1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 8 Budget Workshop 9 Friday, August 22, 2003 10 10:30 a.m. 11 Commissioners' Courtroom 12 Kerr County Courthouse 13 Kerrville, Texas 14 15 16 17 GENERAL DISCUSSION 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X August 22, 2003 2 PAGE Budget Workshop 3 Opening Remarks 3 4 General Discussion 5 Fire Contract with City of Kerrville 25 Information Technology Department 31 6 Recycling Center 36 Constable Cars 40 7 County Judge/J.P.'s Mental Health supplements 58 County Engineer position 89 8 COLA's/reclassifications/merit raises 92 Elected Officials' salaries 149 9 -- Adjourned 180 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Friday, August 22, 2003, at 10:30 a.m., a budget workshop 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 TINLEY: Okay. I'll call to order the 8 workshop, budget workshop which was posted for this date at 9 10:30. It's a couple minutes after 10:30 in the morning. 10 This budget workshop was scheduled and posted to generally 11 consider any outstanding remaining unresolved budget issues 12 that may have been part of the process in the last several 13 days that we've been conducting these budget workshops. 14 Commissioner 1, have you got any preliminary comments that 15 you wish to make at this time? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I don't have any 17 preliminary comments. You know, I guess as we work through 18 it, I have some -- some couple of issues that I could deal 19 with. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, very good. Commissioner 21 2? Commissioner Williams, do you have any preliminary 22 comments that you'd like to make? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only that I hope that 24 we figure out a way to get this thing to come together, and 25 certainly treat our employees fairly. I'm not playing to 8-22-03 wk 4 1 the grandstand here, but I really believe that we don't want 2 to balance a budget as such on the backs of our employees, 3 so I want us to figure out a way to do that. And there's 4 some issues that I want to take up this morning, not the 5 least of which is the automobile issue for constables. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that it? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For now. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, very good. Commissioner 9 3? Do you have any -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- 11 JUDGE TINLEY: -- comments that you want to 12 make? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my -- that 14 depends on what the format you're planning to use today is. 15 I may have several lengthy ones, or I may not have any. 16 Like Buster, I don't know what the process is today. Or do 17 you -- 18 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know that we have a 19 particular agenda to follow, other than to work through 20 the -- the remaining issues. But my question to you now is, 21 do you have any general comments that you want to make 22 before we get down to specifics? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, general 24 comments, kind of -- I guess, I hope by the end of today -- 25 and I think what we need to really get -- the point we need 8-22-03 wk 5 1 to get to is a list of -- or a budget that we can -- a lot 2 of handwritten notes and directions in it that we can give 3 to Tommy so we can have a new budget run to see what the 4 numbers are, and I think that if we can, we need to try to 5 prioritize -- hopefully all in agreement, but if not, best 6 we can -- as to what, you know, comes in and comes out, kind 7 of as blocks of types of items. For example, to me, the 8 number-one priority is going to be a COLA for all employees. 9 I think number two is going to be any employees that are, 10 you know, not categorized properly right now, and not 11 talking about change or promotion, that type of thing. 12 Things that are not done right currently, we need to make 13 those corrections, and at the same time, make the 14 adjustments in-depth where a department head or elected 15 official is recommending kind of a way of thinking, and 16 realigning employees to try to improve productivity. I 17 think that should be, you know, as a priority to me. 18 Probably right below that is going to be cars for the 19 constables of some sort, and then it's going to kind of 20 depend on the list. It's very broad right after there; lots 21 of different things, but those three things I think are the 22 priority going into it. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 4? Commissioner 24 Nicholson? 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, I'd like to 8-22-03 wk 6 1 say a little bit about the budget process, and particularly 2 with regards to the compensation issues. It's my 3 understanding the way the Judge began this process was 4 meeting one-on-one with department heads, and as a part of 5 that, he explained, I think, that -- that the budget that 6 would be submitted to this Commissioners Court would -- on 7 the pay budget line, would -- would not include any moneys 8 except moneys that were previously obligated. And that 9 would include, for example -- and it did -- longevity raises 10 and education raises, but he didn't include anything in 11 there for other than that. And he explained to this Court 12 that he had done that, and that it would be the -- of 13 course, the responsibility of this Court to consider what in 14 addition to those things would we want to do, but that the 15 -- the budget we were looking at included obligations -- 16 past obligations for compensation. 17 I was dismayed when elected officials chose 18 to attack the budget of the County Judge and the 19 Commissioners Court, and point out that -- they seem to be 20 saying that the County Judge and Commissioners may be 21 feathering its nest without -- while not giving enough 22 consideration to others. And it was pointed out that the -- 23 the court coordinator was put in there for a longevity 24 increase. Of course she was. She's put in there for that 25 just like anybody else that would be eligible for a 8-22-03 wk 7 1 longevity increase this year. And it was also pointed out 2 that there -- there was a $4,000 supplement in there for the 3 County Judge. Of course there was. It was a supplement 4 that was -- or fee schedule that was authorized in 1999, and 5 the enabling legislation allowed us to do that, and to use 6 those funds for a supplement for -- for the Judge who 7 conducts those -- those hearings. 8 The Judge putting it in there was consistent 9 with what he told us his approach was with putting past 10 obligation money in the budget. We needed -- we needed that 11 information. That does not mean that the County Judge is 12 going get $4,000 increase in compensation. I don't know if 13 he is or not, but we need -- we can do several things with 14 that. We can grant the -- the money that we spent in that 15 way. We can -- we can stop collecting the fees and not -- 16 not have that fund for a supplement. We have a number of -- 17 variety of different kinds of options we can do or use that 18 for. The other thing I -- I was dismayed about was that 19 this issue was reported in the press, headlines on one 20 newspaper, and followed up by an editorial, and it concerns 21 me that the readers are led to believe that the Court's not 22 doing its job on preparing the budget. At least detracts 23 from the real issue. All that said, I'm ready to get 24 packing about doing the work of government. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 8-22-03 wk 8 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, if I could make 2 one comment, kind of follow up a little bit on the last of 3 that -- on the press issue, you know, and that is just -- I 4 wish the press would explain when they write the articles 5 during the workshop process, these are workshops. Nothing 6 has been granted, nothing has been decided up to this point, 7 and I think that it is misleading the way some of the 8 articles have been in the various papers. That's -- you 9 know, for what it's worth, that would be helpful if that 10 was -- these are discussions. These are ideas. It doesn't 11 mean we're going to do all or any of them at this point. 12 We're getting close to where it will be, but not yet. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: If -- if I might make a few 14 comments, there's good news and bad news about sitting in 15 this chair. The good news is, when you -- when you want to 16 say something, you have the opportunity. The bad news is, 17 sometimes you have to say things that aren't palatable to 18 people, maybe things that they don't want to hear and not 19 willing to accept. But, nonetheless, it goes with the 20 territory. We've got politics and we've got business. This 21 budget, in my belief, should be part of the business of 22 county government, and not politics. The business of county 23 government is, again, in my belief, a process of identifying 24 the obligations of government, and attempting to provide the 25 most effective and efficient utilization and administration 8-22-03 wk 9 1 available to those resources to take care of those 2 obligations. The politics of county government, based upon 3 my limited experience -- and believe me, it's limited; I'm 4 new at this game -- but it seems to be determining how much 5 money's available and who gets it, without regard to what 6 the other legitimate considerations ought to be. 7 As Commissioner Nicholson mentioned, there 8 appears to have been great focus placed on a single line 9 item, which I placed in the County Court budget in which I 10 identified a long-existing obligation which Kerr County had 11 incurred, and provided a method for that obligation to be 12 discharged. It needed to be identified so it could be dealt 13 with. On the other hand, once it was it had, the politics 14 of that issue seems to become one of self-dealing and 15 opportunism. I guess it's akin to, because I found the body 16 laying in the middle of the road, I was accused of the 17 shooting. How do you deal with the issue? Number one, it's 18 a minuscule part of the overall scheme of things. The easy 19 political solution is to eliminate the obligation. That's 20 simple. Just do away with it; no problem, and you don't 21 have to deal with it. The business result of that, however, 22 in this particular case would result in Kerr County losing 23 funds which has been going into its coffers, 80 percent of 24 which is being paid by counties other than Kerr County. 25 Those counties would be relieved of that obligation. I'm 8-22-03 wk 10 1 sure they'd be very, very happy for that to occur. Bottom 2 line is, we lose the money. 3 There's another line item in that budget, 4 that very same budget, which apparently did not get great 5 notice, but it's been there for a number of years, and which 6 Kerr County presently spends and has been spending every 7 year for the last several years the sum of $6,000 of Kerr 8 County funds to provide supplements to Justices of the Peace 9 who are holding mental health hearings. Now, given the 10 opportunity, I think that I can structure things to 11 discharge $14,000 of Kerrville -- Kerr County's obligations 12 to its elected officials in that line item, as well as the 13 other line item which was placed in that budget, based on 14 the prior obligation of this Court, and to see that that 15 goes to the elected officials and employees of Kerr County 16 pursuant to obligations which the County has to those 17 persons at a net cost to Kerr County of 60 percent of the 18 amount that's presently being paid. It's not funny money. 19 It's not hard to understand. The result is real simple. 20 How do you do it? Effective utilization of 21 resources. Good business. We will be paying our people 22 what we are obligated to pay them with other people's money. 23 I don't think there's anybody in business, public or 24 private, that wouldn't like to have that option available to 25 them. Given that option, I suppose whether you're looking 8-22-03 wk 11 1 at it from a political standpoint or a business standpoint, 2 that's a pretty good option. It's very much akin to what we 3 do with grants very often. Somebody trots in here and says 4 if -- if you'll put up 20 percent, we'll give you so much 5 money. Well, we jump on that bandwagon every single chance 6 we get. Somebody else's money. Irrespective of what the 7 Court does about the new line item in the budget, it is my 8 intention to ask this Court to give me the flexibility on 9 the existing line item to the elected officials and 10 employees of Kerr County that conduct those hearings that we 11 provide for to go forward on that, so that, number one, they 12 can be better compensated for that purpose, and number two, 13 the net cost to Kerr County is less. This Court is going to 14 do what it wants to with this so-called new line item. It's 15 a new line item, an old obligation. Do whatever you want to 16 with it. Politically, make of it what you want. Have at 17 it. 18 Enough about that. As I said, that is a 19 very, very minuscule portion of the entire business of this 20 county that we're dealing with. I think it's very important 21 to understand and to concentrate on the larger issues. And 22 we have a number of them. I'm not going to try and identify 23 them all for you, because they will emerge as we go through 24 the process. The key is having the information available, 25 doing the work necessary to obtain that information. When 8-22-03 wk 12 1 this County makes commitments to its employees and elected 2 officials and to its citizens, whether it be under this 3 budget, the tax rate, or any other action that it takes, we 4 must consider the long-term effects of those commitments and 5 obligations. Politically, it is probably easier, over the 6 long-term, to disregard the long-term effects and not 7 consider them, but rather to consider what is appealing or 8 appeasing to the taxpayers and citizens right now. But is 9 that the proper conduct of the citizens' business? I think 10 not. From a business standpoint, I think we must consider 11 those future ramifications. 12 The decisions we make today on this budget, 13 we are prohibited by law from budgeting for more than one 14 year at a time, so it's easy to say, well, there are no 15 long-term commitments. That's baloney. We make decisions 16 here in this budget and in every action that we take 17 throughout the year that have potential long-term 18 consequences, and we got to realize it. We must consider 19 those consequences. They go far into the future. We have 20 an obligation to provide a minimum level of services to our 21 citizens. Whether or not we provide a level of service that 22 is above that minimum level is a matter of determining, 23 number one, what we're going to make those obligations be, 24 what they are now, or what they will be in the future, and 25 whether there are enough additional resources that can 8-22-03 wk 13 1 effectively and efficiently be utilized to take care of 2 those obligations. That's the business end of it. 3 Most of you know that, through the past 4 several years and for some period of time, the obligation 5 for the providing of government services has gone 6 downstream. More and more of those obligations have been 7 laid upon the backs of local government. The unfortunate 8 part of it is, the funds that are necessary to provide those 9 services haven't come with it. Now, surely, we've got 10 instances in which the state or federal government has 11 initiated programs, grants, things of that nature, to 12 provide funding assistance to provide for these services. 13 Unfortunately, the way that works is, they take our money, 14 it goes to Austin or it goes to Washington or somewhere in 15 between, I'm not sure which, and they drag it through 16 whatever program administration that they have set up. They 17 send back a part of that money to us to handle the whole 18 load of taking care of the program after taking their 19 portion that they need for their program administration. 20 But, in self-defense, we got to participate, because if we 21 don't, they'll give our money to somebody else, so we got to 22 do it. We have no choice. The cold, hard truth and the 23 reality of our situation is that we got to prepare ourselves 24 to be self-sufficient and be able to rely upon our own 25 resources to provide the services to our citizens. 8-22-03 wk 14 1 We've been pretty fortunate here in the last 2 several years; our economy has stayed pretty stable. It's 3 not subject to as wide a swing or -- or spikes as the 4 economy in general. Our property values have increased. 5 Generally, the increases in property values have permitted 6 us to have the additional revenues and resources that we've 7 needed in order to keep up with the demand for the 8 increasing level of services that we have. There have been 9 a couple of instances in recent years where a small tax 10 increase was necessary in order to keep up with that, but as 11 county government has grown, the commitments and obligations 12 that Kerr County has incurred to its citizens, which extend 13 into the future, and the perceived minimum level of service 14 that we're required to provide have increased also. The big 15 question is, can we continue to increase these commitments 16 and obligations and the corresponding level of service that 17 it requires into the future? Stated another way, are the 18 needs, in quotes, or perceived needs of Kerr County 19 government outpacing the ability and the resources of its 20 citizens? 21 We'd each probably give a different answer to 22 that question if we were asked. But if there's any doubt or 23 hesitancy in your answer to that question, there's some 24 things we need to be thinking about. Number one, the 25 economy of this county. We are a service-based economy. A 8-22-03 wk 15 1 large portion of our tax base is based upon residential real 2 property, residential ad valorem taxation. In my opinion, 3 too much so. Notwithstanding the thoughts of many people in 4 this county that we should close the gate, as it were, and 5 we should not have any expansion of existing business or 6 attract new business, I think we have a need -- a demand to 7 diversify and expand the economy of this county. We cannot 8 continue to rely upon ad valorem taxes from residential real 9 estate as our source of funding to provide services to our 10 citizens. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Why? Very simple. Number 13 one, consider this. We have in existence right now on the 14 books a statute which allows the elderly to defer taxation 15 on their residential homestead until they die. We'll end up 16 getting the money. We will get it someday, but it sure does 17 mess up the cash flow. I don't think that's hard to see at 18 all. Consider this. Next month, we're going to have an 19 election. There's a proposed constitutional amendment 20 which, if passed, would permit a tax freeze on homestead 21 residential property of the elderly and disabled. We've 22 been surviving off of valuation increases. In a few 23 instances, we've managed to get by with a small tax 24 increase. That's gone. That will be gone if that's 25 approved. And if you think it won't be approved in Kerr 8-22-03 wk 16 1 County, you'd better go back to the books. It's coming. 2 Should we be considering these factors in 3 what we do today? Absolutely. If we don't, we are not 4 discharging our duty to the citizens of this county. These 5 questions and others like them cast some pretty serious 6 doubt on what we are able to commit to in the future. 7 What's the economy going to do? Some economists today will 8 tell you that we've got some hard times ahead. Some local 9 people that keep up with these numbers are telling me that 10 it looks like property values are leveling off. Interest 11 rates are going up. Therefore, property values are going to 12 become further depressed, even for those that will be able 13 to get the benefit of additional values. That's the only 14 advantage to the tax freeze, if the value's going to go up, 15 but then we can't increase the rates on those people. 16 What are our options if our resources are 17 reduced? Well, there seem to be two effective options. 18 Number one is to utilize reserves. This has been utilized 19 over the past few years, and I think we're about out of that 20 option. We seem to be at or near the minimum necessary 21 reserves for this county. We've got to be concerned about 22 our credit rating. We've got to be concerned about our 23 ability to take care of our obligations. Another option, 24 raise taxes. The "T" word. Nobody wants that. Go ask 10 25 people on the street; they'll all tell you no, they don't 8-22-03 wk 17 1 want you to raise taxes. Excluding the ability to be able 2 to find grants or charity, you got one left. Reduce the 3 minimum effective level of services that you provide to your 4 citizens. That's all you have remaining. Redefine that 5 level of services. 6 A number of these members of the Court have 7 mentioned the need to become more productive and efficient 8 in providing these services. Doing more with less, is what 9 we're hearing. It's a very, very laudatory and necessary 10 goal. I want to personally thank every member of the staff 11 of elected officials in Kerr County and department heads for 12 their cooperation in preparing this budget, and some of 13 these individuals recognize that need. You know who you 14 are. The Court knows who you are. And agree to start down 15 the hard road to reduce staff, become more efficient and 16 more productive in what you are doing for the citizens. The 17 good news was, at the same time that we accomplished this 18 reduction, we were able to see a little room in providing 19 additional and necessary complication -- or compensation for 20 those individuals who remained and who are picking up that 21 slack. Our employees are entitled to be adequately 22 compensated. We need to pay our people and provide them 23 with the benefits which are competitive in the marketplace. 24 We cannot survive without them. They are absolutely 25 essential. 8-22-03 wk 18 1 The next question is, do we have too many or 2 are they paid too much or too little, or do we have not 3 enough? We've heard a number of questions about surveys and 4 studies and things of that nature that have been discussed 5 here before the Court in these budget workshops. Before I 6 started this budget process, I decided to do some 7 information gathering of my own. It's not scientific. I 8 tried to select -- I believe it's four counties that I 9 thought to be reasonably comparable to Kerr County, and I 10 asked the cooperation of the chief elected official and the 11 other officials in those counties for their cooperation in 12 providing me information concerning staffing and salary 13 levels in their various departments. I was very enlightened 14 by some of the information that I received. I provided a 15 copy of that study, survey, gathering of information -- call 16 it what you like -- to each member of this Court. I suspect 17 some of them have found it enlightening also. I have a few 18 copies up here that I'd be happy to make available. What I 19 found was that in several of the departments of the counties 20 which appear to be comparable, I found that staffing levels 21 in several departments of the other counties were 22 significantly lower than those same departments in Kerr 23 County. I also found that in some departments, the staffing 24 levels were approximately the same, and in a few cases, I 25 found that staffing levels in a few areas were slightly 8-22-03 wk 19 1 higher than Kerr County. 2 Now, let me take on a sacred cow. But in 3 doing so, I want it to be by example only. Sheriff's 4 Department. For example -- and I realize I'm -- I'm 5 treading on politically very dangerous ground, but we're 6 talking about business. We're not talking about politics, I 7 hope. With a land area equal to approximately 85 percent of 8 Kerr County, I found that Lamar County, for example, could 9 discharge law enforcement services to its citizens with 18 10 deputies. In Kerr County, we have 38. I'm not talking 11 about the jail. Interestingly enough, I also found that the 12 salary levels of those same deputies in that county were 13 significantly less than those in Kerr County. Raises some 14 interesting questions. Is the minimum acceptable level of 15 law enforcement service in Lamar County significantly less? 16 Is the minimum acceptable level of law enforcement services 17 in Kerr County significantly higher? Are the delivery of 18 law enforcement services in one county versus the other more 19 or less efficient? A number of questions. They're all 20 pertinent. But we've got to look into the future and keep 21 these things in mind. I don't know that we're doing 22 anything wrong. But, by the same token, I don't know that 23 we're doing anything right. But we need to strive to do 24 that. Do we need a fleet of 42 vehicles in that department, 25 and all of the attendant expense that goes with them? 8-22-03 wk 20 1 Maintenance, insurance, depreciation, fuel, et cetera. Is 2 that necessary? Is there a more efficient way to provide 3 the delivery of law enforcement services? Here, again, I 4 want to stress, I'm talking about example. We can look at 5 this particular gathering of information or any other. And 6 there's no truly accurate way to compare apples to apples. 7 My point is, it raises questions. It raises concerns, and I 8 would hope that it raises a desire to try and find better 9 solutions where there are some. These are only a few of the 10 examples, but we need to ask those questions as we look into 11 the future. We need to try and anticipate what those needs 12 are and how we're going to provide for them so that we can 13 honor our commitments. The decisions we make should not be 14 driven by politics. We're talking about business, the 15 business of all of the citizens of this county. And it's 16 the citizens' money that we're spending, all of the 17 citizens' money. That money does not belong to the elected 18 officials and the employees of Kerr County, having some 19 priority over it. It should be for the benefit of all of 20 the citizens. What can we afford? What are you willing to 21 pay? Have we overextended ourselves? Are we overextending 22 ourselves? That's what the citizens need to tell each of 23 us, and we need to pay attention to them. What level of 24 service do they demand, do they insist that they have? What 25 are they willing to pay for? Because they're the ones 8-22-03 wk 21 1 paying for it. This Court only makes the decision on how 2 that's paid. Thank you for your time and attention. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know what it feels like 4 to be before a jury, I think, now. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 1? You had some 6 issues you wanted to talk about. