to run a new budget with those -- having taken into 16 consideration those decisions, and bring it back to the 17 Commissioners Court for us to further deliberate on. That 18 would have to be not later than next week. 19 The issues that -- well, first let me back up 20 and say that, in accordance with my memo, we reran the 21 budget after our budget workshops and basically granted to 22 each department head the additional increase in operating 23 costs that they came forward and said were necessary. We're 24 talking about supplies, telephone, et cetera. We also 25 included in the revised budget the additional position for 17 1 the Tax Assessor/Collector's office in the voter 2 registration area, which I think is well justified, based on 3 the increase in the number of voters in Kerr County. It 4 also granted to the Maintenance Department and the Animal 5 Control department the additional vehicle they had 6 requested. And, that's about as far as it went. It gave 7 each of the department heads their capital item requests, 8 except for scanning stations, for the most part. Did not 9 authorize any additional personnel for the Sheriff's 10 Department and did not authorize an additional clerk for the 11 County Clerk's office. It did, however, restore the 12 overtime budget for the County Clerk's office to what it 13 currently is, which, as you may recall during the budget 14 workshops, she indicated she would need that additional 15 overtime if she did not get the additional position. 16 So, that's kind of the summary of what's 17 included in the -- in the expense figures that go to make up 18 the totals that were included in the memo of August the 19 13th. So, the funding decisions that we have to make today 20 are many, but the ones that -- that principally come to mind 21 are cost-of-living increase for the employees. I've 22 suggested a 2 and a half percent cost-of-living adjustment, 23 which would be approximately $110,000, based on the figures 24 given to me by the Treasurer. Elected officials' salary 25 increases, we have the latest information from the survey, 18 1 which was updated again by Barbara Nemec. We need to make 2 some decisions about where we go with that. I proposed a 3 5 percent increase for the department heads, because they 4 were not included in the salary increases last year as a 5 result of the Nash study. Then we have to fund the radio 6 project, and, I think you all received a copy of the memo 7 from Bob Henderson which outlined what the cost would be on 8 Certificates of Obligation on a 7- and a 10-year payout. 9 And, Tommy, do you remember what that number was? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here it is. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: I think it was, like, 12 $120,000. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: A hundred -- $118,000 the 14 first couple years, and going up to $122,000 at the top of 15 the scale; that's for a 10-year payout, I believe. And 16 then, anything else. And, again, if you'll refer back to my 17 memo of August 13th, Tommy is comfortable with a general 18 revenue fund balance at the end of the next fiscal year of 19 $4,500,000. He's projecting approximately $4,639,000. He's 20 also projecting a fund balance at the end of next fiscal 21 year in the Road and Bridge Department of $764,913, which is 22 less than he's comfortable at. He's comfortable with a 23 million dollars. So, what I've suggested to each of you in 24 my memo is that we consider shifting $139,000 in fund 25 balance from the General Fund to the to Road and Bridge, 19 1 with the commitment that over the next year or two, we would 2 bring that fund balance in Road and Bridge up to a million 3 dollars. In other words, do it on a gradual basis. 4 So, the issue's become how we're going to pay 5 for these different things, because what I've just outlined 6 exceeds what's left over. You know, one of the suggestions 7 I made, again, after consulting with Tommy, was we might 8 consider reducing the Special Projects budget for Road and 9 Bridge in order to make up some of the difference. We 10 always have the alternative of dipping into the fund 11 balance, but that's not a very palatable alternative, given 12 where the economy's headed these days. I think it would be 13 imprudent of us to look at the fund balance for much more 14 than -- than adjustments to the Road and Bridge balance. 15 And, the third alternative, which is 16 something that is unpalatable at the least, would be to look 17 at increasing the tax rate. I know none of us want to do 18 that. In our earlier budget workshops, we all expressed a 19 desire not to do that, but I think we also have to look at 20 what is our responsibility to funding county government, and 21 I think that a case could be made for a specified tax 22 increase in the neighborhood of two hundred -- of two cents 23 for law enforcement purposes to fund the radio project, 24 including tower leases, and also provide, by my very rough 25 calculations, another four positions at the Sheriff's 20 1 Department, which would be hopefully used for patrol 2 purposes. 3 Now, that's up to us, whether we want to do 4 that or whether we want to -- to skimp by with what we have. 5 The County has enjoyed the same tax rate for six consecutive 6 budget years; we're in the sixth now. That's a pretty 7 remarkable accomplishment, given what we've accomplished in 8 that time. Previous Courts, as well as this Court, have 9 been very diligent stewards of the County's -- of the 10 taxpayers' money. No one could accuse us of wasting it or 11 not properly managing the taxpayers' money. But, there may 12 come a time -- and it may not be this year, may not be next 13 year, and, you know, theoretically may be never, but there 14 may come a time when we just have to recognize the fact that 15 we can no longer fund the necessary government services at 16 this tax rate. I mention the word with the greatest of 17 reluctance. I hesitate to say what the editorials are going 18 to read tomorrow, but it's necessary that we consider 19 everything. 20 You know, when I was doing mediation, we had 21 to consider everything, which included doing nothing. You 22 know, one of the alternatives may be so unpalatable that you 23 just immediately throw it out, but if you don't lay all the 24 alternatives on the table, you don't ever get to the proper 25 solution, and so that's -- wearing my budget officer's hat, 21 1 that's where I see the situation is now. And, I think at 2 this time, I'm going to sit back and throw it open to 3 general discussion and see if anyone has any thoughts before 4 we kind of go down the specific items that we need to make 5 decisions on today so we can move this budget towards 6 completion. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I think that -- 8 thank you for your comments, and thank you for laying it all 9 out on the table, and I also think it's important that we do 10 that to reach a good decision. But, I think that before we 11 get into the tax increases and those kinds of things, it's 12 my opinion that we would go back through the budget and 13 possibly take out some of the things that are -- may be a 14 little fluff here and there. And, as an example, our 15 salaries could be cut back considerably. And I understand 16 that that's just a drop in the bucket compared to the 17 overall picture, but it takes drops to fill up a bucket. 18 And, that would be one of my proposals, is to take -- take 19 our salaries -- proposed salary increases and cut them back, 20 possibly half, and start -- that would be a starting point, 21 and then go throughout the budget and look at those things. 22 I mean, I could come up with probably a dozen things that I 23 would -- if I had to vote on -- I'll give you an example, 24 the D.P.S. radar units. You know, I -- I don't -- I don't 25 see why we're buying a radar unit every year. I know that's 22 1 a small item. I know that. But it takes small items to 2 build bigger things, I think. That's my comment. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's just go around the 4 table. Bill? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I sort of agree with 6 Commissioner Baldwin, in that we have to see how many of the 7 pieces of the puzzle we can get together before we know 8 whether or not there is any need for additional revenues 9 over and above what we have coming to us and what we -- what 10 we accrue due to increased property values. I think law 11 enforcement deserves to get the items that we're talking 12 about, and if -- if a tax increase has to be considered, it 13 should only be considered, in my opinion, after we've seen 14 all the puzzle pieces together and what that -- what that 15 totals, and whether or not law enforcement -- the needs of 16 law enforcement, particularly communications, is over and 17 above what we have available or whether it's partially 18 available -- what we have available, or what -- in fact, I'm 19 agreeing with the Commissioner. We need to -- we need to 20 get how many pieces of the puzzle we can together and see 21 where that takes us. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I pretty much agree 23 totally with what both said -- what the two Commissioners 24 said. I think, especially on the -- I was not here at the 25 salary workshop, and -- but I -- in my mind, I'd like to 23 1 take another look at those elected officials across the 2 board, especially those of us on the Commissioners Court. 3 To me, they're a little bit high. Some of them may be 4 phased in over a couple years. And go, like Commissioner 5 Baldwin said, through the budget and really try to, you 6 know, find $100,000, $200,000, which goes a long way towards 7 doing what I think we need to do in the Sheriff's 8 Department. To me, if we still can't make ends meet and 9 can't put it together and have to look towards some sort of 10 a tax increase, which I certainly hope we don't, I would 11 almost rather do it on a specific thing for the 12 communications; target that at something, similar to what we 13 did for the reconstruction over here, which was a 7-year 14 payout. Do a 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-year payout for that one 15 project, and once that project is paid off, the tax rate 16 goes back down. That would be the only way I can really see 17 doing any kind of a tax increase, would be in that scenario. 18 I think we need to be -- you know, be 19 conscious of the fund balances. We don't need to go too low 20 there, so I think we need to, you know, be good stewards in 21 that area. I'm a little cautious of taking money from 22 Special Projects out of Road and Bridge. I think those are 23 things that we have a long -- basically, a 7-year plan for 24 those projects. Our roads need to continue in their 25 upgrades, and those projects need to continue, and I really 24 1 think that we're going to be hurting future Commissioners 2 Courts if we take that money and put it somewhere else for a 3 short-term bandaid. We've been budgeting a long time; I 4 think those projects are needed. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Larry? 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. I think that, 7 obviously, you got to understand -- we have to understand 8 the total budget impact before we can start thinking about 9 mechanisms for covering all the required stuff, and I would 10 agree, too, that the radio project is one that we have to 11 fund. I mean, that's a -- that's a health, safety, and 12 welfare issue of the people of the county, and that's one of 13 the things that we're charged to do, so we've got to figure 14 out a way to do that and we need to do it, obviously, the 15 most palatable way we can. But, that should include looking 16 at every option that we have to. 17 I'd point out, particularly to the Court and 18 to everybody here, that on the issue of elected officials' 19 salaries -- I wish I'd never agreed to build a model -- 20 there is no proposal. No proposal has been made for 21 increases in elected officials' salaries. All we've done is 22 develop a model by which we can analyze it, and hopefully, 23 somewhere in this process, make a recommendation and then 24 make a decision. But, there has been no proposal by me, by 25 this Court. We have adopted nothing. And you can always 25 1 exercise the option of setting those percentages to zero and 2 leaving the salaries right where they are. I hope everybody 3 understands that right now, today, there is no salary 4 increase proposal on the table. We have to do that still. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner, forgive 6 me for that choice of words. I'm sorry. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. You're not the 8 only one, Buster. In fact, we'll drop it at that. But, 9 it's just that it's just a model, and we're going to have to 10 work with that and decide what we're going to do. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: What I hear, really, is -- is 12 kind of a consensus as to what I suggested we might want to 13 do, which is to make some decisions about funding and ask 14 the Auditor to rerun the budget and bring it back. And then 15 we'll have other -- and then we'll have a further step down 16 the road where we'll really be able to decide what we want 17 to do, principally on the revenue side. Now, I have no 18 hesitation in cutting out radar units for D.P.S., if that's 19 what we want to do. You know, and any other cuts that we 20 want to make. But I think what we need to do today, really, 21 is to -- is to make some decisions on some big issues and 22 some small issues so we can rerun the budget and get some 23 new numbers before us, so then we can really get down to it. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Quick question. When 25 we rerun the budget, would it be possible to put page 26 1 numbers on the budget pages? Can we do that? I'm serious. 2 I notice our budget normally does not have page numbers. It 3 sure would help us when we start flipping through this 4 thing, and I just don't know whether we have that capability 5 or not. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: They're automatically put on 7 there. There are page numbers on there. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's not in the budget 9 workbook. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's up at the top right. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. It's not in the 12 budget book, I guess. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: The budget we print has -- 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's in this one. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay, good enough. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan, you had something? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One thing that we didn't 18 talk about as we went around the table was the Ag Barn 19 project. And I -- to me, you know, that can be a little 20 bit -- or set aside right now, and if we go forward with 21 that project, to me, it should be some sort of a bond issue, 22 and it would be basically the taxpayers voting for a tax 23 increase for that project. And, I just wanted to make sure 24 that everyone understands that, and that's on the table 25 still; it's something to do out there as a project. I think 27 1 we're getting closer as a Court with a consensus on what 2 should be done out there and a definite project. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. I 4 think that whatever we finally determine is a feasible 5 approach to improving that facility, we need to go to a bond 6 issue. If the people say yes, they say yes. If they say 7 no, they say no. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think your suggestion, 9 Jonathan, which I agree with, was that we -- we put this on 10 the agenda at a future court -- at a specific time, 11 separated from the regular business, perhaps 2 o'clock, so 12 that we can devote some time to it, maybe towards the end of 13 next month. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that what you're thinking? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Because I think -- thinking 18 about a bond election, I'd like to think the first Saturday 19 in -- in February, which would be a good time. Anything 20 else among the Commissioners before we -- Linda? 21 MS. UECKER: I just have a question and a 22 comment. First of all, Judge, did I understand you 23 correctly to say that you nixed all the scanners? Is that 24 correct? 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: None of the scanners are 28 1 included in the numbers that are presented today. 2 MS. UECKER: Okay. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's correct. None of 4 them. Not yours, not Jannett's, not the Sheriff's. 5 MS. UECKER: Okay. Well, at what point will 6 we get to come in and say, you know -- like, I'd be willing 7 to compromise and say, you know, I'll settle for one scanner 8 instead of two, and I don't know if the Sheriff would be 9 willing to do the same thing. But, you know, at some point, 10 I would like to be able to come in and justify at least one 11 scanner. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think today's your best 13 shot. 14 MS. UECKER: All right. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Your Honor, the only 16 other thing that I'm wondering, in that you hit -- kind of 17 highlighted some of the things that would and wouldn't be. 18 I think every elected official probably had several smaller 19 things in it. Are we going to be able to know exactly what 20 is and isn't -- can we go through that step today? So we 21 know if there's even small things that we really feel could 22 be justified or could be compromised or -- or swapped 23 around, are we going to get an opportunity to at least -- 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: You know, I don't know 25 whether -- I'm happy to do that, if the Court wants to. 29 1 Or -- or I could do it individually with the department 2 heads. It just depends on what -- what you all want to do. 3 And I'm prepared to go through and say what I've included in 4 these latest numbers and what I haven't. Tommy? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: We could even give each one a 6 copy of their own budget. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be 8 helpful. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I like that 10 approach, giving each one -- I hate to do it right now, 11 because I don't think everyone's prepared. They don't 12 really know what's in and out, and it's not fair to the 13 department heads. 14 MS. UECKER: We don't even know what's been 15 left out. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: After we go through our 17 exercise today and Tommy runs the new -- the next run, we 18 can get all the department heads -- and they may want to 19 say, well, you know, this is -- the scanners are more 20 important than this, and come back and do it, take that 21 approach, and that's -- 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the way to do 23 it. 24 MS. UECKER: What if it's the only thing you 25 have on there? I mean -- 30 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, you have more than 2 that. Essentially, I would say that -- I will say that 3 everyone got basically all of their capital items-slash-wish 4 list requests, except the scanners. 5 MS. UECKER: That's all I wished for. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: The Sheriff's Department is 7 different than that, too, because his capital needs are so 8 high that there's not a lot left for -- but I agree with 9 what's being suggested here. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If the department heads 11 can work with that, let's go through what we have today. 12 We'll get you another budget right away, and you'll have 13 another chance to come in and visit with us about it when we 14 get down to the final decision. 15 MS. UECKER: Now, the comment I had was on 16 the elected officials' salaries. I know Commissioner 17 Griffin said there had been no proposal. Well, just a 18 suggestion or a proposal from me is to pick a figure that 19 you're comfortable with. Now, this Court knows that I'm 20 never comfortable with percentages, because a percentage of 21 1,000 is a lot more than the same percentage of -- of 10. 22 And, to pick one figure that you're comfortable with and 23 go -- go across that way to where it would average out -- 24 except maybe with the exception of the Sheriff, who's making 25 less than his chief deputy. But, that would be my proposal. 31 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, what I'd like to see us 2 do on the elected officials' salaries is to say that elected 3 officials in Kerr County deserve to be paid no less than the 4 average of counties our size, and that we ought to commit 5 ourselves on the Court to bringing those salaries up to the 6 average over a two-year time frame, which means that this 7 year we could decide, okay, we're going to take -- move up 8 to half of the average this year and the other half next 9 year, with the exception of the Sheriff, which stands out 10 among us all. And the next year -- or 40 percent this year 11 and 60 percent next year, or 60 percent this year and 12 40 percent next year. 13 MS. UECKER: Are you talking about not 14 including the COLA? 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: No, including the COLA. 16 MS. UECKER: Okay. So, you're talking about 17 that in addition to the COLA? Or -- 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. 19 MS. UECKER: -- the same? Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can -- and with the 21 model, we can set any percentage that -- that we want. I 22 mean, we could do 40 percent, we can do 30 percent, you can 23 do zero or 100. But, all the model does is give you the 24 ability to analyze any percentage you want to consider. 25 And -- 32 1 MS. UECKER: Well -- 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- we can constrain 3 the model if you want to put limits on something, like we 4 have right now, and we can vary this. But, what we've said 5 is that no department head who has a chief deputy shall make 6 less than 2 and a half percent more than the chief deputy's 7 salary, so -- to solve that. 8 MS. UECKER: Which I agree with that, but the 9 comment -- 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But that's one 11 constraint. We could do other constraints; the model is 12 flexible enough to do that. We just have to decide what we 13 want to do. 14 MS. UECKER: Okay. The -- 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Barbara? 16 MS. NEMEC: One thing that I notice in the 17 model is that it does make the salaries of the county-wide 18 elected officials, being the District Clerk, the County 19 Clerk, the Tax Assessor, and the County Treasurer, bringing 20 them to different salaries, and they're not that much 21 different, but they are different. And I know several years 22 ago, the Commissioners Court worked real hard to get these 23 salaries at the same level, and I -- I would just hate to 24 see that change. I think in the model, the District Clerk 25 was making less than all the others, and I don't agree with 33 1 that. I think we need to look at county-wide elected 2 officials. I just don't feel that the District Clerk in 3 this county should make less than the County Treasurer, 4 County Clerk, or the Tax Assessor. And the same for all the 5 other offices that I just mentioned. I would like to see 6 those stay equalized. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we could do that by 8 simply establishing one of those offices as the one that we 9 use for comparison. 10 MS. NEMEC: 'Cause they're not that much 11 different in dollars. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: The one in the middle? 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I was about to say, 14 the model could very easily indicate that we pick one of 15 those offices as the -- as the target. 16 MS. NEMEC: Maybe the middle one. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's what we 18 use, then, to set all of them. It would still be 19 calculated, but that office is the one that then would 20 determine all of the -- 21 MS. UECKER: Well, the other thing I was 22 going to comment on, Commissioner Griffin, was most of the 23 counties that we used in the comparison, for instance -- and 24 this is just in the District Clerk's picture -- is they only 25 have one court. I clerk three courts. Most of those take 34 1 in about half as much child support as I do. Their court 2 load is much less because of their -- especially the 3 criminal cases, because they're not in the vicinity of I-10 4 or -- or an interstate. So, you know, at one point you had 5 said we could would come in and discuss those variables, 6 and -- depending on whether or not you're going to use the 7 model or not. But, in the counties that were listed -- and 8 I just got the list yesterday -- I do know for a fact that 9 most of those counties have one. Some of them have two, and 10 there are a couple of them there that do have three courts. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, and what you 12 would hope is -- and what you hope is -- is that the size of 13 the data sample takes care of most of that, because you'll 14 have some on the low end; you may have some on the high end. 15 MS. UECKER: Except most of those are 16 one-court counties. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm, yeah. And 18 what -- and the way the TAC database and the way that this 19 model is based on, is that -- is that it's -- it's a 20 functional look. And maybe that has weaknesses, and I would 21 admit, certainly, that it -- it probably does. But, what 22 you're looking at is type of work done in a 10-hour day or 23 6-day week or whatever it is, that -- that Clerks or -- or 24 Commissioners or anybody has to -- Treasurer, whatever, has 25 to work in, so that it's really -- it's not a -- it's not so 35 1 much the breadth of the work as it is the depth of it. It 2 can only work 8, 10 hours a day, whatever it takes to get 3 the job done. 4 MS. UECKER: But you also have to take into 5 consideration created liabilities. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We may need to up your 7 insurance, too. 8 MS. UECKER: Well, we did that a couple of 9 years ago. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. But, anyway, 11 there's all kinds -- these are all good comments, and those 12 are all -- those are all weaknesses in my model. Remember, 13 the swamp that we set out to drain was that we were going to 14 try to come up with an objective system that was repetitive 15 and we could use it from year to year and get it out of 16 the -- sort of the back of the envelope kind of thing that 17 says, well, boost this one a little bit this year and this 18 one a little bit next year and all that sort of thing. 19 We're trying to come up with an objective system that sort 20 of accomplishes what the Commission on Congressional 21 Salaries has done. I noticed that the Times editorial 22 mentioned that yesterday. That's, in essence, what we're 23 trying to do here, is to come up with something that's 24 outside of the political arena that you can use to base 25 salaries on. So -- but all of the comments are good ones, 36 1 and I think we can certainly accommodate the -- the comment 2 that Barbara's made. We can look at several ways of doing 3 that. What we can do is also constrain the model at the 4 same time. If we want to put a limit on how much in one 5 year any official can be raised, we can do that. There's 6 several ways we could skin the cat. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have the 8 capability in the model to take the County Clerk, District 9 Clerk, County Treasurer and Tax Assessor and average the 10 salaries that's in here? 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I agree with what 13 Barbara's saying, that in this county it's worked pretty 14 well to have those salaries equalized. I think we've done 15 that. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I noticed, too, in 17 gathering the raw data -- you may have noticed it, too, 18 Barbara -- that -- that a lot of counties do that. 19 MS. NEMEC: Right. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: A lot of counties do 21 have those positions equalized. Some are higher than 22 others, but they're -- within the county, they're the same. 23 So that we can -- and I -- I'm not making a proposal. I can 24 adjust the model to do that. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Paula? 37 1 MS. RECTOR: This is just a comment. I think 2 what we're up against is probably the same thing that we've 3 seen in the past where we've got some inconsistencies in the 4 salaries among the four elected officials, and that was a 5 problem in the past, and it appears to be a problem now, 6 because you've got some that are not making quite as much as 7 what this model shows. There's some going to be making more 8 than others, and that kind of leaves a sour taste in some of 9 our mouths, that we're not all equal. But, I think that's 10 something that the Court is going to have to decide and just 11 go ahead and bite the bullet and say, either we're going to 12 leave it all consistent and everybody makes the same, or 13 we're going to go ahead and adjust it according to what 14 these figures or this data shows. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the disparity 16 issue is very minor; there's only $100 difference. There's 17 $100 difference between three of the four elected officials. 18 MS. RECTOR: But there are -- some of the 19 other elected officials are making a supplement to their 20 salaries, which some of us are not. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's not part 22 of this model. Supplements are not part of the model. 23 MS. RECTOR: Right, so that is not really a 24 true figure of what their actual salary is. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I was thinking we were 38 1 talking about the positions that -- we talked about the 2 District Clerk, Tax Assessor/Collector, Treasurer, and 3 County Clerk; is that correct? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Now, do any of those 6 receive supplements? 7 MS. RECTOR: I think she gets a Law Library 8 supplement. 9 MS. UECKER: But that's a weekend and evening 10 project. 11 MS. RECTOR: It's still something that's not 12 reflected on here. And I'm not -- and I'm not putting her 13 down for that additional supplement. That's fine. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: The reason it's not reflected 15 is because it doesn't come out of tax dollars. It's a 16 separate County Law Library fee -- 17 MS. RECTOR: Exactly. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- which pays for that. 19 MS. NEMEC: And -- because she doesn't have 20 to do it; is that correct? 21 MS. RECTOR: Right. 22 MS. UECKER: I don't -- no, I don't have to 23 do it, and I don't really want to do it. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well -- 25 MS. UECKER: Twelve hundred bucks. Does 39 1 anybody want it? 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't have -- I 3 would make the proposal that we -- that we equalize those 4 based on the average, or I can look at -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Average seems -- 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The model can do that 7 easily; that's not a problem. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: We have had one citizen sign 9 up to address us on this issue, which I think I'll take now, 10 and then we'll take a quick break and come back and go into 11 some specific decisions. Mr. Nicholson, do you want to 12 address the Court on this issue? 