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I think 8 that we need to go back and revisit -- one of the issues 9 that I wanted to talk about is the fire contract with the 10 City. I apologize, I can't remember exactly when it was -- 11 I believe it was not last year's budget, but the year 12 before, we increased -- increased it $25,000. They're 13 asking for another $25,000, and, frankly, I think that's a 14 little soon. However, you stop and look at the primary 15 coverage that the City has in their firefighting duties; 16 i.e., Kerrville South, where your home as well as my home 17 is. And, you know, just a practical, down-to-earth way to 18 look at it, if a -- if a house was to catch on fire in that 19 area over there, we -- if we didn't have the contract with 20 the City and the City didn't provide fire service to us, 21 then we -- that house fire would go until either the Turtle 22 Creek Volunteer Fire Department -- which that's the 23 cachement area, Turtle Creek, or, out of the kindness of 24 their hearts, Ingram Fire Department would go to that house 25 fire. In either case, you kiss the house good-bye. The 8-22-03 wk 22 1 house is going to burn down. But with the contract, with 2 the City of Kerrville responding to the elementary school on 3 Ranchero Road is about a 7-minute response time, which the 4 response time is the key to the whole thing, in my opinion. 5 Losing one home over there is more than equal to what the 6 contract -- what we pay in this contract. So, I just 7 believe that -- I don't know that I'll say this next year or 8 the year after; probably would not, if I'm here. But at 9 this point, I just -- I feel like that we need to agree with 10 the City and their level of service and their request for 11 more funding. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I happen to agree 13 with that. I think I raised the question the other day, 14 Judge, as to whether or not we had any reason to believe 15 that if we did not increase the contribution for City 16 support -- fire support, would we -- or could we anticipate 17 some diminution in that service? And I know that a contract 18 is a contract, and if they say they'll do what they will do, 19 they're obligated by contract to do that. But they're not 20 obligated to do anything absent a contribution which they 21 believe is important to -- to the whole. They could just as 22 easily say to us, we respectfully decline to provide that 23 level of service, or any level of service. And so I -- I 24 have to agree with Commissioner Baldwin. I think it's 25 imperative -- it's important and it's imperative that we 8-22-03 wk 23 1 visit that increased contribution again and take a look at 2 it. 3 Another reason why I think it's important is 4 not -- not only response time, as Commissioner Baldwin 5 points out, but there are too many areas in the county where 6 fire suppression is only a term. It is not -- it is not, by 7 example, the ability to put out a fire. And the reason is 8 not because the people chose to live where they chose to 9 live. The reason is that they're served by private water 10 companies that do not have the capability of providing 11 sufficient water under sufficient pressure to do the job of 12 fire suppression, and so they're relying on their VFD's. We 13 support those, and I think that's what we ought to do, but 14 they also rely or have some -- take some comfort, and 15 perhaps their insurance company does as well, takes some 16 comfort in knowing that Kerr County has been prudent and 17 wise enough to ask the City to bring its resources into play 18 when those situations arise and we have to do that. So, I 19 think we ought to take another look at it as well. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that topic, I can go 21 along with it, but I have a condition -- go along with the 22 increase. And I guess the condition that I have is that the 23 City -- or the contract is where it really needs to be; 24 starts putting more emphasis in their department on rural 25 firefighting. By their chiefs' admission, and by other 8-22-03 wk 24 1 volunteer fire departments, they are not equipped very well 2 to fight rural fires. They don't have tanker trucks, and 3 they don't have, you know, heavy off-road vehicle trucks. 4 Clearly, their trucks they have can go off pavement, I 5 think, but even that's been raised into question. But I 6 think that if -- you know, if the County is going to rely on 7 the City for pretty much, you know, the ETJ area and beyond 8 a little bit, there's a lot of rural areas in there, and if 9 they're going to be the primary responder, I think that they 10 need to make a department commitment to do that. 11 I was a little bit shocked when the Chief 12 said they did not have a water-hauling truck; that they had 13 to rely -- at least that's how I took what he said -- that 14 he had to rely on volunteer fire departments. Well, you 15 know, Buster's referred to areas in his precinct. I'll go 16 into Whiskey Canyon in my precinct. Very rural ranches in 17 their primary area of coverage. The nearest pumper truck to 18 Whiskey Canyon is in Center Point. You're talking a minimum 19 of a 30-minute drive. That's unacceptable. I mean, if 20 they're going to -- and I was not aware of that -- of that 21 problem, so I think that, you know, I can go along with 22 giving them an increase, but I need to see a commitment in 23 the City contract that they're going to provide rural 24 coverage in their primary area, not just buy new trucks for 25 the City of Kerrville to be used on the city streets in the 8-22-03 wk 25 1 city limits. So, I mean, that's kind of where I am on it. 2 I mean, I certainly don't want to -- I think 3 we get a good value with the City of Kerrville now. I think 4 it would be a mistake to try to, you know, alter that 5 arrangement. But I think we do need to provide -- as they 6 want more and more funds from the County, to provide 7 direction as to where those funds are spent. And I 8 understand they can't clearly change this year's -- their 9 budget this year and buy -- go out and buy a water-hauling 10 truck, but I think they can get it in their plans and -- 11 long-term plans or short-term plans. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The need for 13 assistance from Kerrville Fire Department in Precinct 4 is 14 not as critical as it is in the other three precincts. I'm 15 not sure that we're getting good value from that contract or 16 not, but I'm going to defer to the wisdom of the other 17 Commissioners. If they -- they have said they need the 18 support of the Kerrville Fire Department, in the best 19 interests of the entire county, I'll support that. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think Commissioner 21 Letz makes a good point. I think it's an opportunity for 22 us, Judge, to -- to have an open and honest discussion about 23 perhaps improving service somehow. Not to be -- not 24 intended to be critical of what they've done not at all, but 25 for additional dollars, perhaps we realistically could have 8-22-03 wk 26 1 an expectation of some additional services. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the information that 3 was provided to us at the joint budget workshop indicated 4 that their discharge rate out of their truck and the 5 capacity of that truck, if fully utilized, they would be out 6 of water in something less than 30 seconds. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 750-gallon tank, 8 1,500 gallons per minute. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: 700-gallon tank. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, it used to be 11 750. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I think it's less than 13 30 seconds. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: You got them at 30 seconds. 16 My recollection is less. I'll give them 30 seconds. The 17 contract calls for them to provide firefighting services. 18 Their primary obligation, if they're not otherwise engaged 19 in something with equal or greater priority in the city, is 20 to provide support for structure fires. The contract, as I 21 recall, doesn't even provide for brush fires. In fact, it 22 excludes it. It further provides that -- that their 23 obligation to respond -- and I'm speaking from recollection, 24 so you gentlemen be sure and correct me if I'm wrong. I'm 25 sure you will. That their obligation doesn't commence until 8-22-03 wk 27 1 our -- our county VFDs' response time exceeds four minutes. 2 Now, that may be a technicality in the contract that we got 3 to wait four minutes before we can give them a call, and I 4 would suggest to you that at that point in time, nobody's 5 watching their watch and standing by the phone. But it may 6 well be that we want to come up with a much tighter contract 7 in that respect, too. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But, Judge, the 9 reality of the situation is that they respond as soon as 10 they learn through 9-1-1 or Dispatch that there is a fire. 11 They don't wait for the VFD, because they know, just as 12 you're saying, that there's nobody out there saying, "It's 13 time to call the City," so they respond. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I would certainly hope so, but 15 we probably need to clarify that language also. And -- 16 and -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: -- make that a bit tighter if 19 -- if we're going to -- we have some other options, I think, 20 for the unprotected areas of the county. Certainly, out in 21 the outlying areas, really the only place that's -- I see 22 where we're receiving benefit are areas that are close into 23 the city. If you get out in some of the areas in 24 Commissioner Nicholson's precinct, on a structure fire, by 25 the time they get there, it's not going to be any help. I 8-22-03 wk 28 1 can't see that. There are going to be a lot of areas out 2 there where Commissioner Letz is that -- where that -- their 3 assistance is not going to provide any benefit for a 4 structure fire by the time they get there. We're only 5 really talking about in close-in areas. That's all we're 6 really talking about. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. 8 Kerrville South area. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: It may well be that -- that we 10 can possibly redefine that area. The area did include out 11 at Northwest Hills, that particular area out there, Aqua 12 Vista and so forth. And the primary response to that is now 13 being served by Tierra Linda. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But, again, they're 15 just like Center Point in that respect, Kerrville -- or 16 Upper Turtle Creek. They're not equipped to handle a major 17 structure fire. So, I think we make a point -- 18 JUDGE TINLEY: They don't have a ladder 19 truck, of course, or anything like that. Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I mean, 21 from what I'm hearing, what I support is that we, you know, 22 go along with the new requested amount, but we need to 23 relook at the contract. That's my position. I think it 24 needs to be addressed, because, you know, since the contract 25 was written, the growth around the city of Kerrville and in 8-22-03 wk 29 1 my precinct, anyway, is -- is far greater. And there really 2 are no volunteer fire departments up in that Whiskey Canyon 3 wilderness, Hill Country Ranch Estates areas. And there's 4 becoming a pretty large population in those areas. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've thought this at 6 the front of my brain, so I'll pop it out. As Commissioner 7 Nicholson says, if I don't get these things out, I'll lose 8 them. And I don't know if the law will permit us to do this 9 or not. With respect to our own equipment, which is Road 10 and Bridge equipment, we have a 5,000-gallon tanker, I 11 believe, in the Road and Bridge yard. And that 5,000-gallon 12 tanker, if it were full and ready to roll, could have saved, 13 for example, the Townsend house in downtown Center Point, 14 because that particular fire, that volunteer fire company 15 responded beautifully. They did everything in their power 16 to make it happen. But where they lost it was sending their 17 small tanker to the river to try to fill it back up. And so 18 I'm wondering whether or not we have the equipment that we 19 just haven't appropriated in the right way, or whether the 20 law allows to us do that. That's a question I'd like to 21 have answered. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Road and Bridge 23 frequently uses that truck to fight fires. The problem is 24 having it, you know, get where it needs to be and have it -- 25 you know, whether it's full sitting there with water, I 8-22-03 wk 30 1 don't know. But, I mean, it is -- I think the law allows 2 it. I think it's just a matter of -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do you -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- personnel and how you 5 enable the fire department to access that truck. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I think in an emergency, it's 7 easier to ask forgiveness than it is for permission. That 8 would be my theory. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with you. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, I think we 11 had worked out one time a deal with road and -- between Road 12 and Bridge and the fire departments where the fire 13 departments would designate two or three names that had 14 authority to come by and get that truck on the way to a 15 fire -- that tanker truck on the way to a fire. We did that 16 a couple of years ago, but I can't -- of course, I don't 17 know what we've done with it. I don't see anybody in here 18 who can answer that question, but they -- Road and Bridge 19 has always made that truck available for -- for emergencies 20 like that. No problem with that. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Have you got any other items 22 on your list over there, Commissioner 1? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, I 24 have two more. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8-22-03 wk 31 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One is a couple years 2 ago, we hired a fella that we lovingly named the computer 3 guru here in the courthouse. We're talking about -- this 4 Court's been talking about outsourcing or privatizing, 5 whatever verbiage you want to use, that -- that service, and 6 I -- I don't -- personally, I don't -- I know in my mind 7 that that is not the correct way to go at this time. Now, 8 if we -- if we looked at it and looked at the numbers and 9 looked at it from -- you know, to borrow your words, a 10 business way to look at things, and saw that the dollars and 11 cents worked to where it would be better to outsource, then 12 that's one thing. But we have not done that, and I think it 13 would be, again, bad government business for us to just jump 14 out there and think that if we eliminated a position, that 15 we can go find a company or a person that would come in and 16 do the job that we expect to get done at a lesser price or a 17 faster way or a more complete job, a better job or whatever. 18 I just think that we haven't thought it all the way through. 19 We're not -- we're not prepared to eliminate that position 20 at all. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Two? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On that last item 23 that Commissioner Baldwin just brought up, I think he's 24 correct. Also, I think we have to distinguish our need from 25 -- it may be some of us complaining about the fact that they 8-22-03 wk 32 1 didn't get our -- we didn't get our computers back online as 2 quickly as we might have liked to. But I think the mere -- 3 the volume of work that's required of this particular 4 department -- and it is a department, although it's only 5 staffed as one person -- is far too great for one person. 6 And I think if we jump off into outsourcing in this 7 particular case, based on the -- on the demands of our 8 system and the -- and the complexity of those demands, we're 9 going to be sorry we did that. And I'm not only certain 10 that we'll be sorry we did it from the logistical point of 11 view; I think it's going to cost us more money. And I think 12 we need to address how to make what we're doing better 13 within a -- within the framework of our existing department. 14 So, I would like to see us not outsource, but improve and do 15 what we need to do to improve it and make it better for the 16 users of our -- of our computer system. Having said that, 17 I'd like to -- for to us address the subject of automobiles 18 for our constables. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me, let's see if we 20 can't get the rest of the input that we need on this issue. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, no problem. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have any thoughts about 23 the I.T.? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8-22-03 wk 33 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- you 2 know, first of all, you know, we -- it's a new department, 3 but it's not a new function. I mean, the Auditor was 4 performing this job, so it's not like we created something 5 new. It was a job being done that got beyond the 6 capabilities of -- you know, of what he was able to do, just 7 because of the number of computers. The other thing that 8 has happened, and I think this goes along with some -- I 9 hope it's going along with some of the reasons that some of 10 the elected officials have found ways to increase 11 productivity, is because this county and this Court made a 12 commitment to improving this technology three, four, five 13 years ago, and the sole reason for that was to get to a 14 point of increasing productivity. So, you know, hopefully 15 that is at least a contributing factor for the reason that 16 we're able to -- you know, there's a little bit more, I 17 guess -- the ability of some of the departments to 18 reorganize and restructure their departments a little bit. 19 Based on what I've talked to other people in governmental 20 entities and in private, I question whether we can outsource 21 it for what was proposed in the budget or for what we're 22 paying currently for this department, which is something 23 over 70 -- a little over $70,000 as I recall. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: It's requested. Current 25 budget is less than that, but requested I think is 70, if 8-22-03 wk 34 1 I'm not mistaken. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, whatever. I'm not 3 sure we can do it for that amount. I think that the -- this 4 department's been in place one year. It had some problems, 5 growing pains. A lot of that was I think the individual was 6 -- spent time putting out fires related to internet and 7 other things, software problems that really never should 8 have been a problem to start with. I think that's being 9 corrected. I think that will greatly enable that department 10 to be able to focus on what we want them to focus on, which 11 is fixing problems and making sure everything's working 12 smoothly in the county. 13 And another thing that this individual -- 14 this department needs to do, and I'm going to go back to -- 15 I know I'm picking on Judge Ragsdale, but this is one of the 16 things that I think this person or the department needs to 17 do, is that he mentioned that he needed to increase one of 18 his line items because of the high cost of operating the 19 printer he has, and it was because when he picked the 20 printer, he wasn't aware of how much the cartridges and 21 paper, all that other stuff, was going to cost to feed 22 this -- I think he called it, "to feed this monster." You 23 know, and that's the kind of thing -- you know, purchases 24 need to be run through this department so that things work 25 n-- you know, to know those kinds of answers, and also to be 8-22-03 wk 35 1 able to make sure that, you know, if something breaks in one 2 department, it can go -- you know, printers can be 3 redesignated to a different department. I think the -- we 4 talked about that with the District Clerk and County Clerk's 5 office in some of the new equipment they're looking at. So, 6 that's the direction I think we need to go. I don't think 7 we're ready to make a change. I'm not ready to make a 8 change. I want to keep that department one more year. If 9 we don't have a lot better productivity and help to the 10 elected officials/department heads, I'm probably going to 11 almost demand we outsource, I think, as much as I can -- one 12 person can next year. But I think a lot of the problems 13 we've had this year, we're -- we're correcting, and I think 14 we need to give it one more year to see how it works. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: You got any particular 16 thoughts, Commissioner Nicholson? 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. A wise 18 person once said that man's genius was getting a machine to 19 do his work for him, and I think I'm supporting everything 20 I've heard here. My sense of it is that our sophistication 21 in computers is not -- not really to where it should be, and 22 it needs to get better so we can be more productive and cut 23 other costs. I also believe what I hear, that we're not 24 ready to jump off that and outsource it now. I think we 25 ought to keep it on the front burner and -- and be thinking 8-22-03 wk 36 1 about how to do it better, and if outsourcing is the way to 2 do that at some time in the future. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that the end of your 4 issues, or you got another one? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have one more. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's hear about it. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Recycling Center. 8 I -- we just -- I don't think that we ever got to the bottom 9 line on the thing here at this table. First of all, I -- I 10 understand that we not only own the property, but we 11 participate financially in the -- in the operations of it. 12 And, right off the bat, I disagree with that with all my 13 heart. We sit there and we own the -- Kerr County owns a 14 very prime piece of property in the city of Kerrville, and 15 the recycling system is set up and the City basically runs 16 the thing, and to me that's kind of -- that's kind of a fair 17 trade; us own it and them run it and pay for it. But there 18 was some -- there were some issues that we never did -- we 19 never did agree on, I don't think, of some -- some changes 20 that they wanted to make. However, in the -- you know, in 21 the -- in the contract agreement that we have with them 22 today, I think that we need to, you know, do everything that 23 we agreed to, or the things that we committed to, but I 24 really believe that that needs to be rethought. That whole 25 system over there needs to be rethought. And, basically, 8-22-03 wk 37 1 what I'm saying is I don't think that we came to any kind of 2 a conclusion of what -- what this Court thinks about the 3 Recycling Center. That's all. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's the end of 6 my list. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You got any thoughts 8 about the recycling issue? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I think the 10 contract speaks for itself. If we have any outstanding 11 obligations, however, under the current contract, I think we 12 should honor those. And if we need to make changes in the 13 ensuing years, I think we need to make the changes. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I pretty much agree. I 15 mean, I think the -- with Commissioner Baldwin. I went 16 around -- drove around the Recycling Center. When you do 17 look at it, you do realize the value of that property. Big 18 lot, city block -- over half a city block; maybe it's a full 19 city block. I think you have to look at the contract, and I 20 think the contract's -- you know, I believe it says that 21 they pay for improvements. And I think we stick to that 22 contract this time. If they want to make the improvements, 23 they make them. If they want to relook at the contract, 24 they're welcome to bring it back to the Court; we can 25 relook. I think it's a good program. But a contract's a 8-22-03 wk 38 1 contract for the time being. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: You defer, Commissioner 4 Nicholson? 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I do have one 7 afterthought about that. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We referenced in our 10 joint meeting a potential to provide some limited ability to 11 collect recyclables in the outlying parts of the county. I 12 sure would like to see us pursue that to some extent. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: If -- if my recollection 14 serves me correctly, Commissioner, I think that contract 15 expires in 2004. That lease agreement on that facility 16 expires in 2004. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have that in front of 19 me. I think that's in another big book, but I believe 20 that's correct. And that, certainly, would be one of the 21 things that we may want to look at when we sit down across 22 the table with them, if we're going to have some sort of a 23 joint agreement on an ongoing basis. But right now, for 24 now, I think the lease agreement clearly provides that any 25 improvements or maintenance that are desired to be made out 8-22-03 wk 39 1 there are clearly the obligation of -- of the person leasing 2 the property, and that's the City. And I think -- a deal's 3 a deal where I come from. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wherever that is. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Huh? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wherever that is. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I see, okay. Commissioner 2? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, just one 9 opening comment. I listened carefully to your -- your 10 comments with respect to where we are in this process, and 11 I -- frankly, I think you probably identified our situation 12 correctly. But I think part of the problem we have 13 encountered in the past, and will probably continue to 14 encounter in terms of our budgeting process and what's 15 expected of us, is the increased demand on our services all 16 throughout our county system due to increased population. 17 This county has grown significantly over the last decade, 18 and every indication is it's going to continue to grow. I 19 don't know if -- if as significantly, but it's going to 20 continue to grow over the next decade, which will begin 21 right now. That poses for us the problem of satisfying the 22 increased demand on services, no matter what the level is. 23 And I think that has to be distinguished in our -- in our 24 discussions, as opposed to perhaps a misperceived public 25 perception of increased expectations. I don't know if we 8-22-03 wk 40 1 can match increased expectations, but I think we have an 2 obligation to do what we have to do to provide services 3 based on our increasing population. I just wanted to make 4 that comment. 5 Having said that, I think I'd like to talk 6 about, if we may, a subject we've talked about before, and 7 that has to do with automobiles for our constables. That's 8 a subject we have been dodging, at least the four years -- 9 or four budgets I have participated in, and this is the 10 fifth year, and I'm not so sure we can continue to dodge the 11 bullet. I think the bullet's heading straight for the 12 middle of my head. I recall when I first sat down on this 13 dais, this bullet was aimed at me from my constable, but we 14 didn't do anything about it. We probably chastised him a 15 little bit for bringing the topic to us. However, the topic 16 hasn't gone away. The need hasn't gone away, and I think we 17 have to do something about it. At the risk of being -- at 18 the risk of being defined as "anti-law enforcement," I want 19 to diffuse that right now. Whatever I have to say is not 20 anti-law enforcement or anti-Sheriff or anti-Sheriff's 21 Department or anything of the kind. I have been one of the 22 staunchest supporters of this Sheriff and his department and 23 its improvements down through the years, but I think it's 24 important to note that since I began my career on this Court 25 in 1999 and 2000, the Sheriff's budget has increased 8-22-03 wk 41 1 66 percent, from about 1.67 million to about 2.4 million 2 now. That's 66 percent. A large piece of that has to do 3 with vehicles. And in that same period of time, we have 4 spent almost a half million dollars on vehicles, so I'm 5 getting a little sick of hearing about vehicles. We've done 6 our best, I think, over the years to accommodate the need 7 and to take care of what was then and no longer is a 8 derelict fleet of vehicles. We have -- we have equipped our 9 Sheriff, I think, adequately. 10 Now I'm going to share a few things with you; 11 we're going to get into hopefully a discussion that will 12 lead to us a conclusion. Right now, in the existing budget, 13 we have an obligation for leasing of $162,934 for the 14 vehicles that are on the road that we have acquired over the 15 last four years. In this particular next budget year, 16 43,584 of those dollars could drop off if we determined not 17 to add any more vehicles, which is not what I'm going to 18 propose. I think we have to do something for our folks -- 19 our constables. They work hard doing what they are 20 statutorily required to do, and they have the opportunity to 21 do more for Kerr County which benefits us in terms of fines 22 and dollars that go into our general revenues, and I'd like 23 for us to help them do their job a little more effectively. 24 I asked my constable to do a little research 25 after the presentations that we had before, sensing that 8-22-03 wk 42 1 there might be some support on the Court to do something 2 about it. I think we have a couple opportunities here. 3 Constable Ayala went out and got some more numbers, which I 4 will share with the Court. And there is some opportunity 5 here to do something that I think is meaningful. We know we 6 only have to do three vehicles; we don't have to do four. 7 And some of the numbers that have been brought back this 8 time are for new vehicles. And if we were to deal with one 9 particular agency, it's -- the name of it doesn't make any 10 difference -- we would be looking at an obligation for the 11 constables of $21,000 -- 21,5 per year for three years. We 12 could probably -- I'm sorry, for four years. For three cars 13 for four years. We could deal with this other agency for 14 the same new cars, and we could end up paying $22,674 for 15 three cars for four years. 16 I think these numbers are -- are doable. I 17 think we can do this. I think we can provide three 18 automobiles for our people for the next four years, which 19 would keep them in good stead. We can do it one of two 20 ways. We can -- we can take that $22,000 obligation of -- 21 for the obligation for constables, and we can deduct it from 22 the amount of dollars that we are being asked to consider 23 for the Sheriff's Department, or we can skip a year. We 24 could skip a year on the Sheriff's Department and just buy 25 constable cars. But I think the Court needs to talk about 8-22-03 wk 43 1 what might be an adequate solution in that regard. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The issue of cars for the 3 constables, to me, as I stated earlier, is one of my 4 priorities. How we get there is not as important to me. 5 You know, to me, the options are to buy used vehicles from 6 D.P.S., or I believe the Sheriff has relooked at his numbers 7 and things, and there's some cars coming out of his 8 department that are -- I think they're called -- there's 9 enough anyway, three more, but that's contingent upon him 10 getting new cars. And then there is also, I guess, a 11 proposal from here, which is to give the constables new cars 12 and somehow make the total number of cars for law 13 enforcement one big pot and take three of them out of there 14 for constables. I don't have a -- I really want to talk to 15 the Sheriff a little bit more before I came up with a 16 definite answer. 17 I do think that, from the standpoint of -- I 18 don't want -- I hope the constables don't take this wrong, 19 but there is a higher likelihood of a high-speed pursuit 20 type situation with the deputies than with the constables 21 generally, though both can certainly get in it. And for 22 that reason, some of the age of the Sheriff's cars -- I 23 think it's more important, in my mind, that they get more 24 road -- or more -- I guess the better cars first. That 25 doesn't mean that, you know, the constables don't need new 8-22-03 wk 44 1 cars or shouldn't have new cars too. I think that logic is 2 why D.P.S. rotates cars out at about 80,000, because they 3 are at a higher likelihood of being in a high-speed pursuit 4 than Sheriff's Department is. I think speed is a factor on 5 safety of cars. So, that being said -- and I think 6 somewhere we need to find room in our budget to do this. 7 Which of the three options we take really doesn't have a -- 8 you know, I'm not set on any of them. And I really want to 9 talk -- visit with the Sheriff a little bit on exactly where 10 he is with his fleet before I made a definite decision on 11 that. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My overwhelming 13 objective on this is to make sure I'm not talking about this 14 again next year. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hear, hear. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would like to 17 provide vehicles for these constables, and vehicles that are 18 decent and -- and marked, and if we can find a way to do 19 that, I'll support it. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May I have one other 21 say, Buster? Just one -- one more thing to introduce. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Don't forget 23 that you owe me one. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner Letz 25 mentioned used vehicles, and that certainly is an option 8-22-03 wk 45 1 whether it's through D.P.S. or whether it's through another 2 agency that has used vehicles. I asked Commissioner -- 3 Constable Ayala to take a look at that also, and he found an 4 agency in San Antonio that does reconditioning of vehicles. 5 And while they might be a little bit less in price, if 6 you'll look at this one that came from this Southwest Public 7 Safety on Nacogdoches Road, when you add up having to put 8 equipment on it and so forth and having to buy a warranty, 9 in this particular case, to help you get through, you're 10 within two thousand dollars of buying a new car. I'm 11 told -- and I'm relating only what I'm told, because I have 12 no experience in it -- that the D.P.S. cars are pretty well 13 used up, and that we may not be serving ourselves as well as 14 we could otherwise by going that route. But, anyhow, there 15 is a used car approach as well. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: What's generally the mileage 17 on these -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm told -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: -- refurbished -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 60,000. 21 AUDIENCE: 60,000. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: About 60,000. But 23 you'd have to buy a warranty to get you through, and that's 24 another thousand. Okay, I'm done. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: And you've got to equip them. 8-22-03 wk 46 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, have to put some 2 equipment on them. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I just want to 5 take a minute, and then I think I want to give my remaining 6 three minutes to the Sheriff, if I could. But, you know, 7 one of the questions I've always had -- and several of you 8 have referenced expected level of service this morning, and 9 I've always had the question of what level of service do the 10 constables have? And I understand that they're TCLEOSE- 11 certified. I mean, they're a police officer just like 12 anybody else is. I mean, they have authority to make all 13 kinds of arrests. But, normally, what do they do? Do 14 they -- do they simply serve papers for the J.P.'s office 15 and those kinds of things? Which, to me, wouldn't require a 16 new car with lights and sirens and cages and all that kind 17 of thing. Or do they function more in a -- a real police 18 officer's -- I may be offending people, and I apologize. I 19 just don't -- lack of knowledge. I just don't know the 20 correct words. 21 But, to give you an example -- and I would -- 22 first of all, I would never, ever, ever tell an elected 23 official how to run their office. I've been here long 24 enough to know that you don't do that. But I would 25 request -- or have requested -- Bobby and I have sat down 8-22-03 wk 47 1 and talked about this on several occasions, of him being 2 able to work a -- work the traffic on Ranchero Road in front 3 of that elementary school, which is the highest-traveled 4 road in Kerr County. And, believe me, it is a high-traveled 5 road; lots of little kids, and the school people have their 6 little people out there with flags and all that stuff. But 7 still, people speed through there all the time. The 8 Sheriff's Department, when they can, actually works the 9 traffic there, and do a great job, and I'm thankful for 10 that. But Bobby and I have talked about him actually 11 working that traffic over there to relieve the deputies to 12 go out and arrest bad people. But, of course, he can't in 13 his own vehicle. He's sitting there in a -- I don't know 14 what kind of car he has. 15 If I were driving through there and a guy was 16 sitting there in a red -- whatever -- car -- Camaro that he 17 has, I'm not going to stop. Would you? He needs to have a 18 marked vehicle if he's going to do those kinds of duties. 19 But I never have been real clear of what -- you know, what 20 extent of police work do constables normally do? Do they go 21 out on the interstate and chase people at 115 miles an hour? 22 I don't know. If they did, it certainly would take a 23 different type of automobile than this stuff, wouldn't it? 24 I mean, I'd be afraid to ride in one of those things, much 25 less at 35 miles an hour. But that -- that's really my only 8-22-03 wk 48 1 point. And I -- and I can't -- to be honest with you, if I 2 had to vote right now, to say -- to buy new cars, or is -- 3 isn't there a better used car plan out there, I mean, I 4 would have a hard time voting. I really would. I just 5 don't think there's enough information on our table yet 6 to -- to make a good business deal. But I think maybe the 7 Sheriff knows something. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, you obviously got 9 some thoughts on this. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I want to give the 11 Sheriff my two minutes left. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You said three a while 13 ago, Buster. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I used up one of them. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're only talking about 16 vehicles at this particular point, Sheriff. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll limit this to 19 vehicles. I would appreciate the opportunity to respond to 20 Judge Tinley's comments this morning, okay? And some to 21 Commissioner Williams. I think that there's some -- a lot 22 of misconception, and I think the department -- and for my 23 guys, I have the right to respond to that. But on cars, I 24 furnished this Court the other day with -- during the 25 discussion day before yesterday, with six cars. That gives 8-22-03 wk 49 1 you the maintenance logs -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: With pictures, how 3 often they're breaking down. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Gives you the 5 maintenance logs, the photographs, the current mileage, 6 everything on those cars. And it also would give you the 7 list of equipment that would go with those cars when they 8 rotate out. Now, this is dependent on whether the Sheriff's 9 Department gets four cars or six cars. That's why they're 10 numbered in there. Those cars, you heard from one of the 11 Commissioners (sic) the other day just a little bit on it. 12 I've talked to the other two. I do feel, due to the 13 maintenance, they're not cars that I would ever want on 14 patrol, okay? And they are currently not on patrol. All 15 the new cars, so there's no misconception, that the 16 Sheriff's Department gets -- I made a commitment to this 17 Court back then, and I still hold to, that all the new cars 18 we get do go to patrol. We rotate the older ones out, okay? 19 Those cars are some of the old ones that were here prior. 20 We haven't -- we made that commitment giving 21 constables cars once we got our fleet replaced, 'cause we 22 had those old cars, Commissioner. We haven't replaced it 23 yet. We're still replacing it. That's why you have those 24 cars be the ones going out. I couldn't give them cars prior 25 to now, 'cause the ones we got rid of had to be towed out of 8-22-03 wk 50 1 there, okay? They were in that bad of shape. We started 2 way in the hole. But with the constables looking at those 3 cars -- those cars, you may have some maintenance that still 4 has to be done. They aren't a patrol. If they're not 5 driven at 110 miles an hour or in the pursuit-type deal and 6 in the patrol-type deal, they would probably make it for one 7 year. Next year, if we were to get the six cars, and even 8 four, I could rotate out three -- at least three of the 9 first set of 2000 cars that we got. Now, that would include 10 the radios that were in them. All the equipment, as you 11 remember, is new when we get those cars. It's the radios, 12 it's the siren, the overhead lights, the cage, all that 13 equipment is in them. It will not include cameras, all 14 right? But we assisted Ingram Marshal's Office in applying 15 for a grant to get their cameras. They got them. We got 16 our cameras through a grant. I have no problem with 17 assisting constables in trying to get a grant for their 18 cameras that would also help that. Those cars, right now, 19 the 2000 new model cars have 70,000 miles on them. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, you said something 21 and you said I -- you said six, and then it sounded like you 22 said four under your breath. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay, I did. I can -- I 24 will -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wanted to make sure I 8-22-03 wk 51 1 heard -- 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I will commit to y'all, 3 next year we can rotate -- see, the difference is, is 4 whether I'm going to rotate out six of those -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- or whether I rotate 7 out four of those. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Since we're talking 10 three constables, next year I can definitely rotate out 11 three of those 2000 model cars. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I just wanted to 13 make sure I heard correctly. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I can't do it this 15 year. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I hear you, Sheriff. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He used up more -- I 21 guess the next topic, he used up part of my time then. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Is your stomach growling? 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I tried, Buster. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we try to resolve 25 this one before we break? 8-22-03 wk 52 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we should. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And my recommendation 3 would be to give -- and this is contingent, and we're going 4 to -- and we have lots of witnesses, Rusty, that next year 5 constables get three of your newer cars. If you wreck them 6 or not doesn't make any difference; they're getting three of 7 them. And this year, that the -- you know, assuming Rusty 8 gets four new cars in his budget -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Six or four? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four. That we rotate 11 three out of this stack, you know, to the constables. 12 'Cause I think -- 13 MR. AYALA: Can I raise an issue? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a second. And I 15 presume the equipment goes with those? 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. The one addition I 17 would say, we took one of the cars and had it repainted; 18 that's our jail car. There is a cost to repaint them. If 19 they want them kept, you know, all white cars or whatever, 20 we were able to get them repainted for $500. The cost of 21 decaling them, changing it from Sheriff to -- to constable 22 would probably cost no more than $200 each. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, for one year, 24 brown cars work fine with new logos on the side. 25 MR. AYALA: My only concern is the cars that 8-22-03 wk 53 1 we're going to get next year are going to have 100,000-plus 2 miles on them, so how long do those cars last? You know, 3 you spend another $700, $800 to paint them and decal them, 4 and you -- 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think our intention 6 was, on those, they'll be white, and all they have to change 7 is decals, you know. They'll work really well. And I think 8 the original intention -- and Commissioner Williams can even 9 tell me this -- is once we get to that point where we can 10 actually start doing that, then every year we can rotate out 11 some of the those cars, okay? 'Cause that was the original 12 deal in leasing these cars from the Sheriff's Office and 13 that. And so you would keep that one car with 100,000 miles 14 and excellent maintenance records, which is not one I want 15 on patrol, okay. You would be able to keep that car for a 16 year, and then the following year you're going to get 17 another one. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, to answer your 19 question, constable, I don't have a problem with running the 20 numbers, with putting three leased vehicles in for the 21 constables, knowing that that's going to be -- if we're 22 short, that I'm not going -- I'm not going to support a tax 23 increase to get new cars when we can get used cars for the 24 constables. That's the bottom line. So I don't mind 25 putting it in the budget right now and letting Tommy run the 8-22-03 wk 54 1 numbers, and if it works out that we can do the new cars, I 2 don't really have a problem with that. But I just want it 3 real clear that my gut feeling is we're not going to be able 4 to do it that way. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have any input on 6 that particular subject, as to druthers? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with Letz that 8 this -- let's run the numbers. You know, I -- I go back to 9 the old saying -- I live about 4 and a half miles from the 10 courthouse. I would love to have a helicopter to bring me 11 to work every day, but I just simply can't afford it. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have one. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I could stop by and 14 pick you up. And we just simply can't afford things like 15 that, but let's try. And -- and his statement about, I will 16 not vote for a tax increase for constable -- new cars when 17 there are fairly decent cars out there available, no way. 18 And I'm starving. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on the -- 20 Commissioner Williams? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I think we have 22 to wrestle with the issue, and I think the constables are 23 talking about increased expectations. My understanding from 24 constables is they'd be happy with -- what do they call them 25 now, pre-owned cars? That's what we're besieged with when 8-22-03 wk 55 1 we go to the marketplace. Pre-owned cars, as opposed to new 2 cars. I just think we need to find some way. I don't think 3 we need to have a tax increase to provide the constables 4 with new vehicles. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I gather that's it on this 6 particular issue. We'll stand in recess till 1:30. 7 (Recess taken from 12:02 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 8 - - - - - - - - - - 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to 10 order. It's a bit after 1:30. We'll resume the 11 Commissioners Court budget workshops scheduled for this day. 12 We were in recess approximately at noon to reconvene at this 13 hour. If -- if there's no objection, the Auditor has a 14 couple of items that he needs to bring to the Court's 15 attention. He's got a commitment later on this afternoon, 16 and that he cannot miss under threat of -- possibly loss of 17 life, in all probability, so we probably need to listen to a 18 couple items that he's got. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: They're in Nondepartmental. 20 As a result of -- of the decision for the District Clerk to 21 image court records, we surveyed the disk space that was -- 22 remains on the system. And because imaging really is a big 23 user of disk space, there is an outside chance that we'll 24 need to buy another hard drive or an additional part of a 25 hard drive by the end of the year. And, for -- so for 8-22-03 wk 56 1 Capital Outlay in Nondepartmental, which is line item 570 -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: -- I would like to see that 4 $9,200. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nine -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Line 570 on Page 10? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, on Page 10. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that in addition to or 9 including? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: No, that's total. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9,000? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: 9,200. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: 9,200? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: 9,200 total. The second -- 15 the second item is Line Item 565 -- I'm sorry, 564. When -- 16 when we were working on the budget, we only had $2,483 spent 17 through July, but I got a $3,600 bill today from IBM that 18 I'd forgotten that we were going to get, so the -- the raw 19 cost is $8,384 for -- for the maintenance contracts for one 20 year. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: So you need $8,400? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: I need at least $8,400. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. Well, I have it -- the 25 budget -- the money's there now to pay the $3,600, but we'll 8-22-03 wk 57 1 get the same bill next year. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: So, you're anticipating the 3 obligation for next year is just under $8,400? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's the same line 7 item, 564? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: 564. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which would bring the 10 total, then, to what? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: 84. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: $8,400. That's it. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: That's all? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Mm-hmm. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was easy. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: That's easy. What a guy. 17 Back to Commissioner 2. What else is on your list, 18 Commissioner? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing at the 20 moment, Judge. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Nothing at the moment. 22 Commissioner 3? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: First thing is the COLA 24 discussion. I mean, I think we're pretty much there, but I 25 want to make sure that we're including a 2.5 percent 8-22-03 wk 58 1 cost-of-living adjustment for all employees. Is that 2 understanding correct? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm certainly in 4 agreement with it. 5 (Commissioners Williams and Nicholson nodded.) 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The other issue -- 7 and I hate to bring it up, because it seems to be 8 contentious a little bit occasionally, but I'm confused. 9 I'm going back to the initial discussion -- or opening 10 remarks from the County Judge related to the $4,000 11 supplement and the $6,000 that's already there, and I 12 wish -- I wish somebody, whether it's the Auditor or the 13 Judge or Commissioner or someone else, could walk me through 14 what we did in '99, 'cause my memory -- I don't remember 15 exactly. And how that -- how we -- what I don't understand 16 on that is -- I know what we did -- is how authorizing a fee 17 and collecting a fee creates an obligation. I don't 18 understand that connection. I see that we're creating a 19 fund. I don't see how that fund -- having a fund creates an 20 obligation any more than when we collect for Law Library and 21 all these other fees that we collect. So, that's one issue. 22 The other issue is, I don't understand the -- 23 they're in the current County Judge budget this year, and 24 last year there was $6,000 under Mental Health. I'd like 25 someone to tell me where that money comes from and who it 8-22-03 wk 59 1 goes to, and then the $4,000 supplement, where that goes. 2 And I -- and I'm confused that a little bit, because the -- 3 the Judge made a comment -- I don't know. The Judge made, 4 in his opening remarks, some comments about he could 5 reshuffle the money, so to speak, and save money, which I 6 like the idea of saving money, but I don't understand the 7 reshuffling part of it. So, anyway, if someone could talk 8 me through that, I'll toss it open to whoever wants to make 9 a stab at making that crystal clear to me. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Should we call out for 11 supper now? Or -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want me to take a shot 13 at it? 14 MR. MOTLEY: I can give you a partial 15 explanation. I don't know that -- and I think probably 16 Tommy may need to step in, and I stand to be corrected on my 17 recollection of what happened. The Mental Health Code 18 allows a particular fee to be charged in any mental health 19 case that the judge hears. And -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only the Judge? 