13 MR. NICHOLSON: I'm Dave Nicholson, and I'll 14 address the issue of elected officials' compensation and 15 propose that the Commissioners Court take a different 16 approach to establishing these salaries, the approach that 17 businesses base decisions on principles. I've noticed that 18 many decisions made by the Commissioners Court are based on 19 flawed logic, whether being principle-based or guided by 20 established -- established policy. For example, the recent 21 decision to budget payments of equal amounts to all the 22 volunteer fire departments was apparently based on the 23 flawed logic of simplicity. Had the Court taken the time to 24 establish a principle, it would have considered factors such 25 as need, size of the area served, capability of each 40 1 department, and other relevant factors. 2 To avoid making another decision based on 3 flawed logic, I suggest that the Commissioners Court adopt 4 these principles in determining the compensation for elected 5 officials. First, elected officials, other than County 6 Judge and County Commissioners, are full-time career 7 professionals who bring particular experience, skills, and 8 education to their jobs. Their compensation should be at a 9 level that will attract qualified people to seek these 10 offices and should be favorably compared to compensation 11 levels in the private sector, as well as governmental 12 entities. The second principle is, County Judge and County 13 Commissioner offices are public service positions requiring 14 no particular qualifications, and are essentially part-time 15 jobs, even though some dedicated Commissioners spend -- do 16 more than the minimal requirements. Compensation levels of 17 these positions should not be so high that candidates would 18 be attracted to the office by the compensation. A modest 19 compensation level is appropriate for these office holders 20 who seek these offices based on a sense of duty and desire 21 for public service. 22 I have these additional observations of the 23 proposed compensation levels. First, compensation data from 24 the Texas Association of Counties is not reliable enough to 25 provide guidance to -- at setting compensation levels. One 41 1 problem with using it is that there are significant 2 differences in the job descriptions of positions with the 3 same title. This is particularly true in the County 4 Commissioner title. Some similar counties with higher paid 5 Commissioners have, quote, Road and Bridge Commissioners who 6 have full-time jobs with heavy responsibility for county 7 operations. That's not the case in Kerr County. There are 8 also significant variances from county to county in the 9 responsibility of classifications such as the Sheriff, 10 Justice of the Peace, and constables. Use of the data is an 11 apples-and-oranges comparison. Selective use of the data is 12 akin to deciding on a desired outcome and then selecting 13 some data to support that outcome, or the fox guarding the 14 henhouse. 15 The decision made last year to allow the 16 compensation of the Sheriff to be $2,000 less than his chief 17 deputy was ludicrous. A common organization principle is 18 there should be a 15 spread -- 15 percent spread between the 19 midpoints of salary grades. I recommend a salary of $47,000 20 for the Sheriff. The offices of Justice of the Peace and 21 Constable are underpaid by any standard. These highly 22 qualified men and women have difficult jobs, are on call 23 24-7, and use their personal resources in the performance of 24 their jobs. In order to assure that the County is able to 25 attract and retain qualified people in these offices, and in 42 1 the interest of equity, a significant pay increase is 2 indicated. I recommend $33,000 for constables and $35,000 3 for the J.P.'s. Based on the principle proposed earlier and 4 the unreliability of the survey data, the compensation of 5 County Judge and County Commissioner is at least adequate, 6 if not high for those levels. The proposal to increase 7 these salaries by 30 percent and 23 percent, respectively, 8 is greedy and unconscionable. I recommend these salaries be 9 frozen and the savings be used to fund adjustments that are 10 needed for the Sheriff, the constables, and the J.P.'s. I 11 urge the Commissioners Court to do the right thing on 12 compensation, be guided by principle and not self-interest. 13 Thank you for listening. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we go back to the 15 ladies -- elected officials right quick? I just want to 16 give you some wisdom, which is from sitting here a long 17 time. Keep their salaries as close to each other as 18 possible. And I won't go any further than that. 19 (Laughter.) 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Safe ground. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: With those words of wisdom, 22 let's take a 10-minute break, come back promptly at 2:35, 23 and we'll get down to some issues. 24 (Recess taken from 2:25 p.m. to 2:35 p.m.) 25 - - - - - - - - - - 43 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Let's go back into 2 session now. It's Tuesday afternoon, August 21. This is a 3 special session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court, and 4 the topic for consideration are budget issues. Three or 5 four things that we need to make a decision on that's on my 6 agenda. Let me go through those first, and then we'll open 7 them up. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Judge, before you get 9 into that, a point of personal privilege, if I may. Elaine 10 Casteel is here, Ingram Fire District, and this is an 11 issue -- a budget issue which I've spoken with her at some 12 length on. She, of course, represents one of the fire 13 districts that we did a reduction on as we equalized -- put 14 our flawed -- whatever -- what did he call it? Flawed 15 reasoning together and came up with whatever we came up 16 with, that took one of the cuts. And -- and her concern is 17 -- and I think I wanted to raise it as an issue, that we're 18 certainly not going to penalize any fire department because 19 it's in a fire district; that, to the contrary, we want to 20 make sure that we are fair to all of the departments. I 21 think that's the sense of the Court, and I think I would 22 just like to take this opportunity to reassure her on the 23 record that that's the case; that there was certainly no -- 24 no consideration given to affecting County support to a fire 25 department based on whether it's in a fire district or not 44 1 in a fire district. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Let's go to work. 3 I have suggested that we consider a 2 and a half percent 4 across-the-board cost-of-living adjustment, which I believe 5 is less than the actual cost-of-living, but close enough for 6 government work, as I used to say in the private sector. 7 Thoughts? Issues? Suggestions? 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that's 9 certainly reasonable, and -- and probably -- I don't know 10 what the C.P.I. came out. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll tell you what it 12 came out. According to Carole Keeton Rylander, for the 12 13 months ending -- April of '00 to April of '01, it's 14 4 percent. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think 2 and a half 16 percent is certainly conservative, and it's certainly -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if we go any less 18 than that, we're going to just be going back down the same 19 road we just fixed, or tried to fix last year in getting our 20 employees' salaries up from where they -- too low, where 21 they shouldn't be. So, I think -- I mean, I think 2 and a 22 half percent in this year's budget is a good number. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, 2 and a half 24 percent is actually going backwards, if the C.P.I. is 25 4 percent. I mean, if the cost of living has gone up 45 1 4 percent and we're going to give a 2 and a half, we're 2 really going backwards. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. We've 4 gone backwards by a percent and a half, that's correct. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: All we need to determine at 6 this stage in the game is, seems to be the consensus we're 7 going to give a COLA. What number, so that we can run the 8 numbers? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2.5. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: 2.5, going once, going twice. 11 Do I hear competitive bids? Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do they have to be 13 sealed? 14 (Discussion off the record.) 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. So, we will ask the 16 Auditor to include in the next go-around of the budget a 2 17 and a half percent cost-of-living adjustment. Next item I 18 want to bring up is department head salaries, and I have 19 suggested a 5 percent increase in the department heads, 20 which is Leonard, Franklin, Marc Allen, Glenn Holekamp, and 21 Russ Duncan. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did I understand you 23 correctly, that they didn't get anything last year? 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: They got a -- a one-step 25 increase -- the equivalent of a one-step increase. Since 46 1 they're not on a step and grade, they didn't get an actual 2 step increase, but they got the equivalent of a one-step 3 increase, plus the COLA. So, they didn't get left out, but 4 they didn't get a full adjustment. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is a -- what is the 6 one-step increase? I mean, just depends -- I guess it 7 depends on where they are. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: One step is approximately -- 9 MS. SOVIL: Two and a half. 10 MS. NEMEC: Two and a half -- 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Two and a half percent. 12 MS. NEMEC: -- percent. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Five percent increase for 14 those department heads is about $8,600. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think a couple of 16 those, mainly Road and Bridge, Leonard and -- again, that 17 situation we go through, the percentage increase that we got 18 into with the County Attorney, their increases -- the 19 salaries are so much higher than a lot of these other 20 department heads that the impact, dollar-wise, is a lot 21 higher increase. And, maybe it should be. I mean, 22 they're -- there's more -- it's a higher level position. 23 There's a lot more education, a lot more experience and, you 24 know, qualifications. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Total impact's $8,600? 47 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: $8,600, roughly. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sounds good to me. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, does that -- is 4 it -- is it 5 percent on it or is it 7 and a half percent? 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, it would be a 5 percent 6 salary increase and then a 2 and a half, so a total of 7 and 7 a half percent. Salary base would be 5 percent. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, for the record, 10 you said the COLA's 2 and a half percent spread 11 across-the-board, top to bottom, is $110,000? 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. That was before any 13 elected official salary adjustments or any -- the $110,000 14 is based on today's salary structure. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For everybody, Judge 16 down? 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Top to bottom. Right, 18 Barbara? 19 MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, there will be some -- 21 MS. NEMEC: Department heads, elected 22 officials, employees. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- some adjustments in that 24 number, but that's a number that, if we agreed on that, then 25 Barbara will calculate it, give it to Tommy for the next 48 1 budget. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think my preference 3 would be to do a 2 and a half percent increase and then the 4 COLA on top of that, so you end with up with 5 percent, and 5 do the same the following year; we'd need to adjust it 6 again, spread out department heads another year. It's not a 7 tremendous savings, but if we don't start somewhere, we're 8 not going to have any -- I mean, so basically it would be a 9 $4,300 increase, which will be -- 10 MS. NEMEC: I'm sorry, Jonathan, what was 11 your suggestion? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two and a half percent 13 increase for department heads. 14 MS. NEMEC: Instead of the 5? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Instead of 5. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Plus COLA. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Plus COLA. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Everything is plus COLA. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I like 5. I just 20 think -- I think we're really going to leave them behind by 21 giving a low COLA and what I think is a low adjustment. The 22 total budget impact is not that great, and I just think it's 23 fair to go ahead and do what the Judge had recommended. 24 Now, I'm not hard over on that, but I just think that sounds 25 fair -- it just sounds fairer to me. 49 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I would go along 2 with the 5 percent and just work those numbers up and take a 3 look at them, you know, and -- late next week, and see what 4 that does. And then, in my mind, if that's too much, then 5 my mind's going to automatically go to what Jon -- Jon's 6 proposal. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. And I think 8 that's going to apply to any numbers that we come up with 9 from now until -- and when we get the run, then we'll go 10 through all of the other issues. I think that's -- that's a 11 good caveat on all of them, because we'll look at the next 12 run, and if we have to come back, we'll come back on 13 anything. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. So, we'll -- for 15 purposes of review next time around, we'll go with a 16 5 percent department head increase. Okay. Elected 17 officials. I'm going to suggest that we set a goal of 18 having the median of elected officials' salaries for 19 counties our population. I mean, that's the average, boys. 20 I mean, I think we're all above average. We're like Lake 21 Wobegon; everybody is above average, but I think we at least 22 ought to get the average. But, I'm going to suggest that we 23 do that in two years, and that this year we grant the 24 elected officials 60 percent of the amount necessary to come 25 up to the median, with the understanding that next year we 50 1 would go the rest of the way. The reason I do that is 2 because if we went 50 percent this year and 50 percent next 3 year, actually, next year we would have to go more than 4 50 percent, because everybody else's salaries would rise, so 5 the median would rise. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I assume that there 7 would be some rise throughout the state. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: It really wouldn't be 9 fifty-fifty. That's -- I'm just throwing that out there as 10 a target number. Again, all we're doing is plugging numbers 11 into the budget so we can see what it was. If someone else 12 wants to propose a different adjustment, now's the time to 13 say so. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, let me throw 15 this out. It appears to me that last year, we dealt with 16 the employees' salaries. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This year we're trying 19 to deal with elected officials' salaries, and so in my pea 20 brain, it looks like that next year, we may go back to the 21 employees' salaries again, and the elected -- you know, it 22 would be a cycle. So, we would -- we wouldn't have that 23 freedom next year to deal with elected officials' salaries. 