21 MR. MOTLEY: No, no, this Judge. The judge 22 that hears the commitments. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But does it have to be 24 the County Judge, or could it be any judge in the county? 25 MR. MOTLEY: It could be -- in this case, 8-22-03 wk 60 1 only Judge Tinley or Judge Brown has this authority to hear 2 the commitment cases. The hearings on Application to 3 Provide Inpatient Mental Health Services, okay? One of the 4 fees that is allowed -- okay, I'm going to wait for y'all. 5 One of the fees that's allowed is specifically a salary 6 supplement -- and I'm winging this, 'cause I don't have my 7 book in front of me -- a salary supplement in a reasonable 8 amount to be set by the Commissioners Court. In 1999, I 9 went with the then chief mental health clerk, and we counted 10 the number of cases heard by the County Judge the year 11 before, and I believe it was in the neighborhood of 580 12 cases. So, we proposed to the Court at that time a 13 reasonable fee per case would be $10, and estimated $5,800; 14 basically, rounded that up to $6,000. Okay? That's where 15 that came from. That fund should be spent for that judge's 16 salary supplement. That's what it's for, and as I see it, 17 it's for nothing else. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it -- but -- and it's 19 in no way tied to the state supplement? The other -- 20 MR. MOTLEY: No, not at all. Totally 21 unrelated. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 23 MR. MOTLEY: It is a salary supplement for 24 hearing mental health cases in a reasonable amount set by 25 the Court. They set it at $10 per case that year. And I 8-22-03 wk 61 1 may be mistaken, but that may be tied to the fact that 2 they're heard at a place other than the County Courthouse. 3 And I'm not sure about that, okay? But, in any event, it 4 allows that to be paid. It's estimated at $6,000. That was 5 put in the budget at that time. I think that's where the 6 $6,000 came from. At that time -- again, that's to the best 7 of my recollection. We currently serve -- our cachement 8 area is 28 counties, meaning this hospital takes patients 9 from 28 counties. We have contracts with each county to 10 provide services for them, and in each contract is that $10 11 fee for this particular type of hearing, okay? About 12 80 percent of the cases heard out there, approximately, are 13 out-of-county residents, and about 20 percent are Kerr 14 County residents. This is plus or minus. So, it has been 15 provided for and been paid over the year as part of court 16 costs from those counties. They're responsible for people 17 that are residents of their counties sent over here for 18 mental health treatment, and we bill them, and I don't know 19 how the collections run. I think collections are running 20 pretty good. I think we're getting paid. 21 Okay. So, this year, -- well let me say, 22 back then, we had our cachement area, but we also had an 23 agreement with San Antonio State Hospital to do their 24 cachement area for certain geriatric patients. So, in 25 addition to our 28 counties, we had approximately 50 more 8-22-03 wk 62 1 counties, so we had 78 counties, but those additional 2 counties didn't have the same level or rate of cases coming 3 in, or a lower rate, but we were doing substantially more 4 hearings back then than we're doing now. Now the rate -- 5 yearly estimate is approximately 400 cases, rather than 600 6 cases. About 400. So, you take $10 a case times 400, it's 7 $4,000, and that's where the $4,000 comes from. It's not on 8 top of the 600; it's a revised -- I mean 6,000. It's a 9 revised figure for the 6,000. The 6,000, as I understand 10 it, was never paid as additional salary to the County Judge, 11 but was instead the source of funds used to pay the J.P.'s 12 for conducting a different type of hearing, a probable cause 13 hearing, which they conduct -- each one does it a month at a 14 time and they rotate. At one point in time, we had each 15 J.P. -- four J.P.'s taking one slot, and they did it three 16 times a year. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that legal? 18 MR. MOTLEY: I -- I have not researched 19 whether or not it's legal. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only reason I asked 21 that is because you made the statement earlier, the fee was 22 supposed to be used for one purpose. 23 MR. MOTLEY: I said that's my belief, that 24 the fee is -- but the four J.P.'s, each one had three months 25 a year. 8-22-03 wk 63 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 2 MR. MOTLEY: They each received -- each of 3 the four received $1,500. And at one point, and I don't 4 know when, J.P. 1 decided that he did not want to do the 5 hearings out there any longer, and so each of the remaining 6 three J.P.'s divided his time up, and they each have four 7 months a year, and that $6,000 is now distributed, $500 a 8 month; they each get $2,000. So, $2,000 times three is 9 $6,000. It was $1,500 times four is $6,000. And that's 10 where that money, I believe -- again, I may need help from 11 Tommy on this. I believe that was the source of the funds 12 for the J.P.'s. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 14 MR. MOTLEY: Does that help? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's probably one of 16 the clearest explanations you've ever given, and I 17 appreciate it. That's good. 18 MR. MOTLEY: Do you want me to jazz it up? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know whether it's 20 accurate or not, but it's good. 21 MR. MOTLEY: This is my belief, and a lot of 22 this is historical recollection, and I -- you know -- 23 JUDGE WRIGHT: I'd like to add one thing to 24 that. When Judge Stacy had this, he did probable cause and 25 did the same hearings that Judge Tinley's doing. He went to 8-22-03 wk 64 1 Austin and had us appointed magistrates or masters to handle 2 this, the probable cause only, at the State Hospital. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Tommy, assuming 4 all of this is correct, why does the $6,000 supplement show 5 up in the County Judge's budget, as opposed to the J.P.s' 6 budget? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it's in the County 8 Court's budget. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're right, okay. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: So I think it logically goes 11 -- since it's a county hearing, it goes in the County -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, you're right. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: -- County Court. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it doesn't -- okay, 15 just a wrong assumption on my part. 16 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Excuse me. My 17 understanding -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand it right 19 now, Vance. If you go much further -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm glad you do, 21 'cause I don't. 22 JUDGE ELLIOTT: If there is a -- if counties 23 are paying Kerr County to perform these hearings -- and I 24 think, like Judge Wright has said, and I -- I talked with 25 the previous County Judge, who stated that, yes, at some 8-22-03 wk 65 1 point that County Judge, at that time years ago, decided, "I 2 really don't want to go out and do the probable cause 3 hearings, so I can pay magistrates to do that for me." And 4 so the other -- the J.P.'s of -- the other three performed 5 that magistrate duty, probable cause hearings, and the 6 County Judge does the other hearings. So, there's a lump 7 sum of money that comes in from the other counties, and the 8 County Judge has a -- I think a mental hearing supplement of 9 9,000-something in his budget right now. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, wait, wait, wait. 11 Tommy? I don't see -- I don't see 9,000 anywhere. 12 MS. NEMEC: 9,479. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where is it? 14 MS. NEMEC: 10-426. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, it's under the 16 official salaries; not a supplement, just the salary for -- 17 okay. 18 JUDGE ELLIOTT: But there's -- I guess the -- 19 the salary supplements are -- it shows something, 40 -- 20 whatever the thousand is for salary. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's elected official 22 salary. 23 JUDGE ELLIOTT: $10,000 state supplement. 24 Then there's 9,000 with a star that says, "State Hospital 25 Hearings." 8-22-03 wk 66 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I can't -- I 2 mean -- okay. What I'm looking at, Fund 426-101, it's 3 Elected Official Salary; it's 9,479. Then there's a state 4 supplement under the County Judge's -- you know, and those 5 are two different things. I mean -- 6 JUDGE ELLIOTT: What is that 9,000? Where is 7 that $9,000 coming from, Commissioner Letz? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: I know why that's there. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Tommy? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, when -- when Judge 12 Edwards was -- was County Judge, the -- the last year in 13 office, there was -- no one ran for the County Judge's 14 position that was an attorney, so in the budget process, his 15 feeling was that -- that the County would have to hire some 16 -- on occasion, some attorney-qualified people to go to do 17 hearings at the State Hospital. So, part of the salary of 18 the County Judge was placed in that -- in the County Court's 19 budget for that purpose, for the judicial function of the 20 County Judge, whereas the County Judge has -- wears two 21 hats. He's -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: He's judicial and 24 administrative. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 8-22-03 wk 67 1 MR. TOMLINSON: So, in that budget process, 2 the judicial part was moved to the County Court. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- I mean, and 4 I -- I'm beginning to understand it, and I'd probably ask -- 5 you know, it appears to me that what the Judge is doing is 6 trying to get all the cards on the table, and one of the 7 things that I've liked -- you know, or tried to do as a 8 Commissioner is try to make clear what people are really 9 paid. And I think changes need to be made on these two 10 pages, in my mind. To me, I don't know why the elected -- 11 maybe I'm wrong, but why Elected Official under the County 12 Court can't be included back on the County Judge page. Why 13 does have it to be separated out? 'Cause I think it's clear 14 to the public -- that's all I'm thinking about; it's clear 15 to the public that the County Judge is making this salary, 16 you know. And if you add those two together, it certainly 17 is a lot clearer to the public. I think, further -- really, 18 that's it. Then the mental -- if you did that, this 19 simplifies it a lot. And then that mental health supplement 20 that goes to J.P.'s, I still have a question about the new 21 -- where the new $4,000 -- the $4,000 judicial supplement -- 22 426, that one. Why does that have to be a separate line 23 item than the $6,000? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me try and answer that. 25 Because the $6,000, which has been spent, I understood, from 8-22-03 wk 68 1 just regular county funds -- and that may be incorrect; I'm 2 not sure what funds it, other than just this County budget, 3 and it has for several years. Because this Court set a 4 judicial salary supplement fee for the judge who holds 5 temporary commitment hearings, extended commitment hearings, 6 and so forth in its order of 1999, by virtue of the 7 Commissioners Court setting that, that triggered another 8 provision in the Mental Health Code that says -- and I 9 believe it's Section 571.018 -- that says a judge who holds 10 hearings at locations other than the county courthouse is 11 entitled to additional compensation, as provided by Section 12 -- and then it refers back to this section where this was 13 set. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- but, I mean -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: So that's what mandates it. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think that's a -- 17 well, I mean, my personal feeling is -- and I think you and 18 I probably have a disagreement. I don't see that this 19 entitles you to any more than -- I mean, than I'm entitled 20 to reimbursement when I go to -- use my personal funds to go 21 to a convention or something and I get reimbursed. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I'll defer to the County 23 Attorney on that. He's our legal adviser. 24 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I think that the 25 obligation -- it says it's, you know, additional -- that 8-22-03 wk 69 1 money is to be spent as additional salary. It may be that 2 the answer -- and I think Judge Tinley referred to it in his 3 opening statement. One way, maybe, to fix it is just to 4 undo the $10 order, do away with it. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 6 MR. MOTLEY: If it's not there, then the 7 County Commissioners Court has not set a reasonable sum to 8 be collected in each case. It would go to zero. We take it 9 out of the contract; we quit collecting it. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think another 11 option would be -- and this is -- you know, I think -- I'm 12 not trying to take away $4,000 from the Judge, but if we can 13 -- I mean, I'm all in favor of getting other counties to pay 14 our Judge's salary, but I also think that it is still -- it 15 is a salary increase unless there is a reduction in your -- 16 in the County Judge's salary, or in the -- the judicial 17 portion of your salary of a like amount. 18 MR. MOTLEY: But it does say that it is a 19 supplement. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but you can still 21 reduce the salary. We set the salary every year, and it 22 still can be a supplement. I mean, the -- the net is the 23 same then, and it's not a salary increase. It is still an 24 increase, 'cause we're collecting the fee now and it's going 25 to -- somewhere into our -- into the County budget. 8-22-03 wk 70 1 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Thank you. I think the issue 2 is, the -- the counties -- other counties pay Kerr County 3 for this service. All of that money goes into the general 4 revenue funds, so I think it's a great idea that we have the 5 fee. But out of that fund, the money is paid already -- a 6 supplement is already being paid to the County Judge for 7 hearings, and out of those funds are -- are the compensation 8 -- the supplement for J.P.'s were going out for the 9 temporary -- probable cause hearings. And if there's money 10 left over, then very good for Kerr County and the taxpayers. 11 They don't have to -- that offsets other costs. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think there's a 13 supplement; I disagree with that. I don't think there's a 14 supplement to the County Judge. The -- one second. The 15 Judge is -- gets -- what you're calling a supplement is part 16 of the -- it's -- it's dividing his salary. We're dividing 17 the -- the Judge's salary into two -- two line items, 18 essentially, and you're calling it a supplement. It's not a 19 supplement. 20 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Okay. So we have -- we have 21 a salary for the County Judge. We have a -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which has two components. 23 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Okay. And we have a state 24 supplement, and then we have a $9,000 something. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You have a salary of the 8-22-03 wk 71 1 County Judge, which is made up of 30 -- well, this year is 2 39,673 and 9,479. Those two numbers are the County Judge's 3 salary. 4 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Where's that 9,000 coming 5 from? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tax dollars. 7 JUDGE ELLIOTT: No state hearings? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. Tommy just said yes, 9 tax dollars. 10 MR. MOTLEY: It's general funds. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: General funds. 12 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Okay. Where are the -- where 13 are the fees coming from the other counties? They're going 14 in the general revenue funds. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Right, I agree. 16 JUDGE ELLIOTT: And that helps fund that -- 17 that supplement. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- 19 MR. MOTLEY: The fees are $6,000. The -- the 20 thing he's calling the salary supplement, $9,000, is 21 something different. The fees are only generating six -- by 22 the way, I didn't say, but it's dropped to 4,000, or 400 23 hearings, because we no longer have the agreement with SASH; 24 we're not doing those extra 50 counties. That's why it's 25 dropped. And that's been for some time. 8-22-03 wk 72 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Dave? 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can anybody answer 3 this question? I'm -- I'm thinking that the legislation 4 that enabled us to assess and collect this fee specified 5 that it go -- went as a salary supplement for the presiding 6 judge. Does that bar us from putting that money into the 7 General Fund? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't -- well, 9 I guess -- 10 MR. MOTLEY: I think it bars us from spending 11 it for something else, perhaps, so it might ought to be 12 earmarked or something, or have a separate -- I don't know, 13 an account or something, however that's done. However 14 Barbara does that. I think it's earmarked, but my 15 understanding is it's spent -- the Judge has not -- I don't 16 believe this Judge or the previous Judge ever collected that 17 $6,000 as salary; I don't believe it ever happened. We paid 18 the J.P.'s. And what Tommy had said is that the original 19 salary of that Judge was split out for judicial and 20 administrative or nonjudicial functions. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 22 MR. MOTLEY: That 9,000-something is -- is 23 actual salary, but in a different budget, okay? Not another 24 line item, just a separate budget. There's two budgets. I 25 don't mean -- 8-22-03 wk 73 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I understand what 2 you're saying. 3 MR. MOTLEY: Departmental budget is what I'm 4 trying to say. That 9,000, I don't believe, is funded by 5 any fee from the State Hospital. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 7 MR. MOTLEY: There is -- okay, I don't want 8 to confuse you, but there is also a $50-per-hearing fee that 9 does not go to the Judge; it is assessed as a fee to be paid 10 as general court costs. That does go into the General Fund 11 on each case, but the Judge hears -- it's for his services. 12 A $50 fee is assessed for my services also. There's a 13 prosecutor fee and a judicial hearing fee. Those are 14 separate. They go into the General Fund, and they're not 15 earmarked for salary or anything. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think -- this 17 is my final word on it until we make a decision what we do 18 with this and move on, is that I agree -- to me, it sounds 19 like that fund, this $10, needs to be used for the County 20 Judge. But that doesn't -- but I also think that we can 21 look at all of the salary supplements and whatever the 22 County Judge gets, and come to a decision what the County 23 Judge should be making. I mean, I think it's -- you know, 24 whether -- it's still money in his pocket, and if we can get 25 it from someone else, make them pay it, great. But I think 8-22-03 wk 74 1 we have the ability to -- to look at the big picture. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: From a business standpoint, 3 any time you can get money to discharge your own obligations 4 from somebody else, I -- I think it's -- unless there are 5 too many strings attached, I think it's crazy not to do it. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I mean, I 7 think -- no problem with that. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, David, let me -- 9 MR. MOTLEY: I have one more thing. The 10 $9,000, that was separate. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 12 MR. MOTLEY: Last year, I believe the Court 13 determined in the budget process at some point that that was 14 fee-based. I don't know if you recall what I'm talking 15 about, but I believe there was a question about equalizing 16 salaries of all the elected officials and averaging the 17 different officials' salaries -- or comparing the salary to 18 the average for target counties. I don't know if you 19 recall -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I remember that, and 21 I'm -- I've never liked the idea of splitting salaries up, 22 'cause I -- 'cause I think you lose them. You lose track. 23 MR. MOTLEY: I'm saying there was $9,000 that 24 was in this separate budget that was not averaged in with 25 the County Judge's salary when we were comparing to other 8-22-03 wk 75 1 salaries, and so there was a raise afforded because he was 2 under -- using only the salary for the one item, but not 3 using the 9,000. There was a raise afforded, and the $9,000 4 he continued to get, but it was determined to be fee-based, 5 is my understanding. I don't know if that's true or not. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that probably 7 very well could be true. But I think that also, to me, is 8 like a shell game, and I probably went along with it rather 9 than argue at the time. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the $9,000 -- do 11 those funds come from the $50 we collect for each one of 12 these hearings for out-of-county? 13 MR. MOTLEY: You can say that. Because that 14 -- that $50 for the Judge is a judicial service fee, is what 15 we call it in drafting the contract, to be paid in every 16 case, and it goes into -- it is collected as a fee -- it's 17 collected as a fee for the Judge's services, but it goes 18 into the General Fund, is my understanding. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But it comes from 20 other counties? 21 MR. MOTLEY: Well, however many -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hearings for people 23 from other counties? 24 MR. MOTLEY: 80 percent, approximately, the 25 out-of-county people. 20 percent is Kerr County people, so 8-22-03 wk 76 1 80 percent. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 3 MR. MOTLEY: Well, actually, what I'm saying 4 is Kerr County, but it doesn't pay itself. But the other -- 5 the counties representing 80 percent of the population out 6 there pay those $50 fees, or, you know, we've done them or 7 something. They pay $50 for the Judge's services in every 8 case, and I think it goes into general funds to be used for 9 whatever. It's not specifically earmarked, as I understand 10 it, for judicial supplement -- salary supplement. The other 11 -- the $10 is an amount set by the Court. And, again, the 12 estimate of the number of cases to be heard and then 13 allocated in the budget, to be reimbursed by that 14 $10-per-case fee, is my understanding. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think I understand. 16 MR. MOTLEY: Hope so. Buster, you had -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The $10 is the 1999 18 order? 19 MR. MOTLEY: Yes. And there was not an order 20 in place before that -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. 22 MR. MOTLEY: -- to allow a $10 fee. That was 23 the first year it was done. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, my question is, it 25 appears to me that we -- what I'm hearing you say is that we 8-22-03 wk 77 1 only have, really, two options to deal with that. One is 2 give it to the Judge like it's intended -- what it was 3 designed to do, or rescind the '99 court order and just do 4 not charge the $10 any longer. Or -- 5 MR. MOTLEY: Again, I said a moment ago, I've 6 not specifically researched that, and I don't know that 7 there is case authority or general authority out there to 8 support what you're saying. In other words, that it is 9 limited only to that use. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 11 MR. MOTLEY: It says it is a salary 12 supplement, to be used as a salary supplement. And I -- you 13 know, you use the plain reading of the statute for that, 14 which would seem -- it's earmarked for that now, I'm telling 15 you. 16 JUDGE ELLIOTT: They're used for some other 17 purpose. 18 MR. MOTLEY: I honestly have not researched 19 that; I don't know. Seems to me, if you read the statute -- 20 first rule of statute construction is to read what it says 21 in the plain reading of the statute, if it's plain. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. I read it. 23 MR. MOTLEY: The plain reading of the statute 24 is what it is. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so, since 1999 8-22-03 wk 78 1 through now, 2003, there's a possibility we've just been 2 doing -- doing it illegally. Possible. 3 MR. MOTLEY: I don't know about illegally. I 4 mean, you know, you act like everybody's going to get 5 dragged out in chains. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we've been 7 collecting the fee, and this has just been running over in 8 the General Fund and then disbursed -- we may be paying for 9 dogcatchers. 10 MR. MOTLEY: When you say "illegally," it may 11 have been done incorrectly or unintentionally. I don't 12 attribute any malice or any bad conduct toward the actions 13 that were done. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Certainly not 15 intentional. 16 MR. MOTLEY: No. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But possible. 18 MR. MOTLEY: I'm not aware -- I believe that 19 this is the source of the funds that we've been paying to 20 the J.P.'s, and not going to the Judge's salary supplement. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me approach this 22 from a different direction, then. Do you think that -- 23 let's pretend that we pull it back out of the Judge's salary 24 and just put it back like it's been functioning this whole 25 time. 8-22-03 wk 79 1 MR. MOTLEY: Zero it out, are you talking 2 about? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, just don't give it 4 to him; let it flow into the General Fund. 5 MR. MOTLEY: Well again, maybe -- and I don't 6 believe -- to tell you the truth, I don't know if the 7 issue's been visited since 1999. I think it's just rocked 8 along until right now. You know, are you saying it would be 9 okay to continue that after everybody is called -- it's 10 called to their attention that it does say a salary 11 supplement? Let me say, I don't know how illegal that would 12 be. I think it's against the clear mandate of the statute. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 14 MR. MOTLEY: I mean, I think that's what it 15 says it's for. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I -- and I think 17 it would be foolish on our part to rescind that order, not 18 collect that $10, regardless of what we use it for. That -- 19 that's an option that's out the window, far as I'm 20 concerned. Rescind an order. We need to get that $10. And 21 if it -- 22 JUDGE ELLIOTT: I got a question. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute, I am 24 right in the middle of a sentence. 25 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Oh, I didn't hear you. 8-22-03 wk 80 1 Excuse me. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we collect -- and 3 then the law says that it is intended for supplement for the 4 County Judge, or that -- that person that goes out and does 5 the commitment hearing. 6 MR. MOTLEY: The commitment hearing, as 7 distinguished from probable cause or other types of hearing. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see what the 9 problem is. We can rescind the order or give him the money. 10 MR. MOTLEY: Maybe Judge Tinley -- or Judge 11 Brown has the same exact jurisdiction, and sort of as a 12 backup capacity, and he hears some of those cases as well. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What I want us to do 14 is just comply with the law. That's what I -- that's all 15 I'm interested in. I don't care how much money he makes or 16 you make, or nickels -- I'm not interested in that. That's 17 your -- that's your business. But I want us to comply with 18 the law. That's all I'm interested in. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Baldwin 20 said everything I would say, only better, so I just second 21 it. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Golly. 23 JUDGE ELLIOTT: I have a question regarding 24 the law. Maybe this is a question for David. What 25 difference does it make if -- if you want your -- if you've 8-22-03 wk 81 1 done salary surveys and you want your County Judge to make 2 $60,000, what difference does it make if you say he makes 56 3 salary and 4,000 supplement from this fund, or if he makes 4 $60,000? I mean, you can take the fee and put it in there 5 and say it's a $4,000 supplement and the salary's 56. It's 6 the same thing. You can still collect the fee and just have 7 the salary adjusted by the supplement. 8 MR. MOTLEY: I don't know if that's, per se, 9 a question for me, but I think Jonathan's already addressed 10 that. He's saying if you want to have -- the truth of the 11 matter is -- is that the Judge's salary's coming from 12 different pots. That's just the way it is. There's a 13 supplement, there's fees for this, there's that. It's not 14 all one check. And if you want to see the sources of these 15 funds, you can break them out. If you want to put it all 16 together and, say, if you want to reduce the salary of the 17 Judge to this and bump it up again by $4,000, I think you -- 18 basically, you've already addressed that. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- 20 MR. MOTLEY: Decide what the Judge is to be 21 paid and then, you know, figure it out accordingly. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the Court's got enough 23 information to know what their options are at this point. 24 It seems pretty clear to me. Commissioner 2, did you have 25 any more items you wanted to bring before -- excuse me, 3. 8-22-03 wk 82 1 We were over with 3. We already got through with you for 2 the time being, right? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the time being. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, I don't -- 5 I think -- I mean, I certainly have enough information. 6 And, I mean, at some point, we're going to need to figure 7 out what we're doing about your salary. We need to do it -- 8 you know, my preference would be to lower the salary and 9 give you the supplement. That's just what I'd like to do, 10 but everyone else can have their own opinion. We can vote 11 at some other time. I guess the -- I don't know how we're 12 going to go through the other thing on some of the 13 reclassifications. I mean, my view of those are, if 14 they're -- you know, we rely on Barbara for that. If people 15 are clearly doing jobs -- and I think the one -- probably 16 the easiest example is Rusty's secretary was misclassified. 17 I think those corrections need to be made. Beyond that, we 18 have had, I think, two requests to create new levels, I 19 guess, one in Road and Bridge and one in David's department, 20 I believe, and I'm not in favor of those. I mean, I think 21 if you do that, you just -- you're just kind of creeping 22 everything on up. I think that's -- you know, you need to 23 make salary adjustments or -- you can't pick and choose and 24 do it that way. I think we get ourselves into trouble. 25 And I think the final thing I have to say is, 8-22-03 wk 83 1 really, going back to -- and Rusty, listen carefully on this 2 one -- salary studies and surveys and all that. Since I've 3 been a Commissioner, I did a very extensive -- I shouldn't 4 say "I"; Thea did a very extensive survey at my request in 5 1997 that was updated in 2000 and modified, and then this 6 year I did a -- a different minor survey again, not as 7 extensive as the other two. And the Judge did one this 8 year. Those surveys are -- are good to look at. They're 9 good as a possible guide. But I don't -- unfortunately, you 10 can't compare any county or any department in the county to 11 another county's department. That just doesn't work very 12 well. The Judge used an example -- and I haven't talked 13 with the Judge about this, but I don't think -- let's pick 14 on the Sheriff. He said he wasn't picking on the Sheriff, 15 just pointing out a discrepancy in budget in similar-size 16 counties. 17 I don't know that much about Lamar County, so 18 I don't put a whole lot of weight -- yeah, it's a good thing 19 to look at. You think about that. I think about Cherokee; 20 I think Bastrop County, Hood County, those are all fairly 21 comparable counties to Kerr, so I don't -- I don't -- you 22 know, beyond if it's interesting, you have to look at the 23 specific needs of each county and the situations. From a 24 law enforcement standpoint, you have, you know, number of 25 county road miles, you have interstates, you have other 8-22-03 wk 84 1 state and -- you know, highways. You have proximity to 2 metropolitan areas, you have size of cities within the 3 county, distribution of cities in the county. There's so 4 many things that go into the mix in law enforcement, you 5 know, I take what the Judge said as purely a -- as an 6 example, and nothing more. Illustrates that you need to -- 7 it's helpful to look at other indices when we're making our 8 decision; I agree with that. 9 And, you know, I hope that, you know, we 10 don't get onto the Sheriff, you know, 'cause he made -- 11 earlier made a comment, he wants to address that. I didn't 12 take -- and I don't -- I hope no one else took that as being 13 critical of the Sheriff, of our Sheriff's Department. It 14 was just a -- a statement that there are differences, and we 15 need to look at these other indices. And I hope the Sheriff 16 doesn't come back and try to explain -- you know, talk about 17 all the differences and all this. I think we'd just get 18 into a meaningless discussion on that point. So, I think, 19 you know, beyond that -- with that said, that's it for me. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree with you, 21 Jonathan. There are a couple of issues, and -- and I agree, 22 that's exactly what it is. And I -- my whole feelings on 23 all of this is, you can't compare other counties to 24 counties. Because Lamar, according to the Sheriff up there, 25 is probably the worst one to use for comparison; that county 8-22-03 wk 85 1 has two deputies working on patrol. I don't think any 2 citizen in this county wants us to drop our services down to 3 two patrol officers on duty at a time. They have over 4,000 4 outstanding arrest warrants because they have no warrant 5 officers, okay? You can go on and on. And I can make those 6 compare -- they only have one district court. We have a 7 bunch. They have five constables. I could compare it to 8 death, and it wouldn't help any of us resolve these issues. 9 But I don't believe that the citizens of Kerr County want us 10 to go to that type of service to them. I mean, y'all got 11 the authority to sign the bottom line, you know, and put the 12 money where it goes. And if that's what ends up, and I end 13 up cutting out all our deals, such as I have an officer 14 that's tied up working inmates in uniforms -- they're out 15 here mowing right now -- I think that's one of the biggest 16 benefits this County's ever seen in savings in dollars, 17 'cause that's something that we have tried strongly to do. 18 So, I think that cuts, you know -- and I 19 won't get into this. I will tell you if you compare Lamar 20 County to this county, they don't have a Road and Bridge 21 Department. They don't have that; Commissioners do that 22 work. But I won't go there. But one thing I would like to 23 say is, in this county, we have tried in the Sheriff's 24 Department -- you were talking about earlier getting 25 employees to be productive. I think this county has seen 8-22-03 wk 86 1 that drastically in the Sheriff's Department. I think 2 they've seen us cut inmate costs, meal costs drastically. 3 We went to an inmate phone system that has earned revenues 4 since I've been in office for this county so far of $52,000. 5 That's added to the county, okay? No other department can 6 do that. Inmate medical reimbursements that we try and 7 collect it back from the inmates through their commissary 8 accounts of $48,000, grants of $748,000, and out-of-county 9 housing of over $1 million. We have tried every way in the 10 world, and -- and some of these discussions that -- I don't 11 know how I'm going to deal with it with my department, 12 'cause some of these people that I have working for me are 13 going to say, "Look, we tried everything we can do to save 14 the County money, and they're up here slamming us." And 15 that's exactly the way the department's going to take it. 16 That's the way they're going to take those comments this 17 morning. "They don't want the services we provide." 18 Well, Jonathan, you've been at the community 19 meetings with me. I know Buster has. The community and the 20 citizens want those services. If they don't, let them call 21 me and tell me they don't. But I feel I have to provide and 22 I will provide, one way or another, somehow, the best law 23 enforcement that I know how to provide to these citizens. 24 And I appreciate the help from the Court, and they've always 25 given it. But this year -- and I'll sit down -- because 8-22-03 wk 87 1 this year, I feel like there's some members of this Court 2 that -- priorities went way away from law enforcement for 3 this county and went somewhere else, and I don't appreciate 4 that. I've given 23 years of my life to this county and law 5 enforcement, and I truly believe that that is a priority of 6 the citizens of this county. We don't need any more murders 7 like we had. And if I don't have the guys out there in the 8 cars working, we're going to have them, and we're ruining 9 everything in this county. And I'm passionate about that, 10 so I'll sit down before I get in trouble. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I'll just make a 12 little comment on that. I know you have one thing -- I said 13 I had one, but I'm like -- I think a former Commissioner 14 called me like Columbo; always have one more thing to bring 15 up. But -- 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Which one was that? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The former Commissioner? 18 Commissioner Griffin. He referred to me as Columbo one 19 time, as I recall. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, I think there's 22 a commitment to law enforcement on this Court, and I 23 certainly have it personally. I think Rusty's aware of 24 that. I think that the -- this Court, historically, as long 25 as I've been a Commissioner, has been very supportive of 8-22-03 wk 88 1 this Sheriff and law enforcement. I think if you look at 2 the -- the improvements made in that department in the last 3 six, seven years, I think it's phenomenal. The -- I think 4 if you look at our budget, it speaks for itself. We have 5 put a lot of money into law enforcement, and our Sheriff and 6 that department has done a great job utilizing that money. 7 And we have a -- I think probably one of the best, for our 8 size, law enforcement, you know, agencies around with our 9 Sheriff's Department, so I don't think there's any -- you 10 know, I'm just -- I'm still committed to law enforcement -- 11 Rusty, sit down. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, budget was one thing 13 I wanted to comment on. If you'll ask Tommy, all of our 14 grant money that we get goes into the budget line item as an 15 expenditure, which makes it look like our budget has 16 increased drastically, but it has not increased. That's 17 grant money revenues that come in that don't show as a 18 revenue in our budget. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know there's some of 20 that, but there -- we clearly have made improvements, both 21 -- I don't need to look at the chart; I remember the chart. 22 I mean, we have addressed deputies; we have added -- 23 upgraded the vehicles, we've added a -- a very expensive and 24 very needed communications system. So, I mean, I think 25 we've done a lot for law enforcement. I think we'll 8-22-03 wk 89 1 continue to do it. I think the -- our commitment to the 2 constables is a law enforcement commitment. It's not to the 3 Sheriff's Department, but what I've heard a lot at community 4 meetings is they want more visible constables, and I'm 5 pushing a little bit more that way. I think we're still 6 going to fund a lot of the requests; hope we fund a lot of 7 the requests that the Sheriff has. 8 My final -- I want to get off of law -- we're 9 just talking right now, and as I'm looking out there, I 10 glanced down and I saw Franklin earlier, and I saw him 11 again, and that brings up another item. County Engineer, I 12 think we do need to discuss a little bit. In the Judge's 13 proposed budget, it was brought up to look at privatizing 14 that position. The -- you know, I guess the first time that 15 I really was aware of that -- I looked through it; I knew 16 something was going on. I knew the Judge had a plan. First 17 time I really talked to the Judge about what his plan was 18 was, I guess, Wednesday this week, so I really wasn't aware 19 of what that plan was that you -- it was to privatize the 20 position. And I thought about it quite a bit. I think 21 there are some possibilities of that, and it may work. I 22 wish I would have -- this would have been brought to the 23 table three months ago. I do not think that there is time 24 now, at the 11th hour, to really try to figure out how we're 25 going to handle Subdivision Rules and Regulations, how we're 8-22-03 wk 90 1 going to handle the bunch that the County Attorney's 2 currently doing, how that's going to interact with the Road 3 Administrator, who's going to do the work if we make a major 4 change. That is a significant change in that department. I 5 just don't think we have time to really address it, and I 6 don't think we should make that discussion without having 7 the current County Engineer involved into what he's doing 8 and being involved in that discussion. 9 So, I do not -- I am not in favor of -- of 10 rushing and trying to make a change there in this budget 11 year. I think it's something that I would really like to 12 look at and study and, you know, have the homework done more 13 than -- or, you know, before I'm voting on the budget, and I 14 don't see that that can be done this year. So, you know, I 15 hope -- I would be in favor of tabling that, leaving it as 16 it is, and I think entering into a discussion with the Court 17 and the Road and Bridge Department as a whole as to what 18 this means. I think that there are -- are problems with the 19 current system, and I think there are -- you know, and I 20 definitely -- I see problems or questions if we make a 21 change right now. And I don't have the answer. I can't 22 support it unless I do have those answers. So, that's that 23 point. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that 25 point; I think it should be tabled. 8-22-03 wk 91 1 MR. JOHNSTON: I have a question. I don't 2 know if this is the time to have it out, or wait till 3 Monday. It's on the agenda this time to talk about it. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. 5 MR. JOHNSTON: I think the history of the 6 Road and Bridge Department was, back in 19 -- the late 7 '80's, '87, the County had a -- had an election to go to the 8 unitized road department system. I think they had two 9 elections, and they came up with that -- that type of 10 system. The road department consists of the Commissioners 11 Court -- there's four parts to it. Commissioners Court, who 12 sets the policy; the County Engineer, which is the chief 13 executive officer; there's other administrative personnel, 14 and then there's employees. I think that's the way it 15 reads. Question I would have is that, if you eliminate one 16 of those components; namely, the County Engineer, you're 17 essentially changing the unitized road system. You'd have 18 to go to some other type of road -- other type of system. 19 All the components wouldn't be there for that -- for that 20 type. Our current -- current Road Administrator is -- not 21 what the statute calls the -- the statutory Road 22 Administrator. He's just a veteran road administrator. And 23 I think it also says if you do change the type of road 24 system, you have to call for another county-wide election. 25 So, that's -- you know, I think we need to talk about, if we 8-22-03 wk 92 1 want to change the system, what we're going to change it to. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know what 3 we're going to change it to, but I know what we're not going 4 to change it back to. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Change it back and 6 you're going to have to have an election for Commissioners, 7 too. (Laughter.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Tommy's waving a flag out 9 there. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. If -- when I start to 11 massage the numbers again, we -- you know, the Court -- you 12 established that you wanted to see a 2 and a half percent 13 COLA, but there's a variable to that. Do you want to see it 14 with or without the longevity/education change in the 15 policy? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My view is, give a COLA 17 to everyone, then you give all other increases that they're 18 entitled to, such as longevity or educational, and then you 19 have the number. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think he's 23 asking -- I think we've agreed that we're going to abolish 24 the rule that you can't have a longevity and education in 25 the same year, can't have three in a row. I think we're -- 8-22-03 wk 93 1 so the next run should include -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What they're entitled 3 to. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- the date, the -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You give a COLA, then 6 everything else they're entitled to. That's their salary. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: That's -- that's what I mean. 8 I mean, I don't want to redo this. I mean, I want to do it 9 right the first time. And the next question is -- is an 10 issue that -- that the Treasurer brought up about death 11 benefit for -- through the retirement system. It's an 12 option with -- with the retirement system, and it's 2.6 13 cents. So, I'd like some direction as to whether or not 14 you'd like to see -- see that additional amount in the 15 preliminary -- preliminary numbers or not. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 2.6 cents? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it's 2 -- .26 percent. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: .0026. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, okay. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have a -- I mean, 21 are we talking $10,000? $50,000? $100,000? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Let's see. The 20 -- it 23 would be $2,600 per -- wait a minute. About $2,600 per 24 million. $2,600 per million dollars of payroll. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Per million dollars of 8-22-03 wk 94 1 payroll. I would think, yeah, include that. I think that's 2 a benefit -- it's small, but I think it's a benefit to the 3 employees, and I think it -- you know, since a lot of our 4 employees, you know, are not actually on the high end of the 5 pay scale, I think it certainly would be a benefit to me if 6 a disaster happens in the family. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that -- is that A.D.& D. or 8 is that just general death benefit? 9 MS. NEMEC: Really, it's just a general death 10 benefit. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: If it's A.D.& D., it's 12 probably not real cheap coverage. But if it's general -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's A.D.& D.? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Accidental death and 15 dismemberment. 16 MS. NEMEC: It doesn't say that it's A.D.& D. 17 I think it's just a death benefit. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Death benefit. It doesn't say 19 its A.D.& D. It's going to be a general, okay. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems like not a lot 21 of money for -- and it's -- in reality, it's not going to 22 help a whole lot, but it certainly could help an employee in 23 a serious situation. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It could help. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or a family. 8-22-03 wk 95 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Family, it very 2 definitely could help. I agree. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I've got a question on one 4 that you raised. You were talking about in a couple of 5 departments, they raised a grade. One, I believe, was Road 6 and Bridge. One was County Attorney. Is that correct? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, those are -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: That was the request. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No -- yeah, the request 10 was there. The ones that -- I'm going off memory. The ones 11 that I think is the Sheriff's secretary is misclassified. 12 There were some changes in both Linda's and Jannett's 13 department which are going to cause reclassifications. I'm 14 okay with those. The ones that I'm not sure about -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: There's some in the 16 Maintenance -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maintenance, yeah. Those 18 are the same type situation, I think. The ones that I'm -- 19 maybe -- and maybe it was the presenter that was the 20 problem, but it was the County Attorney and Road and Bridge. 21 Those two are the ones that stand out, that they were just, 22 you know, basically wanting to create a new position in our 23 schedule, being a classification 20. And I just -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think the County 25 Attorney was, and that's the reason I raised the question 8-22-03 wk 96 1 about if we were going to create a new -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: -- grade. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The County Attorney was 5 that the -- a lot of the other chief deputies got an 6 increase, and his -- and your chief assistant didn't, or 7 chief secretary. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: He wanted to go to a 19, I 9 think, on a par with some other chief deputy-type -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: -- situations. Now, I think 12 in the Road and Bridge instance you're talking about, the 13 optimum request was a 20. Isn't that -- isn't that -- 14 MR. JOHNSTON: I think a 19-6. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Wanted to 17 go to the 20, which doesn't exist. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, in an administrative -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: -- you're talking about. 23 Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I mean, I would -- 25 and, you know, I'm going to have to rely again on Barbara. 8-22-03 wk 97 1 She needs to talk to these people. 2 MS. NEMEC: I have a position schedule ready 3 on everything you've just said. I have a copy for all of 4 you, if you would like one. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, I think that now's 6 the time. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you want us to come 8 out there and get it? 9 MS. NEMEC: I have been holding on to these. 10 I'll be glad to get rid of them, if I may. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: In fairness to the Treasurer, 12 before we started this session, she gave me a heads-up. I 13 got it. I'm ready. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're ready. 15 MS. NEMEC: You're ready. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're ready. 17 MR. MOTLEY: Is that issue cleared up? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I'm sorry, I had 19 in my mind the wrong one. 20 MR. MOTLEY: But I would like to speak on it 21 if you need me to. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, not yet. 23 MR. MOTLEY: Well, okay. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quiet. 25 MS. NEMEC: That's one set. 8-22-03 wk 98 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which issue? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: His secretary down there. 3 MS. NEMEC: And there is another set. This 4 first set that's being passed around, what that reflects is 5 the -- the pay scale that's in place now, without the new 6 policy, being the new longevity and education policy, being 7 adopted. And then the 2 and a half percent COLA on top of 8 that. But I think what I'm hearing is that you've pretty 9 much decided that you are going to adopt the new revised 10 longevity and education step policy, and if that's being the 11 case, then you can just get rid of this. This was just so 12 you could compare. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Get rid of number 14 one? 15 MS. NEMEC: That's right. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you going to tell me which 17 one is number one first? 18 MS. NEMEC: Number one is the one with the 19 bigger print with less columns. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: The one with the bigger print 21 is old? 22 MS. NEMEC: That is what is in place now. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Present policy. 24 MS. NEMEC: Adding a 2 and a half percent 25 COLA to it. The other one that I passed out, the column 8-22-03 wk 99 1 that you see with the first group of numbers that are 2 highlighted, that is the salary for each employee as they 3 are now, with a longevity or educational step increase as 4 the policy stands now. The next column, where on the top it 5 says "REV PLL," that is -- those employees that have a step 6 and grade under that column, those are the employees that 7 are affected by the revised policy. And then I have 8 extended those amounts off under revised policy, and the 9 amounts. And then, of course, the last column is the 2 and 10 a half percent COLA added to that. On the first page, under 11 County Clerk's office, there was a position eliminated on 12 that position schedule, and then there were those -- I think 13 four merits that were given because of that position being 14 eliminated. 15 MS. PIEPER: That's correct. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 17 MS. NEMEC: On Page 2 in the District Clerk's 18 Office -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wait, wait, wait, 20 wait. What was the amount of the merit that was spread 21 among four people? 22 MS. PIEPER: It totaled to about $5,000. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Each? 24 MS. PIEPER: No, no, no. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Total. 8-22-03 wk 100 1 MS. PIEPER: Total. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. 3 MS. PIEPER: We gave back over $26,000, but I 4 kept -- and then kept about $5,000 to spread. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Pretty good trade. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 7 MS. NEMEC: Okay? On Page 12, under District 8 Clerk's office, you'll see there those two under the revised 9 policy, the 13-5 and the 13-4. 10 MS. UECKER: Barbara, you left one of the 11 13-4's off. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I can't hear you. 13 MS. NEMEC: What is her last name? 14 MS. UECKER: Sanchez. 15 MS. NEMEC: She's on there at 13-4. I have 16 her. Maybe that one doesn't have it, but mine reflects a 17 13-4 for her. 18 MS. UECKER: Okay. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: I've got her, 13-4. 20 MS. NEMEC: Yeah. So there were -- there was 21 a position there eliminated, and then those two employees 22 there received a merit increase due to that elimination of 23 that position. On Page 3, I just heard that the County 24 Attorney had wanted to increase that one position from a 25 17-7 to probably a 19? Is that what you were -- 8-22-03 wk 101 1 MR. MOTLEY: Well, yeah. That's the one he 2 spoke about. 3 MS. NEMEC: I would think that would be very 4 comparable to what the other departments have, because 5 everyone except for the J.P.'s have -- have positions of 6 19's in their departments, and those are the people that are 7 in charge of the departments. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 9 MS. NEMEC: So, that being the case, that 10 would change to a 19-7. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: 19-7? 12 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: And was there only -- okay. 14 And was there -- was there any other support staff, 15 Mr. Motley? 16 MR. MOTLEY: There was one other. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I was thinking there was 18 another one. 19 MR. MOTLEY: 15 to a 17, which was not 20 proposed for the same reasons. It was for additional 21 duties. And I told y'all I had not talked with Barbara 22 about this, but for additional duties, responsibilities, and 23 -- and, really, I suppose just overall work product. But it 24 doesn't carry a change in name, and I got to thinking about 25 it, and there -- there are several of these comparable 8-22-03 wk 102 1 positions, talking about the 17 to the 19 change, where it 2 goes up from a 17 to a 19 without a change in name. I mean, 3 an example might be -- like, a chief deputy clerk is still a 4 chief deputy clerk. And so -- 5 MS. NEMEC: I think his 17 is like the 6 Sheriff's 17; that it should have been a 19 to begin with, 7 all along. It doesn't have to be a reclassification. It's 8 just -- 9 MS. UECKER: I can explain that if you want 10 me to. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure we want you to. 12 MS. UECKER: Oh. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do. I do. I do. 14 MS. UECKER: Back when the Nash study was 15 done -- I know, I know, and I agree -- all of the chief 16 deputies were put at a 19. And in that -- no, they were all 17 made a 19. So -- but there was an appeal process, an appeal 18 board appointed that consisted of several elected officials, 19 if you had a problem with it. Mr. Odom's administrative 20 assistant, Nash did not put her at a 19. They put her at a 21 17, and they put Mr. Motley's at a 17. When it came time 22 for the appeal, Mr. Odom came -- and I was on that board, 23 and that's why I know that. I was on that panel, and we -- 24 we agreed with Mr. Odom that she should be a 19 along with 25 all other chief deputies. Mr. Motley failed to come and ask 8-22-03 wk 103 1 for his administrative assistant. I don't know if he didn't 2 know or what, but we would have put her at a 19 had he come. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you. 4 MS. UECKER: Because we compared those two 5 positions to the chief deputy. 6 MR. MOTLEY: Like I say, I don't know why I 7 wasn't there; I don't remember. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's -- 9 MS. PIEPER: I was on the panel as well. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's all your fault. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Was there a third support 12 personnel, Mr. Motley? 13 MR. MOTLEY: Well, there was two -- there was 14 an issue of the two assistants' salaries that I had brought 15 up. And that was, again -- I don't know if I should say the 16 "N" word or not, the Nash study. But what I was trying to 17 say is, I took the salary -- they recommended an entry level 18 for our entry-level attorney, and went up the COLA's in the 19 intervening years and came up with a salary, had Nash been 20 applied to it. At this time, I will say -- I was there 21 arguing for it each year. Had Nash been applied to the 22 assistants, the salary would be what I'm proposing today. 23 Two and a half percent COLA's in intervening years would be 24 what it is today. And I've gone every year; I've been 25 unsuccessful in previous years at getting that applied to 8-22-03 wk 104 1 those assistants. But one of the counties, for example, 2 Lamar County, pays entry-level attorneys -- and they have 3 four of them -- pays them $51,100. We are -- our entry 4 level is about $37,000. I'm -- I did want to raise those 5 salaries, and I've talked about it every year. So, that's 6 where that comes from. It's a whole different thing. And 7 it looks -- every year that passes, it looks like a bigger 8 number. But I'm just saying, I -- I don't know what to do 9 other than ask for it every year. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: 'Cause you keep adding the 2 11 and a half percent as you feel like. 12 MR. MOTLEY: That's what I did to get the 13 number I -- the number for this year. And it's -- I think 14 it comes to $43,600 entry level. Which is, again, 15 substantially lower than -- I'm not talking about just Lamar 16 County, but other counties that are comparable in size. I 17 know Guadalupe County is bigger than we are, but two years 18 ago they were paying $45,000 for entry level right out of 19 law school, and we're yet two years later under that. So, I 20 just don't think we're at parity or anywhere near it, even 21 with this increase, and I just think that the assistant 22 attorneys ought to be compensated accordingly. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My observation is 24 that it would be cost-effective to put these attorneys at 25 the salary levels he's recommending. I've seen turnover and 8-22-03 wk 105 1 seen good attorneys come in and not stay a whole long time. 2 Even at those levels, they're not going to be overpaid. I 3 think it be cost-effective; we'd reduce turnover, attract 4 good people, and in the long run, we'd be better off. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't disagree. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: The junior one is 43,6 7 according to the figures I have, and the senior one is 8 45,727 according to the figures. Is that 43,6 even, 9 Mr. Motley? 10 MR. MOTLEY: Yes, sir. And the other one -- 11 I'm trying to find where I wrote that down now. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I wrote it down and I 13 got 45,727. 14 MR. MOTLEY: That's right. And that's -- 15 what I had done actually for those is look at the original 16 difference between those two salaries in 1999, moved it up, 17 and then projected that difference today. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: You're just interpolating them 19 forward to the 2 and a half? 20 MR. MOTLEY: As best I could. One of those 21 is to do with longevity salary, which is not applicable now. 22 We're not -- we have longevity salary on Barbara's figures. 23 That would have been for Mr. Bonner, who is no longer here, 24 and Mr. Feary is not entitled to it. 25 MS. NEMEC: He is entitled to it under the 8-22-03 wk 106 1 new policy, however. 2 MR. MOTLEY: Wow. 3 MS. NEMEC: And the way I figured that, I had 4 to -- 5 MR. MOTLEY: Excuse me, I'll retract my -- 6 MS. NEMEC: Like him, for instance, Feary, 7 he's a 27-1 right now. And the way I had to figure all 8 these was I had to take a 27-1, multiply it by the number of 9 pay periods until their anniversary date, and I had to take 10 a set of 27, to multiply that by the remainder. So, when 11 you see a 27 on here, and then you look at the step and 12 grade schedule, the amount that's on here is not what a 27-2 13 is on the step and grade schedule, because I've had to -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Interpolate it. 15 MS. NEMEC: Right. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Mr. Motley, I got one 17 more question for you. 18 MR. MOTLEY: Yes, sir. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: On your support people, did we 20 have the support people adjustments -- we got -- we got the 21 19 accounted for. Is the only other one the third one 22 there? 23 MR. MOTLEY: The -- there is a 15 to a 17 24 proposed. So -- 25 JUDGE TINLEY: That's my question. That's my 8-22-03 wk 107 1 question. I don't think we've got it on here. 2 MR. MOTLEY: Oh, if it's in there? 3 MS. NEMEC: No, it's not on mine. I -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: No. 5 MR. MOTLEY: No, excuse me. I thought you 6 were talking about the figures that were in the budget. No, 7 it's not, I'm sorry. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: This is the one we're working 9 off of right now, and this is, I think, the one that the 10 Auditor's going to be working off of. 11 MS. NEMEC: And I gave all the department 12 heads/elected officials a copy of their perspective 13 department, so he has what you have. 14 MR. MOTLEY: No, I thought you were looking 15 at the other deal. No, it's not on here. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, let's get on the same 17 page, please. 18 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I'm going to just tell 19 you, I'm not exactly sure, but when I calculated for the 20 Court -- for the Judge on the budget, that was a net 21 difference of $2,329, so I don't know how that -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Which one are we taking to 23 which grade? And I bet you the Treasurer and the Auditor 24 can take it from there. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would welcome it. 8-22-03 wk 108 1 (Discussion off the record.) 2 MS. NEMEC: You're wanting to do the 15-3 to 3 a 17-3, David? Is that what you're asking for? 4 MR. MOTLEY: Yes, I think that's correct. 5 MS. NEMEC: That would mean a salary of 6 24,1 -- 24,757 with the longevity. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Which one are we talking 8 about? 9 MS. NEMEC: On the very bottom position 10 there, that's a 15-3. That 22,428 on the last column. That 11 would make it a 24,153, 17-3. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: That's 20 -- give me the 13 figure before we -- we apply the COLA to it. 14 MS. NEMEC: Okay. It's the -- it would be 20 15 -- okay, 24,153, a 17-3 before the COLA, and then a 17-3 16 with a COLA is 24,757. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see a 17-3. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Now, wait a minute. 17-3 with 19 a COLA? 20 MS. NEMEC: 17,3 with a COLA is $24,757. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: What is it before a COLA? 22 MS. NEMEC: Before the COLA, it's $24,153. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 24 MS. NEMEC: Do you see it on there, 25 Commissioner? 'Cause they're a 15-3 right now. 8-22-03 wk 109 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I understand. And 2 that's why I'm trying to make the correction. And that will 3 take it, with the COLA, to 24,757; is that what you're 4 telling me? 5 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. On that last position? 7 MS. NEMEC: Right. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 MS. NEMEC: So, with your permission, do I 10 make these changes to the position schedule? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we've got Maintenance 12 back here; we need to -- we got some -- 13 MS. NEMEC: We'll, I'm going page-by-page. 14 There are still other changes, but I'm talking about this 15 particular department. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before you leave the 17 page, I'd like to revisit the two -- the numbers for the two 18 assistant attorneys. 19 MS. NEMEC: Okay. What I have down for the 20 first assistant is $45,727, and for the second assistant, 21 $43,600. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Then, of course, the COLA will 24 come on top of that. Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, and the -- the 8-22-03 wk 110 1 last adjustment for the 15-3 to a 17-3. 2 MS. NEMEC: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's contingent on -- I 4 mean, we still have to look at the job description, make 5 sure that fits with the -- our policy. I mean, I just don't 6 want to arbitrarily -- 7 MS. NEMEC: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- toss it up. 9 (Discussion off the record.) 10 MS. NEMEC: And just looking at the person 11 that's in that position, I can pretty much tell you that 12 that is going to be in line with what they're doing. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a question 15 about process here. How did we get from talking about the 16 various things we wanted to do to doing a detailed salary -- 17 MS. NEMEC: We decided to leave the best for 18 last, Commissioner. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got more to say 20 about compensation that may -- could possibly change some of 21 this. 22 MS. UECKER: Yeah, you skipped him. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't believe -- I don't 25 believe I drug you into this. 8-22-03 wk 111 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause I brought it up. 2 I kept on rambling. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Let the record reflect that 4 we're going to blame this on Commissioner Letz. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: That might -- that's a 7 suggestion well-taken. We're stealing Commissioner 8 Nicholson's thunder down here, and probably don't want to do 9 that. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, some of the 11 things I've talked about in the past and we're talking about 12 now could have some impact on -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure do. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- compensation. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Can you -- can you hang tight 16 there for a minute? 17 MS. UECKER: Sit down. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Or we can go through 19 it; you can go back there. 20 (Discussion off the record.) 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Barbara, it's only me 22 they say "sit down" to. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you through, Commissioner 24 Letz, on your wish list? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm through. 8-22-03 wk 112 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't say it was a 3 wish list, but a discussion list. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Discussion list, thought 5 reminder, whatever it might be. Commissioner Nicholson? 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got my list 7 divided up into a "spend" list and a "cut" list. And I've 8 got three items on my spend list and nine on my cut list, so 9 I'll start with the spend list. 10 MS. UECKER: Talk closer to your mic; we 11 can't hear you. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't think this 13 microphone works, 'cause I'm talking pretty loud. I talked 14 earlier about a belief that -- that Kerr County ought to act 15 responsibly and not pay people less than the Medicare rate, 16 and I'm still touting that -- that policy change. And I 17 calculate it to be -- at a rate above the Medicare rate, our 18 minimum salary would be 20,812, so I'm proposing that 19 anybody that's paid less than 20,812 be raised to 20,812. 20 And I think the way that would probably work after that is 21 that they'd stay at that rate, just above Medicaid, until 22 promotions or longevity or education or something kicked in 23 and carried them beyond that. My best guess at what that 24 cost would be $120,000 a year, and that includes payroll 25 roll-up. So, I -- I wouldn't be far off, and wouldn't -- it 8-22-03 wk 113 1 wouldn't take Barbara long to calculate that. 2 The second item I've got on my spend list is 3 to -- to increase the compensation of Sheriff's officers and 4 jailers. We were talking earlier about surveys, and I -- I 5 agree a whole lot with what Commissioner Letz said. I like 6 surveys when they tend to prove up my biases, and then I 7 don't think quite as much of them when they -- when they 8 don't prove up my biases. When you think about what -- how 9 you want to pay -- really, what you need to pay a Sheriff's 10 officer or a jailer to -- to create an environment where 11 they can be productive and to reduce turnover and do all of 12 those things that could help you make an effective 13 organization, the -- the employment market we're looking at 14 is not a county next door to us, or certainly not a county 15 far away from us. 16 If you're a peace officer and you want to 17 work in Kerr County, you basically got two choices; you can 18 go work for the Sheriff's Office, or you can go to work for 19 the Kerrville Police Department. There's about a $4,000 20 difference in compensation you get if you had both of those 21 opportunities in-hand. That's ameliorated somewhat by the 22 fact that our deputies take a car home. That's a win-win, 23 in my view. That's good for the County. We've got more law 24 enforcement, more productivity because of it, but it's also 25 a perk to the officer. He may be able to be a one-car 8-22-03 wk 114 1 family instead of a two-car family. So that $4,000, I 2 think, is not a real number; it's something less than that, 3 and I think the Sheriff's got an idea what that perk is 4 worth. What I want to do is to -- and I'm going to invite 5 the Sheriff to help me with these numbers. I've got the -- 6 I've got the total numbers, but I don't have the details of 7 it. I want to raise the -- the Sheriff officers from entry 8 level patrol to a Sheriff office -- Sheriff himself to 9 compensation levels that are comparable to Kerr County. -- I 10 mean Kerrville. The cost of doing that in gross numbers, 11 including payroll rollup, would be 162,000 for the jail, and 12 a hundred -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jail -- 162 for the 14 jail? 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For the jail. 16 182,000 for the Sheriff's Office. 182,000 for the deputies, 17 plus $10,000 and change for the S.R.O.'s. So, this proposal 18 would propose increasing our payroll by $354,386. And, to 19 put that in perspective, that's a 1.48-cent tax increase 20 equivalent. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: 162 jail, 182 S.O., and 10,000 22 S.R.O.? 23 (Commissioner Nicholson nodded.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Now, the other thing 8-22-03 wk 115 1 I'd like to do is to create a -- a fund to grant merit 2 increases, and I'm proposing that -- that 10 percent of our 3 total employee population would be eligible for 4 consideration in that fund. That would be about 25 people. 5 That would be about 25 people if you -- if you implement the 6 cuts in staff that I'm going to recommend next. I think our 7 current population is about 264 people, so I'm proposing a 8 $25,000 fund to be used for granting merit increases. I 9 don't have a -- a process for doing that to propose to you, 10 but it wouldn't be difficult to create one. I would 11 envision that one of the factors in considering whether or 12 not we give certain individuals a merit increase would be 13 whether or not they were in an organization that had reduced 14 staff. It would also have to do with their individual 15 contribution and other factors. We've got a lot of smart 16 people here. They can figure out what kind of guidelines we 17 can use for that. 18 I'd like to move on to the cut list. I know 19 you'll want to talk some more about the spend list, but 20 they're related. The cut list -- on the cut list, I'd like 21 to see reductions in staff, and I'm relying somewhat on 22 the -- the survey of other counties. When I talk about the 23 market for Sheriff's deputies and jailers, being Kerr 24 County, there's no equivalent market for a -- a County Clerk 25 or a Tax Assessor/Collector. Those are -- those are jobs 8-22-03 wk 116 1 that you don't look to the marketplace to fill. So, what 2 I'm doing here is switching over and using another survey 3 technique, and that's the other county technique. I can see 4 from the survey data that we're generally staffed heavier 5 than counties of our size or area or population by -- by 6 most major. And I know most department heads and elected 7 officials are concerned about getting the same amount of 8 work done with fewer people, but also believe it can be 9 done. We could hire a consulting company and pay them 10 $10,000 a day, and they'd come in here and lead us by the 11 hand and show us how to do that, how to rearrange work and 12 do other things to -- to allow the work to be done by fewer 13 people. 14 Another good technique is ask people that are 15 doing the work, and they won't charge you anything. Usually 16 they've got good ideas, and they -- they would help us find 17 ways that we could reduce our staff. I've got some -- some 18 observations here about the kinds of numbers that could 19 occur from a staff reduction effort. And saying in advance 20 that I haven't given a whole lot of thought to it, and these 21 numbers could be -- I could be in the range or I could be 22 wrong about them. My -- my view is the Sheriff's Office 23 could cut by two, the County Clerk by one or two, the jail 24 by two to four, the Tax Assessor by two to four, Maintenance 25 by two to four. And that's a total of somewhere between 7 8-22-03 wk 117 1 and 14 reductions. And the value of making those reductions 2 would be about $300,000 if it were seven, and about a half 3 million if it were 14. That may be 9 to 16, instead -- I 4 said 7 to 14. It's 9 to 16. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Give me those numbers again. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For each individual 7 department? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And, again, this is 10 not a recommendation. This is just trying to reflect the 11 scope of such an effort. Sheriff's Office, two; County 12 Clerk, one to two; jail, two to four; Tax Assessor, two to 13 four; Maintenance, two to four, and that's a total of 9 to 14 16. That would reduce our cost between 300,000 and 500,000 15 a year. I don't have any information to -- and experience 16 to tell me what we could expect from the courts, but it 17 occurs to me that there's room for improvements in the 18 courts, likely, and that we should ask them to make an 19 effort to look at their staffing levels. We got a few more 20 items I just want to tick off here. We're going to -- we're 21 going to consider soon a plan to revise the contract with 22 the U.G.R.A. for the O.S.S.F., and that's going to raise our 23 costs quite a bit, I think from 30 to 67,000 or something 24 like that. 25 An option -- again, not a recommendation. It 8-22-03 wk 118 1 could be that we get that back someday, and that the cost 2 per permit for Kerr County are twice what they are in 3 Kimble, Gillespie, and Bandera. And, just using that data 4 only, it suggests to me that if we were doing that in county 5 government, we ought to be able to do it for twice what 6 Gillespie pays to do it; they're about half our size. That 7 would be $120,000 a year, and I think the -- the revenues 8 from fees is about $90,000. So, if we should ever take back 9 the O.S.S.F., there's -- there is a way to reduce our costs 10 by operating that ourselves. 11 I'm going to get back on social -- social 12 services again. There are -- there are five or six of them 13 in there, and I think I heard that some of them we're 14 required to fund or need to fund. Total of 28.5 thousand 15 dollars in there. I think we can find some -- I think we 16 ought to fund those at a certain level, or cut some of them 17 out. I think that's not a priority for county government. 18 At the risk of having to go through the mea culpa again, 19 social services that we're contributing funding now, as far 20 as I know, do good public service. I'm not critical of the 21 product they produce. I'm simply saying that I think it's 22 not a high priority for Kerr County to participate in it. 23 I'm going to say the same thing about the Ag Barn. I heard 24 a good presentation the other day. I believe they do good 25 work out there. No, no, not the Ag Barn, the Agricultural 8-22-03 wk 119 1 Extension. Ag Barn's next. 2 I'm convinced they do good work, and for a 3 small percentage of our population, there's some value added 4 there. I heard Commissioner Letz and others talk about it, 5 and I'm convinced they're -- they provide a good product. 6 Again, I don't think that product is a high priority for 7 county government, and I propose not to fund them and save 8 $130,000. Sometime in this process, we're going to have to 9 deal with the Ag Barn; each of us acknowledged that 10 recently. It costs us $200,000 a year. It's used, again, 11 by a very small percentage of our population. I'd like to 12 do something with that to put it on a -- a self-funding 13 basis. Give it away, do whatever we can to avoid that 14 $200,000 a year in costs. I want to talk about the Law 15 Library. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Excuse me, I was dividing 17 paper. What was the recommendation? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: To -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Give it away. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- make the Ag Barn 21 self-funding or give it away or do something to eliminate 22 that $200,000-a-year cost. Law Library. I've talked to -- 23 it costs $40,000 a year. I've talked to people I know in 24 the legal community, and I'm told that while law offices, 25 whether they're small ones or large ones, used to spend a 8-22-03 wk 120 1 whole lot of money keeping their Law Library up to date, and 2 that's a -- the trend is to get away from that. The law 3 libraries are becoming obsolete; that you can do almost all 4 the research you need to do in law on the internet, and most 5 of that's free. And you can punch a button and download it; 6 you got a copy of it, and I'm proposing to abolish the Law 7 Library, save $40,000 a year. 8 Alternative Dispute Resolution costs $33,000. 