24 I'll throw that out. That's the way it looks like to me, 25 that we're kind of getting into a cycle system, which -- 51 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: My response to that, Buster, 2 would be that because we went through the -- the correct 3 process and the pain last year of having a professional 4 evaluate the employees' salaries, we shouldn't have to go 5 back and reevaluate employees salaries for another two or 6 three years, probably. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That may be. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Or five years. That's kind 9 of what I was looking at last year, was that we get them up 10 to where they should be and we do cost of livings, plus we 11 have the automatic step increases that come into play once 12 they've been here one year, three years, seven years, that 13 they ought to stay pretty much in line and that we shouldn't 14 have to go through that painful exercise more than about 15 once every five years. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we maintain 17 equivalency with cost of living. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we fall behind a 20 point and a half or a point or two points a year in 21 COLA's -- COLA adjustments, you find yourself in the same 22 boat again. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And you look at it, if 52 1 you -- if you do a short COLA, then what you may want to do 2 the following year is look at a -- a COLA-plus to make up 3 for the difference. If there -- see, you really don't know 4 what the real C.P.I. is going to be for the year yet. 5 Economy's heading south a bit, so -- at least southwest or 6 something. But -- so, it could be that it -- it could be 7 that -- that that C.P.I. is going to be closer to 3 percent 8 than 4 percent, so maybe you don't lose at 2 and a half 9 percent -- maybe we're not going to lose out much. But, 10 we'll know what the real C.P.I. is at the end of the year. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. And 12 particularly as -- as fuel costs, both domestic and 13 automotive, begin to trend down. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we just need 15 to have a little rigor in how we look at that every year, is 16 that we look at what we did the year before, couple of years 17 before, perhaps, and then look at what the real C.P.I. was, 18 and then try to make sure that we keep up with our -- our 19 new salary schedule that we have for employees, for example. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we know what the 21 60 percent of the median with regard to elected officials -- 22 what the cost of that is? What's the price tag? 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, other than -- hang 24 on. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: We've all got it here 53 1 somewhere. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's in the model? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $56,957. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah, $56,957. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fifty-six -- put 57K. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only -- you know, I 7 don't have a problem with using that as our target right 8 now, but I -- are we confident in those numbers? I mean, 9 where do they come from? 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Barbara personally called 11 each of the 18 counties on the list and verified the salary 12 information. 13 MS. NEMEC: Those were the numbers they gave 14 me. Those are not this next year's budget numbers. Those 15 are what they're working on. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If you'll recall -- if 17 you'll recall -- well, you weren't here -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- at the workshop. 20 And, so that the record is set straight from our last 21 speaker at the podium, because we didn't have great 22 confidence in the TAC database because we had found some old 23 data and some data that was inaccurate, this Court made the 24 decision to go get the real data from every county involved. 25 So, we did not use the TAC database information. We took 54 1 actual data from every county. If that's flawed logic, I 2 can't get any better than flawed, then. But, at any rate, 3 that's what happened. We've got real data. I've got as 4 much confidence in that now as I think we could have at this 5 point, so I don't think we -- we ain't hurting for data. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only other question I 7 would have in that area -- I mean, that, I guess, reinforces 8 going along with the 60 percent. I think we do need to make 9 the adjustment which is going to balance out -- I think if 10 we take the average of the four -- 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That will have 12 little -- probably shouldn't have any. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Really, the average 14 shouldn't have any impact. And, on the Commissioners' 15 salaries, I do think it is an issue as to which of those 16 counties use some sort of a unit road system. I think 17 that's a difficult question to ask, because there's so many 18 different kinds of unit road systems. I know when we were 19 at the conference in Beaumont, the question was asked by one 20 of the speakers, and roughly two-thirds of the people raised 21 their hands as Commissioners that had -- those counties had 22 some sort of a unit road system. As an example, I think 23 Gillespie, Kendall, and Kerr counties all have a form of 24 unit road system, and each of those forms are different. 25 But, I think it does have an impact on a Commissioner's 55 1 workload. I think that needs to at least be somewhat noted 2 or, you know, maybe call them and -- 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I don't -- yeah, 4 but here's the problem we run into. There's only 24 hours 5 in a day. I don't -- I have -- I don't have a day, 6 including Saturdays and some Sundays, that I don't work a 7 road issue. Do any of you have days off that you don't deal 8 with road issues? I'm talking to Len Odom and Franklin 9 Johnston all the time. And, so I don't know what -- you 10 know, what -- what non-unit road system -- what the precinct 11 systems have is -- and if somebody wants to argue that it's 12 cheaper to have a precinct system because you don't have a 13 road administrator like Len Odom, the fact is, you got four 14 Len Odoms -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- when you have a 17 precinct system, and it's more expensive. And that's the 18 reason counties go to unit road systems. It just happens 19 that your road boss and mine and Buster's road boss is the 20 same guy. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But -- so I don't buy 23 the argument that because you have a precinct road system, 24 that somehow or other it would save you money on salaries. 25 It increases the personnel costs. No way that it cannot. 56 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would agree. I think 2 it increases the salaries, but I think it does -- in my 3 mind, anyway, does decrease the workload a little bit. And, 4 I think the -- you know -- 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I talked to some -- I 6 talked to some guys down in Harris County. That's a big 7 county. They have precincts. You know, they have huge 8 staffs and all that sort of thing. Jim Fonteno is -- is the 9 guy I know best that's a County Commissioner, and he said 10 the thing about a precinct road system is -- is that that's 11 about all you do. You don't do anything else, because all 12 you have to worry about are roads and bridges; that you have 13 staff or other -- someone else in the county that does 14 computer models and O.S.S.F. and whatever, and water and all 15 those kinds of things. So, I don't buy -- since there's 16 only 24 hours in a day, I just don't buy that there's any 17 grand distinction. Now, you can argue what a County 18 Commissioner's worth. I don't know. Some of us are 19 worthless, I suppose, but -- but we can argue what a County 20 Commissioner is worth, but I wouldn't on the basis of 21 whether it's a unit road system or not a unit road system. 22 I would say it's a lot more important how big an area you 23 have. See, mine's bigger than you guys, so I ought to get 24 more. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There you go. 57 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But, I mean, you can 2 argue it on the basis of how big a county you got and how 3 big are those precincts? How many miles of roads do you 4 have? How many grandkids do you have? And -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What condition are 6 the roads in? 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That was sort of the 8 point that Buster made last time; if you start making 9 exceptions, if you throw one out on the bottom end, you 10 ought to throw one out on the top end. What it tends to do 11 is still drive you toward the median. So, I -- I don't see 12 the distinction, but I can certainly understand the argument 13 on what a County Commissioner's worth. You know, I -- we 14 can debate that. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's 16 interesting in the model -- just while we're making some 17 comments about the model, as opposed to the numbers, 18 okay? -- is that some of the counties that are smaller than 19 Kerr County have a salary structure in many of the positions 20 greater than Kerr County. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. Yeah. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, let's -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They don't have a unit 24 road system. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think what I'm hearing is, 58 1 let's plug in the 60 percent of parity for budget purposes 2 and look at this. If anyone wants to make a special plea 3 for their suggestion upward or downward, we'll be open to 4 that. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sixty percent this 6 year and 40 percent next year. Can we -- can we make that 7 -- make a commitment on 40 percent next year? 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: In a sense. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: In a sense, we can, since 10 it's the sense of the Court that we would equalize the 11 median salary within two years, starting with 60 percent 12 this year. Okay. Easy ones. Mr. Henderson's provided us 13 with a $118,000 estimate for the radio project on 14 Certificates of Obligation. That's a very conservative 15 estimate, one I think will -- will hold true, if not prove 16 to be a little high, but we need to use that, don't you 17 think, Tommy, for purposes of this exercise? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Also, we have -- for next 20 year, we have a -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't go on; let me 22 ask a question. I just want to throw it out there. I think 23 I know the answer, but I want to throw it out. In this 24 year's budget, we had $150,000 allocated in that line for 25 communications. Now, I know we've tapped that, reduced it, 59 1 but it was there to begin with. Are we starting this 2 exercise with respect to communications with that 150 still 3 in that line? Or has it vanished? 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: It has vanished. It was 5 taken out and is part of the rerun of the numbers which were 6 reflected in the memo of August 13th. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: As was $160,000 for the 9 T-hangars. Tommy? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: On this issue, I -- I'd just 11 like to make a comment. In effect, what we're doing, if we 12 issue a debt, the -- I think the statutes say that -- that 13 when you do issue a debt, you -- you will levy a tax for the 14 purpose of interest and sinking fund for the purpose of 15 retiring that debt. So, in effect, what you're doing is 16 taking a bite out of -- out of your M & O, or maintenance 17 and operation tax rate. That's -- and that bite's going to 18 be gone for -- for however long the term of the debt is; in 19 this case, seven years, probably. So, I think if you -- if 20 you ever entertain the thought of -- of raising the tax rate 21 because you -- because you're legally required to levy a tax 22 for that purpose, then that, you know, is the most logical 23 time, because you -- because you're going to have to live -- 24 or future courts are going to have to live with the tax 25 rate -- or a maintenance and operations tax rate that is 60 1 less than the rate that you're going to have to move from 2 maintenance and operation to interest and sinking. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, isn't that really 4 a part of the reason why we're having a very tight budget 5 right now, is because we didn't levy a tax when we did that 6 C.O. over there? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Exactly. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We took that straight out 9 of the M & O, and that's why the budget's as tight as it is 10 right now, and will continue to be tight until that's paid 11 off in, what, four more years. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Good point. Thanks, Tommy. 13 Anybody have any questions about that? Okay. The other one 14 that we need to plug in here for discussion purposes, that 15 the report from Mr. Trott -- Trott Communications says that 16 our preferred vendor has a cost of $125,640 for tower lease 17 for the first year. Now, the Sheriff and I have some grave 18 questions about that, and we'll be working on that between 19 now and the next time we get together, but we need to plug 20 it in there for planning purposes. So, that's $125,640 for 21 tower leases. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seems awfully high. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not on my property. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me ask Tommy a 61 1 question to follow up -- follow up on what the Judge is 2 talking about. For the maintenance and the tower leases, 3 would it not be possible, if we're considering a tax to 4 support the communication -- acquisition of a communications 5 system, that this number also, the maintenance and the tower 6 lease, can be rolled into that as one and covered with that 7 tax rate? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: No, I don't think so. I 9 think that's a maintenance and operation issue. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: And I think that debt needs 12 to be associated with a specific purchase. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To follow up, don't 14 you think you could make that case, however, on the tower 15 leases, but not the maintenance? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: No. I -- I still think that 17 the lease, itself -- it's not a purchase. I mean, you're 18 not -- you're not purchasing property, so you're going to 19 live with this forever, so you need to build -- you need to 20 build a rate into your maintenance operations where that 21 will take care of that for perpetuity. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree, it needs to be 24 plugged in. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Needs to be plugged in. I 62 1 mean, it -- well, we just have -- the Sheriff and I have 2 talked about that at length. We have some grave 3 reservations about their number, but they may just be 4 picking numbers out of a book somewhere instead of knowing 5 what the situation is on the ground. As I pointed out in my 6 memo, I mean, it's our Auditor's suggestion that we move 7 $139,000 of reserve from M & O to Road and Bridge as the 8 first installment in a commitment to get that Road and 9 Bridge fund balance up to where it needs. Is everyone in 10 accord with that, or comfortable with that? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mind doing it all 12 right now. I think we certainly need to get to a point that 13 we get that fund balance healthier again. But, as long as 14 we leave this Special Projects fund alone, I'm not as -- it 15 could be a little bit less than that, in my mind, and have 16 that kind of as a -- a pot that could be used if there was a 17 problem over there, and try to go for a three or four-year 18 plan to get that back to where it needs to be. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: What we -- give me a number. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A hundred thousand. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, does anyone want to -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, we'll take -- move 24 $100,000 from the M & O fund balance to Road and Bridge. 25 Everyone understands that that takes money out of the M & O 63 1 pot? 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Would this be a good 3 time to raise the Schreiner Trust Fund accumulation issue? 4 Discuss that? Or do we do it later? I mean, because it's 5 related to that. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Go ahead. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We had a -- a letter 8 from Security State that there's some $25,000 of 9 undistributed income in the Schreiner Trust, and to help the 10 very problem that we're talking about there -- and I just 11 briefly mentioned this to Commissioner Baldwin, but we 12 could -- I believe, as indicated by the letter, we could 13 move those -- that undistributed income into the Road and 14 Bridge M & O account for projects in Precincts 1 and 4, 15 could we not? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: I think you have to -- 17 indirectly -- indirectly, you're right. I think the trust 18 instrument actually says that you have to -- the Court has 19 to, in writing, tell the trust -- the trustee what -- what 20 project you want to use -- specifically what you want to use 21 those funds for. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So maybe what we could 23 do -- if I understand what you said correctly, Tommy, maybe 24 what we could do is just earmark that we're going to expend 25 those funds in Precincts 1 and 4 this year, this coming 64 1 year. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think what Tommy's 3 saying is that you have to designate specifically what 4 you're going to use them for. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's what I'm 6 saying. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: What you two might be able to 8 do is, say, look into the Special Projects budget for 9 Precinct 1 and Precinct 4, and say, "I'm going to use 10 $15,000 of the Schreiner Trust on this project." 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see where you're 12 going, and I asked the County Engineer what -- did they have 13 any plans for -- and he said no, not this year. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: But we can -- 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What we can do -- 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- move money into those 17 projects. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What we can do is take 19 a special project and say $15,000 is going to go for the 20 Special Project A in Precinct 1, which means that that 21 leaves some Special Projects money in there. You didn't 22 have to spend that, 'cause we spent this instead. I'm just 23 saying we can commit to do that, which is going to help that 24 imbalance with the Road and Bridge M & O. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the project that 65 1 just comes out, to me -- I know it's all in Precinct 1, but 2 it kind of helps, is the Sheppard Rees project, which is an 3 ongoing, big project. Just put the $25,000 into that one 4 project. You know, that's a simple way to accomplish what 5 you're talking about. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I like it. What do I 7 get? 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's do what we need to do. 9 You guys need to talk and come up with a specific allocation 10 of that fund, if that's where you want to go, and then we 11 can readjust the numbers. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: An issue that's not on here 14 that has just come up, actually, in the last day or so, is 15 the issue of administrative fee to the U.G.R.A. for the 16 O.S.S.F. project. Commissioner Griffin has been working 17 with U.G.R.A. to see if they would develop a fee schedule 18 that would pay for the O.S.S.F. program without the need for 19 contribution and tax dollars from either the County coffers 20 or the U.G.R.A. coffers. The most recent fee schedule which 21 they've proposed essentially doubles the existing fees, and 22 comes up about $40,000 short of breaking even. Revenues 23 have produced about $167,000, with a $201,000 expense side. 24 So, the issue that's raised is whether or not the County 25 wishes to continue providing what's been called an 66 1 administrative fee to the U.G.R.A. for support of the 2 project. 3 Last year we provided $30,000. The contract 4 actually expires at the end of September, and we're not 5 obligated any for next year. I've been involved in some of 6 those discussions with Commissioner Griffin, and I am seldom 7 misunderstood, but apparently I wasn't very clear, because 8 they didn't understand that I wanted them to set up a fee 9 structure for our consideration which would carry the 10 project, because it's my belief that those sort of special 11 needs projects need to be supported by fees, as opposed to 12 by the taxpayer. And, while it's true that all of us in 13 Kerr County benefit from the clean waters of the river, it 14 seems to me like the people who are -- are putting in the 15 waste disposal systems should be the ones who bear the cost 16 of the program. 17 So, the question becomes to what extent, if 18 any, the County wishes to provide an administrative fee to 19 the U.G.R.A. for the purpose of -- of bridging the apparent 20 gap between the higher schedule of fees and the expense 21 side. I will tell you that it gives me some trouble in 22 doing it that way, because one way to look at it is that 23 we're being asked to write a blank check in the sense that 24 we don't have any control over the expense side. 25 Commissioner Griffin has worked diligently with them to 67 1 scrub the expense side, you know. He and I talked, and they 2 had some very minor funds in the expense side which simply 3 were not acceptable to us. And, at his request, I believe 4 they've taken them out. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, about $300. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: But it still remains -- the 7 issue is they're in charge of the expenses, and they want us 8 to contribute towards the gap between the fee schedule that 9 they're proposing, which we have to adopt -- I mean, we're 10 the ones who set the fee schedule and the expense schedule 11 that they're proposing. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. How many 13 people do they have? I mean, they have Stuart, and one 14 other person? 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: They have Stuart. They have 16 -- they have two clerical people. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Scott Loveland. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: They have part of Scott 19 Loveland as the supervisor for that department, and they're 20 hiring another -- 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Another inspector. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: So they have four virtually 23 full-time people and one kind of overseer, oversight person, 24 in the form of Scott Loveland. I -- I don't know. I mean, 25 I -- I'll be honest with you. I thought that it was 68 1 perfectly clear to them that it was our opinion that this 2 program should be self-supporting. And, I'm -- when I got 3 the message yesterday that they expected us to continue the 4 administrative fee, I was very surprised at that. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We -- did we not 6 recently adopt a fee schedule? 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We added some fees. 8 That was when we went to the real estate inspection and that 9 sort of thing, but that was in addition to the fee schedule 10 that was already in place. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what we -- 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Those other things -- 13 fees weren't changed. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what we've been 15 doing is we had a fee schedule from last year and sending 16 over $30,000 for administrative, and now we've come along 17 and we've added some more fees, and they want $40,000? Is 18 that -- 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, they say 30 still. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought Fred said 21 40. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: The gap is about 30, 40 23 thousand. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, they'll eat the 25 10? 69 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: U.G.R.A. will tell you -- Mr. 2 Brown will tell you that they've been subsidizing the 3 O.S.S.F. program to the tune of $80,000, $100,000 over the 4 last two years. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've heard the story. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: You've heard the story and 7 probably have the same skeptical ear to the story that I 8 have. But, this is a budget -- we've got to start crafting 9 a budget. The question is, are we willing to continue to 10 pay an administrative fee to U.G.R.A.? Are we going to go 11 back and tell them, you know, "If you guys are going to 12 control the expense side, then you need to propose to us a 13 revenue stream that covers the expense side"? Or something 14 in between? Or -- 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Or if we are going to 16 pay an administrative fee, are we going to have 17 administrative oversight into the expenditures? And, which 18 I think if we were -- if -- if we were to subsidize our -- 19 our paying to administer the fee under the terms of the 20 interlocal agreement, that we should insist that we have 21 administrative oversight on a quarterly basis for all 22 expenditures; be done here, everybody here, and everybody 23 listening. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Larry, are you 25 comfortable that the amount of O.S.S.F. work that is 70 1 performed each year, that the staffing level is required for 2 the amount of work? 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. I don't know. I 4 would have to say I don't know, because we don't have that 5 much insight into what the staff does. See, we -- we've 6 contracted and we've taken that at face value. We don't 7 have any reason to -- to think that the figures aren't 8 correct, but we don't have any expenditure oversight. We 9 don't see, for example, that in the month of January, here's 10 how much revenue there was. We see that as an aggregate, 11 but we don't see a breakdown of that, and we don't see a 12 breakdown of the expenses. We say here's -- they say here's 13 how much we spent, here's how much came in. I don't know. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My second question 15 is, if the fee structure that's come back to us as a 16 recommendation -- I assume it's a recommendation -- in fact 17 doubles the fee structure, 100 percent increase, and it's 18 inadequate, will 150 percent increase cover the nut? 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They have -- it 20 probably would, but they haven't -- they really didn't 21 propose a fee schedule. They just said, here are -- here is 22 what adding a third and a half or whatever, and -- and 23 here's what doubling would do. And when they doubled the 24 current fees, based on the number of inspections, et cetera, 25 that they -- and permits granted and all that that they 71 1 would expect over the next year, they still came up $40,000 2 short. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm with y'all 4 100 percent. I think that the fee should cover the program, 5 like all programs, in my opinion. I tell you, even 6 doubling, those fees go way up there. I mean, that's a 7 pretty high fee. I mean, if we want -- if we only want to 8 allow millionaires to live in Kerr County, maybe that's what 9 we need to do. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's a problem. 11 That's the issue. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is a huge issue, 13 in my opinion. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: And the -- you know, doubling 15 goes from -- basic O.S.S.F. goes from $200 to $400. That's 16 what doubling is. It's not going from, you know, $500 to 17 $1,000. You know, that's it. That's the magnitude we're 18 talking about. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just kind of 20 following up on what Buster just said, can anybody -- any of 21 the budget historians in the room, can anybody recall any 22 time that O.S.S.F. has been a part of a budget -- Kerr 23 County budget, even when we had the department here? Have 24 the fees always covered the expenses? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I don't think so. 72 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's always been a 2 court subsidy for O.S.S.F.? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: But that also is when the 5 Court controlled the expense side. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: We made the decisions. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We used clerks that -- 9 for example, that were paid at the county rate, you know. I 10 mean, we had a fee schedule -- I mean, we had a salary 11 schedule where it was a Kerr County employee being paid. 12 The U.G.R.A. employee doing that same job -- and I don't 13 know exactly what their rates are, but I suspect it's 14 considerably higher. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. And we 16 had control of who we hired, how much we hired, and what we 17 paid them. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But even with that 20 control, there was still a line item subsidy. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think it's 22 reasonable, you're going to have a subsidy. I don't have a 23 problem with that, but my -- my concern is the lack of 24 control on the expense side. And, really -- and wages -- I 25 really think it's wrong for -- you know, this should be a 73 1 part of the payment for clerks and people in like positions. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Here's something that 3 might work -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy has a hand up. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Maybe -- this is just a 6 thought. Maybe you could require them to base -- base the 7 subsidy on activity. In other words, have them equate their 8 -- their activity, as far -- from an expenditure side; say, 9 how much -- how much does it cost to do one inspection? And 10 then we will -- and then -- then we will subsidize them 11 based on -- on the difference per inspection. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you're on to 13 something, Tommy. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: See, what -- and how 15 they do it is that they take all of the O.S.S.F. function, 16 and they account for that separately. Supposedly. That's 17 how they're deriving their total cost number. In other 18 words, they -- they say these people are totally dedicated 19 to O.S.S.F. We don't split them up or anything of that 20 sort. These are people who are all in the O.S.S.F. section, 21 so then they account for it that way. Now, what you're 22 saying is that what we would do is say, "Don't account for 23 it that way, but just tell us how many events of each kind, 24 and we will pay you on the basis of -- of jobs done"? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. Then -- then if -- 74 1 then if their activity level goes down, that might give them 2 some incentive to -- to reduce the cost, rather than -- 3 rather than continue to keep the level of staffing that they 4 have with -- with a reduced level of activity. Makes them a 5 little more accountable on the cost side. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Kind of hard to budget that 7 way, but it certainly makes them more accountable as far as 8 the -- their end of the subsidy. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. They would 10 probably counter that it would be hard for them to budget, 11 too, because they've got to hire a full-time person. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: They know how many people 13 they have, though. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They know how many 15 what, Tommy? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: They know how many people 17 they have on their staff, and that's essentially -- 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But wouldn't they, 19 then -- well, but it would come out $40,000. I think what 20 they would do in that case is, it would come out $40,000 at 21 the end of the year, because they would -- what they would 22 do is take the total cost and divide that by the number of 23 events, and then say that's how much it costs for each 24 event, and therefore you owe us $40,000 over and above what 25 we can generate. 75 1 MR. TOMLINSON: I was thinking in terms of 2 telling us what it costs now. I mean, and not in the 3 future. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, okay. Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, how would you 6 offset that with -- with less events? Using that word, 7 "events." So, if -- 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Pay them less money. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- inspections and so 10 forth fell off -- 11 MR. TOMLINSON: We pay them less money. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe more money. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thea just handed me an 14 activity report for the year. I just don't see how they can 15 keep that many people busy with what they're doing. They 16 have inspections -- this is rough numbers, but it's roughly 17 300 licenses, inspections, transfers they did in the last 12 18 months -- or, actually, year-to-date up to -- from 19 October 1st through the end of July. You know, that's like, 20 you know, less than two a day. And it takes four people to 21 do four -- I mean, that just doesn't make sense, the 22 numbers. I mean, how -- one clerk should be able to handle 23 that amount of volume. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They have -- they have 25 Tish Hewlitt, who does the -- is sort of the keeper of the 76 1 records and all that sort of thing. They have a data entry 2 clerk, I think, in that equation that does all the data 3 entry, and then they've got -- they will have two inspectors 4 and Scott. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, they will tell you that 6 Tish Hewlitt spends a lot of her time walking people through 7 the process. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Helping them with the 10 application. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: She works that 12 full-time. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do those numbers 14 include floodplain? 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Floodplain -- 42 this 18 year. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Forty-two completed? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Maybe what Tommy's 22 talking about is worth looking at. There's another idea 23 that I had. Let's say we did come up with a subsidy; let's 24 say $30,000 as an example. We could, in an agreement, 25 require that they come to this Court once a quarter to 77 1 determine what that fee is for that quarter, based on how 2 much they took in in revenues and what they spent, and that 3 we would say, okay, when we're satisfied that those numbers 4 are real, we would pay the difference, until it hits 5 $30,000. When it hits $30,000, that's it; they eat the 6 rest. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I kind of like that 8 approach. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Because that way, at 10 least we've got some administrative oversight into the 11 expense side. And if we see that -- that, hey, they -- they 12 only did 20 inspections for the month, then, hey, you got to 13 think about -- we need to lower that expense in the next 14 quarter, because you got too much staff to -- at this rate. 15 You've got too much staff on board. Now, we're not going to 16 tell them they've got to fire them; just say, hey, that's 17 not -- that ain't kosher, so you're going to have to start 18 eating that one. In other words, it needs to be something 19 that we can have some input on how the program is managed if 20 we're going to pay an administrative fee. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: The other option is, we need 22 to sit down and play with their fee schedule and come up 23 with something that covers the nut, which wouldn't be that 24 hard to do. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only -- I agree it 78 1 should be fee-based, but at the same time, we're trying to 2 encourage trying to get everyone to do things the right way, 3 and I'm already getting complaints -- I get a lot of 4 complaints already about our fees are ridiculously high. To 5 have somebody get out there to get a repair, you got to get 6 -- it's only $50 -- 50 bucks, but, I mean, you know, you go 7 to -- unlicensed to licensed is a $200 fee, and you double 8 that, we're talking about $400. Who's going to do it? 9 Who's going to want to do it? What's the incentive to try 10 to get a licensed system when you're going to pay 500 bucks 11 just for the fee, not to mention the work? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the down side 13 of raising them too high. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that, you know, I 15 would rather have a -- and I don't have a real problem with 16 having a subsidy, and it's $30,000. That's okay, as long as 17 we're getting our money's worth. I just don't think that -- 18 you know, I think there's a point that we need to look at 19 the fee and say, if it's going to cost us this much to run 20 the program, we're going to have to subsidize; we can't keep 21 on raising fees to that height. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: The alternative is to simply 23 say, okay, we'll give you your $30,000 administrative fee, 24 but we're not going to raise the fees for your services 25 then, which means you guys eat the difference. Which is 79 1 then going to be about $100,000 on their end. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, that's, in 3 essence -- 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: We can do that. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They've still got to 6 bring us a fee schedule; we've still got to approve it. 7 They don't want to raise the fees 'cause they think it will 8 drive people underground. Somebody will say, hey, I'm not 9 going to even -- I'm going to go put an illegal system in, 10 because I don't want to pay the fee. Usually the people who 11 will do that would duck a $10 fee just like they'll duck a 12 $500 fee, but that's still -- that's an argument, and that's 13 probably got some validity. But, if we're going to -- I 14 sort of like the idea that it says if we have a fee schedule 15 -- I mean a subsidy, that we're going to have some insight 16 into the expenditure. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have said that 12 18 or 15 times, so obviously that's on your mind. And, I -- 19 and I agree with you. What I wonder is, in your scenario -- 20 one of the scenarios like Tommy's or yours where they come 21 in every two or three months and give this report of ingoing 22 and outgoing money, how do we -- how would we control that? 23 Interlocal agreement? I mean, how would that be laid out? 24 In the interlocal agreement? 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would just think 80 1 that we would require a report for the Court once a quarter, 2 where we go through these numbers on the top of the table 3 where everybody can see them. Personnel costs, lease car, 4 which is in there, et cetera. Two lease cars, because they 5 got two -- will have two inspectors. So -- but let's look 6 at that and at least know that, as Jonathan says, we're 7 getting our money's worth, and that we're not being 8 overcharged or whatever you might say to keep staff on hand 9 that doesn't have anything -- is not productive, is not 10 effective and efficient and all those good adverbs -- or 11 adjectives. And, maybe that's not worth our time. Maybe we 12 give them $30,000 and say, "See you." 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, I'm hearing 14 Commissioner Williams saying possibly let's take the program 15 back. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You did not hear me 17 say that. You absolutely did not hear me say that. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sorry, that's where I 19 thought you were leading. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I heard that once. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There is that option. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's an option, but 23 you propose it. I'm not going to propose it. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's come back down to the 25 numbers, which is what we have to do today. Do we want to 81 1 put in to look at a $30,000 administrative fee? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I think it's 3 realistic. I think we're going to -- there's going to be 4 some fee associated for the County to administer this 5 program, wherever it's done. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's your question? 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we want to, you know, tell 8 Tommy to plug in for the next round $30,000 administrative 9 fee for U.G.R.A.? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I guess so. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right back to where we 13 started before we got here. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Those are the funding issues 15 that, based on my list and what's transpired, that we need 16 to make a decision on today. At this time, I'd open it up 17 to anyone else who wants to go throw anything else the into 18 the chopper. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Give you back 20 $10,000, so it's only $20,000 here. I'm going to reduce the 21 water conservation project again, and I think the nature of 22 it would not require us to budget $10,000 this next budget 23 year, because the basic tenets of the proposal would get 24 us -- would be that anything that's installed in this new 25 budget year would not get credit until the following budget 82 1 year. So, if we laid any money in, you can take it out for 2 this year and still proceed with the program. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the money in 5 there is not just for that one program. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if it's for 7 other things, then we need to consider that. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it can be reduced. 9 It goes in the category that Buster talked about earlier; 10 you know, if we're not going to fund radar for D.P.S., we 11 can take $5,000 out of that fund, or maybe all of it. I 12 think that's come out. At that phase of the budget, we 13 certainly can do it item-by-item. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? David? 15 MR. MOTLEY: On the model that I think we've 16 adopted, which is going to be the 60 percent equity 17 adjustment in this year, and then try to do 40 next year 18 with the 2 and a half percent COLA -- 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: David, could I ask 20 that you clarify the term "adopted," because it was 21 certainly misinterpreted after the workshop. 22 MR. MOTLEY: Excuse me. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's the number that 24 we are discussing. 25 MR. MOTLEY: Excuse me. I know that 83 1 Commissioner Griffin had -- 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm sensitive about 3 that. 4 MR. MOTLEY: He had said that -- 5 (Discussion off the record.) 6 MR. MOTLEY: He had said that the idea on the 7 thing was to try to model it after a federal commission, and 8 have kind of a method by which this could be done fairly 9 every year. I was just looking at the salaries for the 10 Assessor/Collector, J.P., District Clerk, County Treasurer, 11 County Clerk, and constables, and the budget increase 12 proposed under this model, the 5 percent in each case is 13 substantially -- that the department heads are getting 14 increased is -- is substantially greater than the salary 15 increases being awarded to those very offices, which also 16 includes a 2 and a half percent COLA. For example, the 17 Assessor/Collector, $1,737, including 2 and a half percent 18 COLA. If it were 5 percent like department heads, that 19 would be $1,900. And, the numbers are -- are like that all 20 the way through. 21 I don't know if 5 percent is similar to the 22 idea that was being proposed for the Sheriff; that the 23 Sheriff is just undercompensated and he's making less than 24 his first lieutenant or first deputy, and this is something 25 that y'all are doing to try and bring department heads up 84 1 more or -- or what. That's one concern I have. The other 2 concern -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait, David. Tell me 4 what the concern is. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: We've already gone through 6 the elected officials thing. 7 MR. MOTLEY: Well, you said did anybody have 8 any questions that they wanted to ask. I thought -- about 9 anything. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I was asking for any 11 other issues we needed to take up. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what we're doing, 13 David, can be now or later. We're adding in -- this is a 14 target in the budget to see what it does. We're not -- I 15 mean -- 16 MR. MOTLEY: I agree. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've already said we're 18 not going to -- these numbers are going to change. Tommy's 19 going to work the figures over. 20 MR. MOTLEY: On the -- behind the idea of -- 21 of being fair, and everybody being, I guess, treated the 22 same, the model -- I'm curious as to the current income for 23 the County Judge being $34,328. And I read the article in 24 the paper, the interview with Ms. Lavender, when she said 25 that the Judge said that $9,479 was for mental health 85 1 patient hearings at Kerrville State Hospital. But the 2 budget line item, 10-426-101, states that this is elected 3 official's salary for County Court, and I'm -- I'm curious 4 as to why that $9,479 is not included in with the County 5 Judge's salary as County Judge, the $600 travel fee, and the 6 $1,200 for the participation in the Juvenile Board. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's not in there for 8 the same reason that your 30,000 -- $34,339 -- 9 MR. MOTLEY: It's not a state supplement. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Huh? 11 MR. MOTLEY: Based on county fees. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You got to read on the 13 first page where it says the ground rule assumptions. 14 MR. MOTLEY: I did. I did. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Did you read the 16 assumptions? 17 MR. MOTLEY: Yes, I did. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Read it again. 19 MR. MOTLEY: It says income is defined as all 20 compensation from Kerr County funds, not including directly 21 reimbursed funds from non-Kerr County tax sources or 22 services -- 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You said it. 24 MR. MOTLEY: -- services provided for a 25 stated fee or cost. 86 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You just said it. You 2 just said it. 3 MR. MOTLEY: That money comes out of the 4 general budget, $9,479. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It comes out of fees. 6 MR. MOTLEY: What fees? 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Comes out of the $50 8 per -- whatever it is. That's also paid to the J.P.'s. 9 MR. MOTLEY: That's incorrect. I'm sorry, 10 that's incorrect. The Local Government Code states, in 11 154.004, if a county officer is paid an annual salary, the 12 State or County may not pay a fee or commission to the 13 officer for the performance of a service by the officer. 14 That's against the law. Those fees are given -- it says 15 they are granted to the Judge as fees to be paid as court 16 costs, so they have to go over to the Treasurer and be put 17 into an account, under which, if the Commission -- 18 Commissioners Court adopted a procedure at the first meeting 19 of next fiscal year, that money could then be transferred 20 over and then be used to pay the salary next year, but 21 that's apparently never been done in this county. 22 These moneys are -- and here's an A.G. letter 23 opinion asking the very same question, where the person 24 says -- he is a prosecutor. Identical provision provides 25 for up to $50 for a prosecutor to be paid, and this 87 1 prosecutor wanted to be paid that as salary. And, they said 2 money received in the form of fees or other compensation 3 must be deposited with the County Treasurer, according to 4 Section 113.021 of the Local Government Code. County 5 Treasurer deposits the money in the county depository in a 6 special fund to the credit of the officer who collected the 7 money. The appropriate special fund for fees, commissions, 8 or other compensation collected by an officer who is paid on 9 a salary basis is the applicable salary fund. And then it 10 says, in the first -- 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: David, if I may -- 12 MR. MOTLEY: It's not a fee. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If I may interrupt? 14 MR. MOTLEY: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't think anybody 16 would argue that, and I -- I don't -- I certainly wouldn't 17 argue it, but I'm just telling you now, the model was built 18 by ground rule. It has nothing to do with -- 19 MR. MOTLEY: My understanding -- 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Which is that we would 21 not consider in that anything other than direct tax payments 22 that are coming from -- tax payments by Kerr County 23 citizens. 24 MR. MOTLEY: I understand. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, so -- and 88 1 whatever the source, I mean, it ain't -- it ain't general 2 tax revenue. 3 MR. MOTLEY: Last year's budget does not 4 reflect a revenue item for that amount of money for -- from 5 any other fund transferring in funds for that amount of 6 money for these fees. Furthermore -- 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Where did the fees get 8 recorded? 9 MR. MOTLEY: That line item does not vary by 10 the number of hearings from year to year. It varies by the 11 COLA from year to year. It is paid out of County funds. 12 And, that's all I'm asking, is -- if I'm incorrect on that, 13 I mean -- perhaps I am. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The information -- 15 Tommy, where does the -- where do the mental health fees get 16 deposited? What fund does that go into? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: It goes into the General 18 Fund. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It goes into the 20 General Fund, but it's not tax revenue? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: No, it's fees of office. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The ground rule of the 23 model is that if the source of the funds is not tax funds, 24 Kerr County tax funds, then we don't consider it in the 25 model. You can argue whether that's appropriate or not, but 89 1 that's what the model does. 2 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. All right, then, if 3 that's the case, then why does that number not bear any 4 relationship whatsoever to the number of hearings that are 5 being held out there? If there's 500 or 700 hearings, 6 shouldn't that be $25,000 or $30,000 worth of funds in 7 there, if they're all collected? 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't know how many 9 dollars -- can anybody else -- 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: The reason that's done is 11 because that money is contributed back to the County. Now, 12 if you took -- strictly took $50 per hearing and multiplied 13 it out, the amount that should go to the judges -- we've 14 always used that money also to subsidize the J.P.'s who go 15 out and do the probable cause -- would be far in excess of 16 what's paid. But, my predecessors didn't do it that way, 17 and I don't think it's legitimate to do it that way, myself. 18 MR. MOTLEY: That same budget contains items 19 for probate school and probate-related matters. Doesn't 20 particularly relate to mental health in that budget. The 21 budget's called County Court, and if I could just finish 22 this letter opinion, it said the Commissioners Court may, 23 however, at its first regular meeting in the first month of 24 each fiscal year, direct, by order entered in its minutes, 25 that all money that otherwise would be deposited in a salary 90 1 fund -- that's talking about these fees -- be deposited in a 2 general fund of the county. That's something that has to be 3 done on the first meeting of the year -- fiscal year every 4 year. And then they take the fees that were there last 5 year, bring it into the salary fund, and use it to pay the 6 salary at that time. And, I'm -- I'm not sure that that 7 procedure has, per se, ever been followed, because -- and, 8 again, looking back at this 154.004, paying straight over as 9 fees without having this done, it says that that may not be 10 done. And the Constitution, at Article 16, Section 61, says 11 that a county over 20,000 in population must pay all its 12 officers on a salaried basis. So, if somebody's paid on a 13 salary basis, the County may not pay a fee or commission to 14 the officer for the performance of a service by that officer 15 unless they go through this procedure where the money is 16 taken in and moved from a special salary fund to the salary 17 fund, and then perhaps into the General Fund at that time, 18 first meeting of the next year. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Are you suggesting we 20 should do that? Is that -- 21 MR. MOTLEY: No. I'm asking -- this is -- 22 this is -- in the line item, it says 10-426-101, a salary -- 23 Elected Officials Salary, is what it says. It doesn't say 24 anything about compensation, fees for hearings. I know that 25 the money is -- I mean, I'm well aware of what the Mental 91 1 Health Code provides in the way of salaries, supplements, 2 fees, as court costs, et cetera. It's just that this 3 appears to be an item that's coming out of general county 4 revenue, as opposed to coming out of some special salary 5 fund that was created by fees, because it does not vary with 6 the number of hearings at the hospital. It varies with the 7 cost-of-living. And, it seems to me if that's what it -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you saying that we're 9 going to -- that you think that we ought to pay out based on 10 number of hearings the Judge or whoever -- 11 MR. MOTLEY: I drafted the contract a couple 12 years back, specifically -- and the Commissioners Court 13 approved $10 per hearing as a salary supplement for Judge 14 Henneke for holding hearings at locations other than the 15 courthouse. That's money that's supposed to be paid to him, 16 and is probably about $7,000 for every -- maybe as high as 17 $10,000 for every hearing. That is, in fact, salary 18 supplement, and that is -- I don't see any record of where 19 that has been -- been paid to him. I think he's due that 20 money. But this business about the $50 per hearing to be 21 assessed as a fee, as court costs, seems to me, in order to 22 make the transition, turn that around and to put it into the 23 General Fund and turn it into Elected Officials Salary into 24 the County Court, it would require that Commissioners Court 25 have that initial meeting every fiscal year and do this. 92 1 And, all I'm saying is that it appears that, at least as of 2 this time, that that $9,479 is County-funded Elected 3 Officials Salary, and -- and -- as opposed to a state 4 supplement or a fee, because it says you can't pay a fee 5 unless you go through this procedure. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think your point 7 is on that -- and I would -- you know, one of the problems I 8 have, because this goes out to the public, is that a number 9 of people in the county get supplements, and I think that 10 should be always put out while we're doing the salary 11 structure. It should be a straight structure, either a 12 state supplement or other supplement, so it's real clear to 13 the public as to what the actual -- the total salary for 14 these people are. And, in fact, what David's saying, I'll 15 agree that we can probably do that, or Barbara or whoever, 16 if that's in this, and add the supplements for those that 17 get it, because I think that that is -- you know, is 18 something that should be very public. 19 MR. MOTLEY: Let me also say, I don't think 20 we collect 100 percent of the court costs that are assessed 21 against the counties that send people here for mental health 22 hearings, but -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, procedurally, if 24 we're not doing something right, the way the Judge is being 25 paid, we need to procedurally correct that. 93 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: I would assume that since the 2 money that's collected is going into the general revenue, 3 that that step that David's talking about has been taken at 4 some point, but we could correct that first meeting in 5 October if we want to. Sheriff? 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I -- this may -- and I 7 hope it doesn't open a can of worms, Judge, but what I'm 8 kind of wondering about now -- evidently, what he's talking 9 about are fees, right? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And those fees are now 12 being supplemented into a salary supplement for yourself. 13 Doesn't every department here, including my own or Linda's 14 or the Tax Assessor, don't we have the same type of fees? 15 Such as when we serve warrants, there's a warrant fee that 16 the county we're serving the warrants is charged, or civil 17 papers, that there's a fee that they -- 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: You have to look at what the 19 statute says you can do with that fee. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: The statute says that Kerr 22 County is entitled to charge a $50 fee for every hearing 23 that I hold for out-of-state -- out-of-county prisoners, 24 which can be then used to supplement my salary as County 25 Judge. And the reason behind that is, very few counties 94 1 have a mental hospital, so they don't get burdened with 2 that. The fee on warrants, the fee on court costs, do not 3 contain that -- that connector. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I just -- I haven't 5 looked it up, 'cause I don't see any difference -- a fee's a 6 fee and a salary's a salary. I mean, I just -- I have a 7 problem -- if the County's going to pay a salary, we ought 8 to pay a salary, just like mine or anybody else's. If it's 9 fees -- 'cause they all end up in the General Fund. That's 10 what we all operate off of, is that General Fund. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 12 MR. MOTLEY: We're all supposed to be 13 salaried officers, because we have over 20,000 population. 14 That case, the letter opinion -- it's Number 98-053 -- said 15 that -- the law actually says the Judge who holds a hearing 16 under this section may assess, for the services of the 17 Judge, a fee in an amount not to exceed $50, as a court 18 cost -- not as a salary supplement -- against the county 19 responsible for the payment of costs. They go on to point 20 out about the other section I mentioned, that -- where there 21 is a salary supplement provided at a rate set by the 22 Commissioners to the Judge for holding hearings away from 23 the courthouse, and that's the -- that's the deciding 24 language in the opinion. They said in this very same 25 section of the Health and Safety Code, the Legislature has 95 1 shown well that they know how to distinguish court costs and 2 salary supplements. And this prosecutor was saying the 50 3 bucks that goes in there ought to go to him as a salary 4 supplement, and the A.G. said they -- they're providing for 5 salary supplement here, and these are provided as fees to be 6 paid as courts costs. And if they're intending it to be a 7 salary supplement, they would have said that. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's what you need to do, 9 is to give us a roadmap as to how to get to where we are. 10 MR. MOTLEY: That'd be fine. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: If that's what you're 12 suggesting. 13 MR. MOTLEY: That would be fine. It's this 14 section -- it's in Chapter 154 of the Local Government Code. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. You write me a memo 16 with the roadmap of how we need to get to where we are. 17 Because, since this has apparently been going on for a 18 number of years, I'm wondering why this has never been 19 brought up before. 20 MS. UECKER: I think Judge Edwards was the 21 one that separated it out. It used to be all together. 22 Judge Edwards -- 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Perhaps one of the County 24 Attorneys before would have brought this to someone's 25 attention, if it's being done improperly, because it's been 96 1 in every budget that I've been aware of the same way. 2 MR. MOTLEY: Well, Your Honor, I think the 3 reason maybe -- maybe it came to light, so to speak, at this 4 time is because this model that has developed for possible 5 use is -- you know, the stated goal is everybody would be 6 treated fairly and equally when you compared the salaries of 7 Kerr County people to the average salary of the 19 counties. 8 If this is, in fact, county funds from the General Fund, 9 that salary figure would be much higher, which would 10 generate a lesser adjustment to get to 60 percent of the 11 median or whatever. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Other counties -- 13 other counties have this same fee separated from the base 14 salary, just as we have done in the model. Now, whether 15 that's right or wrong, I'll rely on the legal expertise to 16 tell. 17 MR. MOTLEY: Did somebody survey those 18 counties for the particular deal about whether they have two 19 different budgets and such for this? 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. No -- yeah, 21 Barbara called all 18 counties. 22 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Other than us. And we 24 have her raw data for each -- each public official. And, 25 the reason we did it the way we did it was 'cause this makes 97 1 it an apples-to-apples comparison -- 2 MR. MOTLEY: Sure, I think that's fair. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- with other 4 counties, and has nothing to do with anything other than the 5 fact that other counties who have supplements like this -- 6 now, they may do theirs right and we do ours wrong. 7 MR. MOTLEY: I don't know. But -- 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But, the point is -- 9 is that other counties somehow have -- some have other 10 supplements, some don't. And, by the way, one of the things 11 I noticed in the data is that there's some county -- some 12 counties who really can hide what they really pay their 13 county officials, because they do it in travel. They'll 14 have -- they'll have -- 15 MS. NEMEC: $7,000 in travel. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- $35,000 salary and 17 $10,000 in travel. So, they're -- 18 MS. UECKER: No, I don't think that's 19 correct. And those that I called, that's what we consider 20 conference money. They call it travel, but that would be 21 like our conference and education money, is what they call 22 travel. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, they've got some 24 County Commissioners in some of these other counties that -- 25 MS. UECKER: Well, County Commissioners, 98 1 that's a different story, but I'm talking about District 2 Clerks that have that line high. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm not saying that 4 they all do it for all positions. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Some counties have a 7 lot -- 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's move along. 9 MS. NEMEC: I would just say this, to clarify 10 David's question. When I called the counties, I would ask 11 them if there was -- like, for the County Judge, for 12 example, do you pay any type of salary for mental health 13 hearings? Do you pay Juvenile Board? Do you pay anything 14 that our Judge got a different salary for? I would ask 15 those questions, and I would put it down on the supplement 16 side of the survey. Same for County Attorney. They gave me 17 the base salary, then I asked what was the state supplement 18 that that County Attorney received, and the same for County 19 Court at Law, the same for all positions. So, it was noted 20 on the salary survey. Then, Commissioner Griffin chose not 21 to include any of those supplements in any of our -- 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The Court actually 23 did; that was a ground rule we assumed. We -- 24 MS. NEMEC: So it was done the same for all 25 the elected officials, I believe. 99 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 2 MR. MOTLEY: Well, and that's fine. You 3 know, all I'm saying is, it seems to me, in order to do that 4 properly -- and, again, I question why the -- why the $10 5 per hearing salary supplement is apparently not being given 6 to the Judge, and it should be. And then this $50 per 7 hearing is to be converted into money which could be used 8 for salary supplement or to pay salary in the county court. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Even if we're -- 10 MR. MOTLEY: It maybe should be run through 11 this procedure that I mentioned. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: If you'll give us the 13 roadmap, the procedure, we'll -- I'll put it on the agenda 14 the first meeting in October and we'll make it legitimate. 15 MR. MOTLEY: Okay, I'll be happy to do that. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? Okay, 17 Barbara? 18 MS. NEMEC: I don't know if this is the 19 proper time to bring this up or not, but you can tell me. I 20 had called our consultant, Nash Consultants; he did our 21 survey last year for all the employees, and I've called him 22 on different occasions for different reasons. And, I think 23 there's going to be some on the agenda for Tuesday of -- of 24 the ones that he did not approve or agree with. There was 25 one, however, that I talked to him about yesterday, and that 100 1 was the Assistant County Attorney's salary. He said when he 2 recommended they be a 25-5, that was the starting 3 recommended salary. He had never intended that 25-5 to ever 4 go to a 25-1, which we do anytime someone leaves that 5 position, and so I'm just throwing it at you to see how we 6 can fix that. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we fixed it. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, what we -- what I think 9 we need to do -- what is a 26-1? About the same as a 25-5? 10 MS. NEMEC: Not at all. Well, it's -- a 26-1 11 is $24,123, and a 25-5 is $35,851. So, if you want me to, I 12 can go to a 27-1. A 26 is the highest this goes to, this 13 schedule. I can -- I can put in a 27-1 and see what that 14 comes up to, and maybe we can correct that in the budget. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: But, you have a 27 schedule. 16 We'll try to correct that position, see how close it comes. 17 Anyone else? Funding issues? Linda, do you want to make a 18 pitch for your scanning stations now? 19 MS. UECKER: Now, wait a minute. You just 20 told me a while ago we were going to do this some other 21 time, 'cause I wasn't prepared. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we'll give you another 23 shot at the apple, too. I thought just as long as we were 24 putting out dollars, we might throw that in, too. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Are we going to go 101 1 through the individual budget items now? 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy's going to rerun the 3 budget and circulate it to everybody. Everybody will get 4 their budget the way it's been saucered and blowed, and then 5 we'll have another meeting next week and we'll go through 6 everybody's budget and do some finalization. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 'Cause if Linda makes -- 8 that was the whole deal, is that some of us may want to make 9 that pitch. And -- and I also am not prepared to make that 10 pitch today, 'cause I don't know what the pitch needs to be 11 made about. 12 MS. UECKER: Well, and I -- I think there may 13 be an alternative answer for the Sheriff and I. I mean, the 14 Auditor will have to tell me, but I don't know how much 15 money is in that Records Preservation fee. That might be 16 able to fund at least one scanner for each of us. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Y'all can take a look at 18 that. 19 MS. UECKER: Yeah. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, when Tommy runs the 21 figures, he's going to come out with an actual dollar, is 22 what it's going to show? Okay. And, a lot of times there 23 may be -- in that group, there may be 10 different items 24 that we ask for. Are you going to be available, whether we 25 can come to you and decide which one of those items -- 102 1 individual items are not included in that dollar -- 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: I'll be here all -- I'll be 3 gone Wednesday at AACOG. I'll be here Thursday. May or may 4 not be here Friday, but I'll be here next week, too, so -- 5 MS. UECKER: The other thing I wanted to say 6 is that I agree with the County Attorney, in that the 7 5 percent for the department heads is -- you know, when I 8 saw that and looked at the 60 percent of what, you know, may 9 be discussed for elected officials, plus the 2 and a half 10 percent, is way less than the 5 and a half percent that 11 they're going to be getting in addition -- I mean, plus 12 they'll get an additional 2 and a half percent. And, where 13 did the 2 and a half percent come from? As COLA? 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's -- that's less than 15 the actual -- well, we don't know exactly what the COLA is, 16 but it was my -- 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: C.P.I. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: C.P.I. It was my feeling as 19 to what was probably a legitimate cost-of-living adjustment 20 for Kerr County. 21 MS. UECKER: I know that's the figure that's 22 been used for as long as I've been here for COLA. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we did a 3 or 3 and a 24 half the first year I was Judge. We've done others before. 25 MS. UECKER: But I know that the state index 103 1 right now is almost at 4. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: But the state is a biannual, 3 too. They don't do it every year; they only do it every two 4 years. You got to keep that in consideration. 5 MS. UECKER: I think the national index is at 6 3.2, or -- 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: And it's a budgetary number. 8 We've got to start somewhere, and we can ratchet it one way 9 or another. It simply was a -- you know, an effort to 10 reflect the fact that the cost-of-living has gone up, but 11 without also taking into consideration budgetary needs of 12 the County. 13 MS. UECKER: Another question I have is, any 14 merit increases for any departments are gone this year; is 15 that right? 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Unless you funded them out of 17 your existing budget, there's no merit pool out there 18 available. 19 MS. UECKER: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And realize, too, I 21 think that -- that when you get this budget -- this next 22 budget runback for your department and it's got a scanner 23 that's not there any more or whatever, that that's your 24 opportunity then to say, well, hey, I've got the -- this is 25 my bottom line now; I may want to move some stuff around in 104 1 here to -- to make this budget more -- to make this budget 2 number more efficient. I may want to move some stuff 3 around. 4 MS. UECKER: Well, in my case, I won't have 5 that opportunity, because I kept mine at the same line, and 6 the only -- except for a $400 receipt printer. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Scanner? 8 MS. UECKER: The scanner is the only thing I 9 asked for. I mean, that's it. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Y'all will have a chance to 11 scrub your budgets before we take any action, I guarantee 12 you. 13 MS. UECKER: When do you think -- 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: That was my next question. 15 Tommy, when do you think you can turn these around and get 16 them out again? 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll get the run to 18 you on the salary stuff. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: He's got it. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: I think that's more of a 21 Treasurer question, because she's the one that's going to 22 have to develop the numbers for the salaries for each 23 department. 24 MS. NEMEC: I'll work on salaries all day 25 tomorrow, give them to him tomorrow afternoon, and maybe he 105 1 can start on his Thursday. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: If we were to plan another 3 session next Wednesday afternoon, do you think that's 4 comfortable, that you could get to the -- the individual 5 departments their budget by Tuesday, mid-afternoon? 6 MS. NEMEC: I'll have mine done by Thursday 7 morning. Whether I do it tomorrow at 5:00 or tomorrow at 8 10 p.m., I promise I'll have my stuff to him Thursday 9 morning, no matter how long it takes me to get it done. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy, do you think by 11 Wednesday afternoon? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: I think that's okay. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, we'll plan on doing this 14 again Wednesday afternoon. 15 MS. SOVIL: 1:30? 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Want to go 1:30 or 2 o'clock? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1:30. The earlier, 18 the better. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: 1:30? Buster's got to get to 20 football practice. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Buster's got to get to 22 football practice. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: And we'll -- the Auditor said 24 he will get budgets out to you as soon as possible, 25 hopefully not later than Tuesday mid-afternoon. So, you'll 106 1 have Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday to look at them. I'll 2 be here Wednesday morning, if anyone wants to come in and 3 ask any specific questions. 4 MS. UECKER: Wednesday morning next week, you 5 mean? 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. If anyone wants to 7 come in now and ask any questions about what's happening, 8 come on in. Okay, last item we have -- Paula, do you want 9 to talk to us a bit about my request about schedule? 10 MS. RECTOR: I think, at this point, since we 11 do not even have a proposed tax rate, we're still kind of 12 throwing it around. What I did do is print a schedule and 13 some summaries. There's also a comparison of tax increases 14 on one-cent increments above the effective rate, which is on 15 the last page, just to kind of give you an idea of what kind 16 of revenues would it generate if we were to consider raising 17 the tax rate. And, just my -- my two cent's worth is that I 18 think if we're going to do it, now's the time do it. Our 19 economy is real stable right now, but I think we're going to 20 start seeing some changes in the next few years. Our values 21 have been up for the last several years and we've been able 22 to maintain the tax rate of the same rate for the last six 23 years, but I think that we may be looking at some problems 24 if we don't take a look at -- at raising it just slightly. 25 I do agree with Tommy that that's probably something that we 107 1 need to take a look at, but I did run some summaries 2 comparing levies, comparing rates, comparing tax levies from 3 last year to this year, that type of thing. Just something 4 for y'all to kind of look at. 5 As far as the calendar, we really can't 6 follow -- or make any scheduled dates until we have a 7 proposed rate. Once we get to that point, then we can go 8 back to our calendar and plug some dates in. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Anybody have any 10 questions of Paula? Thank you, Paula. 11 MS. NEMEC: We're just real concerned about 12 the 2 and a half percent for the department heads 13 cost-of-living, plus an additional 5, and the increases that 14 are on here for all other elected officials. I just want to 15 throw that out when you're doing your numbers. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Understand that the goal on 17 elected officials is to bring us up to the median of all the 18 counties over two years. So, the following year, you know, 19 we're setting forth a program where we would get an 20 additional significant increase, which the department heads 21 may not get. So, if you want to tie yourself to department 22 heads, that runs both ways. If you want the 5 percent this 23 year and then don't get any next year, then -- we want to be 24 careful about that. I think what we want to do is stay with 25 a consistent goal of being at the median salary for counties 108 1 our age, and getting there in a reasonable or rational 2 method, rather than being concerned -- 3 MS. UECKER: Well, we'd be better off -- 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- with what Len may get. 5 MS. NEMEC: The thing is, we don't make 6 $60,000 plus the 5 percent on top of that, so we wouldn't 7 benefit from that like some other department heads are going 8 to benefit. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only thing I got to 10 say, if Tommy can figure all this out, I hope y'all got him 11 as a department head. He's going to have the fun job. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's what I always 13 say, is, gosh, it's just amazing how we go through this 14 process and then we get another run and it's right. You 15 know, I just don't -- you know, I -- it's a fantastic 16 system, and once it gets all the numbers in it, it can 17 crunch it. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy's the best. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Not going to give him a 21 raise; we'll clap for him. Okay, we're adjourned. Thank 22 you all. 23 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 4:02 p.m.) 24 - - - - - - - - - - 25 109 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 27th day of August, 8 2001. 9 10 11 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 12 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 13 Certified Shorthand Reporter 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25