9 I'd like to find a way to fund that through fees. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It is. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: It already is funded through 12 fees. That's the only thing -- 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And fees are 14 $33,000? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a designated fee. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Scratch that. 17 That's what you get when you get a rookie Commissioner. 18 MS. UECKER: I think the Law Library is the 19 same thing, plus it's -- the public uses the Law Library 20 more than the attorneys do. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's turn to 22 libraries, then. I'd like to cut the -- I think we're 23 paying $397,000 to the -- to the public library. Same 24 thing, that even though they can produce data that show 25 their traffic count is high and continues to increase, I 8-22-03 wk 121 1 don't think it's for the traditional library services. It's 2 for things like getting your income tax prepared, variety of 3 different services. I'd like to take the first step toward 4 reducing that to a reasonable level, and propose that we 5 make a 15 percent cut; be $60,000 less costs for this. 6 That's it. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that all? 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I don't know 9 about Juvenile Probation, but looks like it could be -- I'm 10 sorry. That's why I said I don't know about that. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You've given the press a 12 lot of headlines. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You think it'll take 14 their attention away from that salary supplement? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Actually, I applaud your 16 new thinking. I mean, I think that a lot of these -- I 17 don't know that I agree with you on all of them, but, I 18 mean, I think you're really looking at where county 19 government should spend their money. And I guess it kind of 20 goes in the same -- the same discussion; even though I was 21 aware of your feelings on a lot of these issues, that we're 22 running out of time to really look at a lot of these this 23 year. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Speaking of time, I think we 25 probably need to take a 10-, 15-minute recess here. We'll 8-22-03 wk 122 1 let the court reporter kind of take a break, and everybody 2 else that needs to. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Judge? After listening to 4 Commissioner 4's suggestions, if you get a tax rollback, 5 those ideas will become a reality. (Laughter.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll stand in recess. 7 (Recess taken from 3:00 p.m. to 3:19 p.m.) 8 - - - - - - - - - - 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We will come back to 10 order. We are back in session on the Commissioners Court 11 budget workshop. I believe when we went into recess -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We were in a state of 13 shock. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: -- we were trying to count the 15 bodies on the floor from Commissioner Nicholson's automatic 16 weapons fire. Do you have anything else to add, 17 Commissioner Nicholson? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just one thing. The 19 total of the spend list would cost a total of $495,000, and 20 the cut list would total something just less than a million 21 dollars. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, on 23 that, is that -- does that include the 120 that you talked 24 about for bringing anyone less than -- 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 8-22-03 wk 123 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh? 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir, 120 for 3 the living wage and 350 for the Sheriff's office and jail, 4 25 for the merit increases. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, 25. I had that 6 wrong. Okay, I thought you said 125. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question I have on the -- 8 getting everyone up to a minimum salary level. And I -- I 9 certainly have no problem with the concept, but what I have 10 a problem with, unless I misunderstood what you said, is 11 that all of a sudden, you're going to have people that are 12 still making $20,800 right now. Well, it's not fair to 13 those people who have worked hard and gotten themselves to a 14 level, to not increase them too. And, I mean, because 15 they're doing proportionately more -- have more 16 responsibility, more experience or whatever, and I don't 17 think you can just bring the bottom up. If you do something 18 like that, you've got to basically move the entire scale up 19 to the same amount. Otherwise, you have inequities. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There would be 21 compression. Compression at the bottom. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you also have 23 to address elected officials' salaries. You have to address 24 the chief deputies' salaries, because then the pressure 25 comes up big time and hits some of those folks, too. 8-22-03 wk 124 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a 2 consequence. You have to do it. It exists in the private 3 sector, too. As starting salaries for engineers go up, you 4 bring in a new one and he or she is making more than the one 5 you hired last year. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think the -- the 8 consequences of -- of leaving our employees at salary levels 9 that are below Medicaid are more serious than the 10 consequences of compression. I would -- I would suffer 11 those consequences. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Clearly a policy decision, 13 then, is what you're saying. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Everybody knows 15 you're not going to get rich working for the County, but 16 paying -- paying people so little that they're struggling to 17 keep the family together is something we need to deal with. 18 And not all of them are doing it. Some of them are working 19 two jobs or three. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I support the 21 concept. Question is, where do we get the money? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I -- but I'll -- 23 probably one of the -- or the last thing I'm going to say 24 for a little bit is, I appreciate the fact that, while you 25 have increases, you also have cuts that pay for those 8-22-03 wk 125 1 increases. And I think those are -- and you've put it on 2 the table, some -- you know, some hard decisions that -- 3 and, as an example, funding the library. You know, if we 4 were -- and I'm, you know, not proposing we do this, but if 5 you cut funding 100 percent to the public library, we can do 6 a large part of your list. That one item. And is it more 7 important to the county residents to have, you know, better 8 county services? You're going to get better people if you 9 pay more. Or to have that library open? And that's a 10 tough, you know, call. You hear people on both sides. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I only have one 12 observation. If you think you had a crowd for septic rules 13 upstairs that was -- was testy, wait till you see the crowd 14 when you cut the library. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could be. But -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wonder what the 17 names are of the four that Rusty's going to cut. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Four or six? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was two to four out 20 of the jail, and two out of the S.O. 21 JUDGE WRIGHT: Gentlemen, when I got to the 22 jail this morning, there were three people working, two at 23 the hospital. I've got to go back and see Mr. Seard. That 24 means one's going to go back there with me. I don't want to 25 be drug through that hole, because I just got one person to 8-22-03 wk 126 1 pull me back out. You start cutting people over at the 2 jail, and you're not only putting their lives in jeopardy; 3 you're putting ours in jeopardy too. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Here's what we're 5 looking at, the data we're looking at on that. Hood 6 County's got 192 beds and 32 jailers. Lamar's got 196 beds 7 and 35 jailers. We've got 192 beds and 37 jailers, so we're 8 five -- five over Hood and two over Lamar. Same size 9 facility. 10 JUDGE WRIGHT: That doesn't change the fact 11 that there were three there this morning to run the whole 12 jail, and I needed one of those for magistration. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think from a 14 budget standpoint right now -- and I sincerely appreciate 15 what Commissioner Nicholson put on the table, but I think 16 for a lot of this, we don't have time to really address it 17 this year. I think it is a -- a direction that the County 18 may -- you know, may or may not want to go, or the 19 Commissioners Court may or may not want to go. I think it's 20 really looking at reducing some staff, increasing the salary 21 of the remaining staff, and, you know, possibly cutting 22 funds, some things that we traditionally have funded. But I 23 don't think that -- with it being close to the last week of 24 August, that we have time to really look at a lot of this 25 stuff this year. I think it's a good thing to bring it to 8-22-03 wk 127 1 the table to look at next year. Hopefully, these items will 2 not be shelved until next August; hopefully they'll be on 3 the agenda during the year so we can deal with them one by 4 one. But, at this point, I think we really have to get to 5 something that's realistic. I think we need to have -- we 6 have an obligation to come up with a budget in the next week 7 or so that we can live with and support. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question -- 9 a comment and a question for the Sheriff. Been reading in 10 the San Antonio Express News recently of the problems that 11 Bexar County Commissioners Court faces with respect to 12 jailers and the number of people in the jail and so forth. 13 County Judge's solution there was to release the deadbeat 14 dads and reduce the number of jailers. How many deadbeat 15 dads do you have in your jail, Sheriff? 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Zero. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Zero? That takes 18 care of that option. 19 JUDGE WRIGHT: But they're going on monitors. 20 How many monitors do we have here? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many we got on 22 monitor? 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't have any. 24 JUDGE WRIGHT: In San Antonio -- 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But there very well may 8-22-03 wk 128 1 be some on monitors that's run through the Probation 2 Department. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, that's all. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: What is the mandated staffing, 5 Sheriff, for -- for your jail based upon jail standards, 6 Commission requirements? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mandated staffing for 8 direct supervision is 1 to 48. Now, that's supervision. 9 And the misconception of that that Bexar County's used -- 10 and, you know, 'cause even when we had jail problems in the 11 old jail, went to Jail Commission over it, Bexar County was 12 there too, okay? Lamar County's there now. If you -- if 13 you want to get -- the problem with that is there's a big 14 misconception in that. That is for inmate supervision. 15 That should not count your booking officers, your control 16 room officers, your visitation officers, your commissary 17 officers, your kitchen help; that's not supposed to actually 18 be in that. That's 1 to 48 direct supervision. That's your 19 floor officers, okay? Judge Wright's comment this morning 20 is -- hey, three in the jail? She's exactly right, 'cause I 21 had two other ones at the hospital, because we got inmates 22 in the hospital. We had one that was admitted the other 23 day. We sit with him around the clock, 24 hours a day. 24 Another one had a seizure at 6 o'clock this morning, so we 25 have an officer over there with him. And that's where that 8-22-03 wk 129 1 draws from. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: What's your present jail 3 population? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Today, I couldn't tell 5 you. It's going to be between 140 and 150. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So -- so, under those 7 mandates, direct supervision, you needed three, then? 8 (Sheriff Hierholzer nodded.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff? 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But the problem was, 12 that three I had, one is a control room officer, one was a 13 booking officer. I had one person on the floor. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 2.3. 15 JUDGE WRIGHT: Actually no jailers. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think you told me 17 a few days ago that you were currently understaffed by eight 18 people in the jail? 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. So, one 21 scenario would be we'd be paying these jailers $3,000 a year 22 more. He's understaffed by eight; only had three there this 23 morning. If we cut by two to four, he could hire the -- he 24 could recruit people to work there, and he would have more 25 staff than he currently has. So -- 8-22-03 wk 130 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I'll be perfectly -- 2 that is a viable option, okay, that we'd have to seriously 3 sit down and look at. My problem now, as y'all know, I've 4 had these eight openings for a while, because we can't -- I 5 can't get anybody that I can even hire. You look at the 6 newspaper; it's been running in even the area newspapers for 7 a while, and I can't get people that are qualified to even 8 go to work at this time. So, you know, I couldn't cut it. 9 I could not cut my jail staff by eight. There -- we'd have 10 too many situations like this morning. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And, Sheriff, $3,000 12 a year more in salary would probably help you fill those 13 positions? 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I believe your figures 15 actually, Commissioner, show $4,000 on the jail, and it was 16 $3,000 on the officers. But, yes, that would -- you know, 17 that's one of the biggest problems we have, and I'd be 18 willing to work any way that we can to keep our jail staff 19 and take care of our business. Goes totally against the 20 long-range plan that was done by that committee, but 21 that's -- I don't mind working with it, but we've got to 22 find a solution. The City had the same problem on the 23 patrol guys. City's going to add this traffic division. 24 However many new officers it takes to have that, you can bet 25 I'm going to lose them, because I cannot compete with the -- 8-22-03 wk 131 1 the City salary study they did was based on market value and 2 employee pool you're going to draw from, like Commissioner 3 Letz and Nicholson referred to. Not based on what happens 4 up in east Texas and north Texas. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if, for example, 6 Commissioners Court approved a $4,000 increase for jailers, 7 and you agree to cut your staffing by four, it'd probably be 8 a wash, wouldn't it? 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It would probably be a 10 wash. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And you'd have four 12 more people on duty right now. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I would hope so. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I like -- I like 15 what I'm hearing, but I'm also -- just something in the back 16 of my mind that says that, you know, TCLEOSE says we have to 17 have so many jailers. You know, we can cut -- I mean, if we 18 cut -- or if you cut jail staff or positions that staff's 19 not -- not even people in them right now, some of them, if 20 we cut staff by four, will we still be in compliance with 21 TCLEOSE? 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If I'm fully staffed. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you're fully staffed. 24 I mean, I don't mind doing that, 'cause we're budgeting for 25 eight positions. If we take that money, divide it up, I 8-22-03 wk 132 1 don't see how that could cost the County any more money, 2 unless I'm missing something. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Four positions at the 4 current rate is about 80,000 bucks. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: No, it's going to be more than 7 that. When you -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I haven't added in 9 the other -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- other stuff. Just 12 talking about direct salary. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably close to 15 100,000. And that would leave you with how many? 20? 22? 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Total -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I figured 27,5. 18 (Low-voice discussion off the record.) 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The jail staff, by his 20 figures, would have been 35, raising them to 4,000, so it 21 would go down to 31, jail. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One more time? 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 31. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 31. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And you're counting Jail 8-22-03 wk 133 1 Administrator and assistant, and that's everybody. 2 MS. UECKER: I have a question, just kind of 3 as the public over here. Rusty, you said you had three 4 jailers on staff at the jail and two at the hospital? 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 6 MS. UECKER: But you have 35. Where were the 7 rest of them? 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, you have to always 9 figure in the Jail Administrator, the Assistant 10 Administrator. 11 MS. UECKER: Oh, you're talking about -- 12 JUDGE WRIGHT: The Jail Administrator was 13 running Master Control this morning. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right. Okay, 15 you're talking -- 16 MS. UECKER: I'm just curious, with that 17 many. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I've got one in school 19 this week, and then we have two inmates that ended up in the 20 hospital. And -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner 4, I'm 22 almost agreeing with you. I'm almost there. But everything 23 that you're doing is, you're basing everything on -- the 24 reason that we don't have enough people is because of money. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not the only reason. 8-22-03 wk 134 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that is not the 2 only reason. That happens to be a spooky place where people 3 don't like to work, and it doesn't matter how much money you 4 throw at them; some people are not going to go in there. 5 And this is one of them. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The turnover, I bet, 7 is -- almost all of it is related to stress and money. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Stress -- stress is a 9 good one. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have a good 11 position about stress. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And stress is not 13 necessarily directly related to money. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is if you give 16 them R & R in the Bahamas for two weeks. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sign me up. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sign you up? 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree with you there, 20 Buster. On -- in the jail, it is stress. You know, a lot 21 of it is. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure it is. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But it's a lot of money. 24 But when you get on the deputy side, right now it's money, 25 because they can go to the City and not have to move. 8-22-03 wk 135 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, here we are; we 2 say -- in one breath, we say comparing is not good, and then 3 we turn right around and start comparing again. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, you can't compare 5 us to Lamar County or counties way out that -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can't compare us 7 to the City of Kerrville. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's your job market. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't care what it 10 is. That is not -- that is not a good comparison, because 11 of the way the City funds their operations. It's just -- 12 that's a different -- that's two different animals. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But how they fund it 14 won't have an effect on the job market. They have a direct 15 effect on our job market. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have to be able to 18 have our employees. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that. 20 The last time we went through this exercise, it was said 21 that everybody's going to be happy. Everybody's going to be 22 happy, and so we granted the salary increases and granted 23 the number of people, and here we are. Everybody's unhappy. 24 So, I'm wondering if -- just wondering out loud; we're in a 25 workshop. If we granted all these things and give -- give 8-22-03 wk 136 1 everything that's been requested, we're going to be right 2 back here again next year having this exact same 3 conversation, historically. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I would disagree with 5 you on that, Buster, 'cause for the first time in 15 years, 6 you've put a comparable market with the -- with the 7 comparable people. You have it -- the equity taken care of 8 between the entities. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can get the minutes 10 out from last year and the year before. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Buster's right. 12 I mean, we've gone through this and everyone's happier. 13 Then, you know, stuff happens and people are unhappy again, 14 you know. But the bottom line is -- and it's a philosophy 15 that I have, and I think Commissioner Nicholson has. Once 16 we agree on the point of -- in favor of increasing 17 productivity and paying more to get that, then that 18 translates to cutting jobs, you know, 'cause we -- the 19 workload is there. It's pretty much a constant in most of 20 the county jobs. So, we can -- and I'm in favor of 21 encouraging that direction -- movement in this county 22 government. So, if we -- you know, Rusty or Jannett or any 23 other department, if they can come up with a way to meet 24 the -- you know, to provide the service with fewer people, 25 I'm in favor of using part, if not all, of that -- probably 8-22-03 wk 137 1 part of that reduction in salary to spread it among the 2 existing remaining employees, 'cause they're increasing 3 their responsibility. And if the Sheriff can do that in the 4 jail, I'm in favor of doing it, and any other department. 5 MS. UECKER: But some of us, however, are -- 6 you know, for instance, maybe if you reduced Rusty's 7 deputies, that would mean less cases; that would mean less 8 cases for the district courts, too. So, a lot of it is 9 related. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And also, it's unfair 11 because some staff you can't reduce. If you're a staff of 12 one, there's not a whole lot you can go and do, you know, 13 and that's not just staff-driven. But in the larger 14 departments, it -- probably the easiest way is to cut staff 15 and increase responsibilities, I think. 16 MS. UECKER: But it's a larger department, 17 because there are greater responsibilities and a lot more 18 work. I mean, I can't go out there and cut my case load 19 because I want to. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I understand. 21 MS. UECKER: Which, as a matter of fact, mine 22 has already increased this year in both categories. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And you're -- your 24 office is reactionary, like many of the county offices are. 25 But if you can figure out any more efficient way to deal 8-22-03 wk 138 1 with that increased case load, then I'm willing to reward 2 your people and you for doing that. 3 MS. UECKER: Which I'm doing by creating a 4 10-hour-a-day workweek. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right. 6 MS. UECKER: But I haven't seen that reward 7 yet. Where's that reward? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: If -- if we -- if we 9 eliminate, just totally get it out of inventory, the event 10 center out there, I can see where Mr. Holekamp's situation 11 would improve from a workload -- staff requirements. But if 12 we don't, we're -- we're not reducing the number of 13 facilities that he's got to look at, and that -- you haven't 14 expressed your thoughts on these things. Mr. Holekamp? 15 MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, I -- and I -- and I 16 appreciate the efforts of all of the Commissioners on this 17 salary thing, and I need a clarification from Commissioner 18 Letz on his feelings. I -- what I understood is -- is that 19 you've -- the feeling was you did not have a problem if the 20 departments would reduce personnel; that the money through 21 that reduction, or a portion of it or a majority of it could 22 go back in, funding positions at a higher level. Is that 23 correct? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's correct. 25 MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. 8-22-03 wk 139 1 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what's I attempted to 2 encourage during my suggestions. 3 MR. HOLEKAMP: And when you look at my 4 proposed one that came in that Barbara handed y'all, you'll 5 see there's reclassifications, because my interpretation of 6 what you're saying is -- is that you're not merit-raising 7 people. You're reclassifying them. You're requiring them 8 to do more work. So, in my numbers, I -- I revised and I -- 9 I did not have enough time to prepare the job descriptions 10 with Barbara's assistance, which I need to do. But the 11 changes that I made are a direct reflection on the workload 12 increase on everyone that -- of them that were increased. 13 So -- but I didn't do it with the -- with the steps. I did 14 it with the grades primarily. Is -- is that -- do y'all 15 understand where -- and I know Jannett did hers with -- with 16 steps. I did mine with grades. The reason I did it is 17 because of the increased workload and the reclassifications. 18 But I did reduce one full full-time position. It's already 19 been done. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Reduce? You reduced 21 one full-time position? 22 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir, I eliminated one 23 full-time -- I'm sorry, I should have started with that. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one? 25 Maintenance or the Ag Barn? 8-22-03 wk 140 1 MR. HOLEKAMP: Maintenance, sir. 2 MS. NEMEC: Also what this had an effect on, 3 it got rid of his step and grade 9, which, really, we needed 4 to get rid of that. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: That was really poverty level. 6 MR. HOLEKAMP: So the lowest position in Kerr 7 County right now is a 12. 8 MS. NEMEC: A 9 is 15,400. 9 MR. HOLEKAMP: Correct. And I had two 10 individuals at that rate. 11 MS. UECKER: Well, wait a minute. I mean, I 12 think they -- you're right, they should be a 12. But I'd 13 take issue to somebody coming in here at a 12 who has -- who 14 is skilled on the computer and those type of things, and 15 make the same as, you know, a maintenance person, a sweeper. 16 'Cause, you know, I don't have an entry level 12, but I know 17 the County Clerk does. Tax Assessor does. Sheriff's Office 18 does. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. I mean, I 20 don't know that I agree with that statement. You know, I'm 21 not saying -- you know, maintenance positions, maintaining 22 this building requires -- you know, I don't know that he has 23 any, truly, sweepers and things. You have to do other 24 things. And, you know, it's very hard to say -- you know, 25 to compare them, really. I mean, I think a lot of the 8-22-03 wk 141 1 maintenance people do a lot of -- I mean, if you go out into 2 the private sector, you get -- they're going to be paying 3 $15, $20 an hour for this service. 4 MS. UECKER: Yeah. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is more than you're 6 going to pay for an entry level clerk and any kind of 7 construction-type work. 8 MS. UECKER: I disagree there. You're 9 looking at the wrong market, I think, but -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- I mean, you 11 go out there to get someone -- you go out and try to find a 12 carpenter to do a little bit of carpentry work somewhere, 13 repair a broken cabinet in your house. 14 MS. UECKER: I'm not talking about 15 carpenters. I know; my dad was a carpenter. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maintenance is doing a 17 lot of that type stuff. 18 MS. UECKER: Not all of them. I mean -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're talking about 20 housekeeping. 21 MS. UECKER: Yeah, housekeeping. Somebody 22 comes to my office and says -- you know, and applies for a 23 job; "Well, I can't do all of those things. I don't know 24 how to use Excel; I don't know how to use Word. I don't 25 know how to do that." And I say, "Well, it's fine. Go down 8-22-03 wk 142 1 to the janitor; you can be a janitor for the same amount of 2 money, so don't worry about it." 3 MR. HOLEKAMP: But those people won't clean 4 commodes, believe me. 5 MS. UECKER: Well, I think they will. 6 MR. HOLEKAMP: Well -- 7 MS. UECKER: For the same amount of money, 8 yeah, they will. 9 MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, and in every -- and I 10 just made my presentation. I didn't -- I did not stand up 11 here to do a debate on the value. I put a value of what my 12 people -- I felt like they were worthy of. And, you know, 13 everybody can take issue with it, but I was trying to get an 14 interpretation on -- on the step and grade versus just the 15 steps. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a -- step's 17 the first number, right? Yeah, okay. I would -- I think 18 the step is the one you adjust, not the grade. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think what Linda's 20 saying is basically true, and I think the answer is, it's -- 21 that employee may not see that it's fair, but it doesn't 22 have to be fair. We're saying we're paying that 23 computer-literate person a fair salary, and we're refusing 24 to pay a janitor a poverty wage. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Holekamp, are all of the 8-22-03 wk 143 1 -- the adjustment issues -- have those been resolved and are 2 they now currently reflected on the new proposed schedules? 3 MR. HOLEKAMP: The one that Barbara gave you 4 today is reflected on this schedule today. The only change 5 was, there's two people that need to be switched into 6 departments, but it's -- the Park Maintenance person and 7 Jail Maintenance person should be switched, just 8 individuals. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. But the step and grade 10 is the same? It's just the names that need to be 11 interchanged? 12 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: But, otherwise, the step and 14 grade are accurately reflected -- 15 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: -- on your current schedule? 17 MR. HOLEKAMP: Per my request and 18 consultation with her. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: And after the adjustments were 20 made? 21 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's what I needed to 23 know, thank you. 24 MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank you. 25 JUDGE WRIGHT: Judge, I have to go back to 8-22-03 wk 144 1 the jail, but I would like to make one request. I would 2 like to ask that you gentlemen consider reclassification of 3 our four court clerks or court administrators. These people 4 are not being compensated for the -- all of the different, 5 varied things that they have to do and the hard work that 6 they do -- hard work that they put in. And while you're 7 considering this, I would like for you to consider the 8 income that our courts bring into the county. I've got to 9 go. Thank you, gentlemen. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Judge. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: We're looking at those on Page 13 3. They're all 15 grade classifications. 14 (Low-voice discussion off the record.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm hearing the wheels in 16 Buster's head. "Where does it end?" Did I hit or did I 17 miss, Buster? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I heard you say 19 something, but I don't know what you said. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I said I heard the wheels 21 spinning in your head, saying, "Where does it end?" 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's -- that's a 23 good question. I was wondering if y'all could hear that 24 too. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The answer is, it 8-22-03 wk 145 1 never ends. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've been hearing 3 something for a long time. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Are we back on the 5 salary schedule that Barbara had furnished? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can, but I want to 7 say something; that the closer -- more we run on here, the 8 more we're jumping from deal to deal. We still haven't 9 finished the County Engineer issue, and at some point -- you 10 know, I don't mind going on with this salary thing. We will 11 go on forever with it. But I'd like to settle -- settle the 12 County Engineer issue at some point today. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agreed with 14 Commissioner Letz that we should not rush into it, and keep 15 it the same as this year, so all of you got -- you got to 16 weigh in on it. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. That's three 18 of us. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: I -- on that one, I got that 20 consensus -- or seemingly got that consensus a while ago, 21 and I thought it was a -- it was a saucer-and-blowed deal. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I deeply apologize. I 23 just -- 24 MS. UECKER: Can I make one more comment 25 before you move on to something else? It will be quick. 8-22-03 wk 146 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you now with the Road and 2 Bridge Department? 3 MS. UECKER: No, before you get off the 4 salaries. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Pardon? I've got a 6 road I want to you fix. 7 MS. UECKER: And I could fix it. I can work 8 a shovel just as -- as easy as any of those guys, and I'm 9 stronger than most men. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God, I've heard some 11 funny things today. This is good. 12 MS. UECKER: Well, that's true. Ask Billy 13 Joe Guthrie about -- remember? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Are we ready to go there? 15 MS. UECKER: I just want to make -- make you 16 aware of one thing that you may not be aware of. Again, 17 we're going back to the Nash study. And I'm not saying it's 18 good; I'm just saying this is what happened. The Nash study 19 took into effect all employees. Did not look at basically 20 elected officials, because the Court agreed that they would 21 take care of the elected officials. But in the Nash study, 22 there is Rusty's administrative -- I mean, his chief deputy, 23 which is basically his top administrative officer, makes 24 more than most of the elected officials. 25 MS. NEMEC: With the schedule, he's making 8-22-03 wk 147 1 more than this Sheriff now. 2 MS. UECKER: Including the Sheriff. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: It's a possibility he could be 4 worth it. I said a possibility. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: With the Court's opinion 6 of me after this last week, that's probably pretty accurate. 7 MS. UECKER: But, you know -- 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We've had some 9 conversation. 10 MS. UECKER: I don't know if y'all are aware 11 of that. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a -- you're 13 bringing up a point that we haven't discussed this year, but 14 it happens, you know, virtually every time we go through 15 this, is that we're getting -- it's getting harder and 16 harder to keep the elected officials that are heads of their 17 departments making the most money in their department. And 18 you -- 19 MS. UECKER: Yeah, and we're the ones that 20 have to run for that office. And I don't know about the 21 rest of you, but, you know, my department -- my office 22 requires me to be there because of the way it's set up. And 23 every year we hear, "Yeah, we need to discuss this. Yeah, 24 we need to look at this." But, no, we're the ones that keep 25 getting put off. 8-22-03 wk 148 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a valid point, 2 and it's something that this Court ought to address. 3 MS. UECKER: I mean, I'm not saying that, you 4 know, Deputy Graham doesn't deserve that, but I just didn't 5 know -- I mean, we're -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think what you're 7 saying is it becomes more and more of a problem because of 8 the longevity and the -- 9 MS. UECKER: Exactly. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's going to make it 11 worse or harder and harder to keep elected officials above 12 their employees. And -- 13 MS. UECKER: It's going to get to the point 14 where you're not going to have qualified elected officials 15 running for those offices. And, of course, there's the 16 other argument, you know, "If you pay more, you're going to 17 have competition." Well, I'm okay with some good, strong 18 competition. Somebody wants to run against me, that's fine. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've never heard of that 20 argument. I think the other argument is that all of us know 21 our salary, and this is -- you know, I don't say this is 22 valid necessarily, 'cause you know you have to raise them at 23 some point. We all know the salaries when we run for the 24 office. 25 MS. UECKER: Well, you know your salary when 8-22-03 wk 149 1 you apply for a job and take a position too, but that 2 doesn't mean it's going to stay there. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know, but we're -- 4 every four years we run, and we know when we run, so it's 5 kind of -- I understand what you're saying, Linda. We've 6 probably -- we've discussed this, I'm sure, in the past. 7 MS. UECKER: You bet. But I just didn't know 8 if you were actually aware of the fact that there are 9 elected officials making -- who are administrative, with a 10 lot of employees, that are making less than an 11 administrative -- Rusty's chief administrative officer. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As a matter of fact, 13 he's making more than Rusty. 14 MS. UECKER: I know, and that's not right. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Linda, are you -- I'm 16 trying to read between the lines. Maybe I shouldn't do 17 that, but are you saying that the Court said several years 18 ago they're going to give the elected officials a pay raise; 19 they're going to do it half and half? Is that what you're 20 saying? 21 MS. UECKER: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And when was the 23 second -- we got half, did we not? 24 MS. UECKER: We got the half, but we never 25 got the -- 8-22-03 wk 150 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When was the second 2 half due? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Last year. 4 MS. UECKER: Last year. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Year before. 6 MS. UECKER: We didn't even get half, 7 actually. We got a 2.5. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, god. 9 MS. UECKER: But -- and the second half was 10 supposed to come last year. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Year before. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Year before. 13 MS. UECKER: The year before? Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. So, why -- 15 why don't you have the second half? 16 MS. UECKER: I don't know. I was asking you. 17 MS. NEMEC: Would you like me to plug it in? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need -- 19 JUDGE ELLIOTT: This goes back to the 20 original question that I had. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, wait. Wait, 22 now. This Court made a commitment to the elected officials, 23 and we haven't given them their second half. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. 25 MS. UECKER: Four years. 8-22-03 wk 151 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is the 2 commitment? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I -- it goes back 4 to what I said in, I think, the very first day of budget 5 workshops, where I had a question as to where the numbers 6 came from on the comparison. Because the numbers that we 7 have pulled -- that I have seen recently, the raises or the 8 salary levels that we're supposed to be going to made no 9 sense. There's no comparison to the numbers that were 10 used in -- it was Larry Griffin who did it. Commissioner 11 Griffin came up with a comparison, and if you look at 12 those -- that table, and then look at the increases that 13 were given that year, those increases were not half of the 14 salary. In some cases, they were 20 times as -- you know, 15 what the increase was supposed to be. In some cases, they 16 were not at all, and/or very little, and I don't understand 17 how that happened. And that's the question that I asked at 18 the very beginning, and until it can be explained to me what 19 happened three years ago -- you know, I can't correct it, 20 but at least figure out what was done, because a number of 21 elected officials are paid now above what that point was. I 22 mean, they're where they're supposed to be. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true. 24 MS. PIEPER: I think what happened is the 25 same thing that's happening now. During discussion, y'all 8-22-03 wk 152 1 are saying, "Barbara, plug it in. Barbara, plug it in." 2 So, she plugged in what she was told. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I know the court 4 order's pretty clear as to what was supposed to be done that 5 I saw, and I have read it, and I think -- and I've got 6 copies of it. 7 MR. MOTLEY: Are you asking where the numbers 8 came from? It was the counties that were plus and minus 15 9 percent of Kerr County in the 2000 census. They averaged 10 the salaries, and however much below today -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Here's the minutes from 12 those court orders. It was very clear as to what was 13 supposed to happen. And I -- and the Judge is -- no, I 14 don't have my copy. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You got a copy. 16 MS. UECKER: The problem with that is -- is 17 if you do that now, theoretically, you'd probably have to 18 add last year's COLA to that figure, and then -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just trying to get to 20 the original -- I can't come -- figure out how the number 21 that we were going to -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The first half. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The first half. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is messed up. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, the first -- 8-22-03 wk 153 1 MS. NEMEC: We weren't given half; we were 2 given, like -- 3 MS. UECKER: It was 2.5 percent. 4 MS. NEMEC: Yeah. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it wasn't. Maybe 6 it's what was done, but it's not what the court order says 7 was supposed to be done. 8 MS. UECKER: I got 2.5 percent, I promise. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's probably true. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in the September 5th 11 one, I believe. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This seemed like to 13 be easy to reconstruct. Look at what the court order said 14 we were going to do, look at where we are today, and 15 identify what the differences are. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's what we 17 need to do. If -- if we're going to live up to our 18 commitments. If we're not going to live up to our 19 commitments, we might as well fold our tent and head to the 20 house. 21 (Discussion off the record.) 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Barbara, could you 23 do that? Look at the court order and see what the intent 24 was -- what the clear intent, according to job -- 25 MS. NEMEC: I've been trying. 8-22-03 wk 154 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- and where we are 2 today. That will tell you where we should be today. You 3 know, where are we today? 4 MS. UECKER: And the County Clerk made a good 5 point. We were supposed to get, I think, like, 900. Well, 6 600 of that was travel, which was then brought -- so, 7 effectively, our increase per year was 300-something 8 dollars. 9 MS. PIEPER: 308 -- $312. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But even with those 11 variables -- 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Then you have to 13 consider what Jonathan was saying a while ago. With the 14 cost-of-living, the longevity, and the educational, such as 15 in my chief deputy's position, okay, he has gotten 16 educational and he has gotten longevity. That upped his 17 even more, which made all that other a lot more out of 18 whack. Because the elected officials and -- and our 19 subordinates were always so close. There's no separation -- 20 true separation between elected officials and their people, 21 anyhow. 22 MS. UECKER: And the scary part being the -- 23 you know, if one of my staff makes an error, you know, then 24 they don't get sued. I do. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree with 8-22-03 wk 155 1 that too. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm still trying to 3 figure out how we calculated last time. It's pretty simple. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: All I want to know 5 is, where would those salaries be today if we followed this 6 court order? 7 MS. UECKER: Yeah. I don't know. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can't be hard to 9 figure out. 10 MS. UECKER: The bottom line is -- is every 11 year, you know, we've been given promises. And I know in 12 front of press, this might be politically not correct, and 13 it's not that I don't appreciate everything this County's 14 done for me, but, you know, I've been here 37 years. But 15 every year, it's just like, "Okay, we're going to take care 16 of you next year." 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what we're 18 trying to get to. We're trying to up here right now. 19 MS. UECKER: I appreciate it, Buster. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're saying you 21 know where you ought to be, and you're not there? 22 MS. UECKER: Yeah. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You know that. 24 Can't we know that for everybody? 25 MS. UECKER: I don't have the figures, Dave. 8-22-03 wk 156 1 I don't. All I know is that every year, you know, we've -- 2 we've asked for increases. You can put any amount of money 3 in, and it's always going to be -- maybe the 2.5. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I figure if we sell 5 the Ag Barn and the airport -- (Laughter.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Say what? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we sell the Ag Barn 8 and the airport. 9 MS. UECKER: Great idea. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And bow out of the 12 library. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Get out of that 14 library. 15 MS. UECKER: Yeah. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson, are 17 you -- are you requesting the Treasurer to go from this 18 court order to, based upon that court order, plug in what 19 the balance of the adjustment should have been for the 20 second year, and to bring that figure forward to the current 21 date based on what was actually done during intervening 22 years, and to tell us where that would put us? 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would just put one 24 other little spin on that. Yes, that's right. So, for 25 example, if it said this -- this person should be making 8-22-03 wk 157 1 $1,000 more, and we're going to do that over two years, and 2 that first year that person got $500 and then didn't get the 3 other $500, I want to know where that person would be today 4 if they got that other $500. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Including COLA's 7 missed. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, plug it in in the 9 schedule as expressed. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And that's not -- it 11 can't be an indication that we were going to approve 12 whatever that result is, but at least we'll know what the 13 result would be. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we did approve it. 15 MS. NEMEC: Are the figures that we were 16 working with on that court order? I mean -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, yeah, it's the -- 18 and I say "court order." It was a discussion at the last 19 workshop. I mean, no motion -- it was a workshop. But what 20 it is, is that we did this study that Larry Griffin 21 prepared, and we have copies of it, and they're all over. 22 All the Commissioners certainly have them. And there was a 23 -- you know, we looked at the elected officials' salary, 24 took an average, and then if there was a difference, if Kerr 25 County's officials were below, you took 50 percent of the 8-22-03 wk 158 1 amount they were below, you added that to their salary, and 2 then the next 50 percent was supposed to come the following 3 year. Well, if you look at it, I think -- like, the J.P.'s, 4 for example; I think those are the ones. They were paid 5 more on average, and they got over a $1,000 increase. 6 MS. UECKER: Yeah. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it doesn't make 8 sense. 9 MS. UECKER: And we didn't, yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whereas, somebody -- you 11 know, and most of them weren't real far off. It's not a 12 whole -- you know, take in the COLA's, start adding things 13 on, it will probably become more meaningful in true dollars. 14 But I don't understand how, you know, you take 50 percent of 15 the difference and then add it on, and then you get 16 several -- everyone gets a COLA, and how that could relate 17 to the J.P.'s getting over $1,000 a piece more, when they 18 were already above the average. And there's one -- there's 19 other examples that are similar to that. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think there was 21 exactly 50 percent. There were some other limitations. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There was a 10 percent 23 cap. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Basically, what you 25 want to look at is what the total difference, as mandated by 8-22-03 wk 159 1 the survey, what that survey revealed what the total 2 difference was, what they got the first year, and then the 3 balance would be the second year, I would think. 4 MS. NEMEC: And they have the survey attached 5 to that? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I've got a copy on here. 7 MS. NEMEC: Okay. 8 MS. UECKER: I think what's interesting also 9 is, you know, we go out there and we get these counties that 10 are comparable to Kerr County. Those counties have never 11 been Gillespie and Kendall, yet the clerks in those two 12 counties make more than the clerks in Kerr County, as does 13 the City Clerk. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the idea, of 15 course, was to try to find counties of equal size. 16 MS. UECKER: I know that. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Population, tax base, 18 and so forth. 19 MS. PIEPER: Right. And the ones on here, 20 they don't do all the jobs that we do. I called them at 21 lunch. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't ever find 23 anything exact. 24 MS. UECKER: There is no such thing as a 25 comparable county. 8-22-03 wk 160 1 MS. NEMEC: I wish we could just come up with 2 a figure that the Court could live with, that we could live 3 with, and just -- just give us an increase of -- you know, 4 let's just forget about all that, and let's just move on 5 from here and make it right and move forward. 6 MS. UECKER: And why can't it be -- 7 MS. NEMEC: Obviously, it wasn't done right 8 back then anyway. 9 MS. UECKER: Why can't it be a rounded-off 10 number? Why does it have to be 21, 37 -- you know, I know 11 it's because of the COLA, but -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Going to round down 13 or round up? 14 MS. UECKER: I don't care. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the first two years 16 you give a COLA, it gets it out of -- it gets it off. 17 MS. PIEPER: Hondo's making 45 million. 18 MS. UECKER: Yeah, that's Medina County. 19 MS. PIEPER: I'm sorry, that's Hood. My 20 bifocals weren't lined up. 21 MS. NEMEC: Yeah, Medina County Treasurer has 22 five full-time employees, I think. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: The first thing that you're 24 asking is, follow the court order; bring it forward. Let's 25 see what that is, okay? 8-22-03 wk 161 1 MS. UECKER: Yeah, you can. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: There may be some other -- 3 some other measure that the Court wants to use; I don't 4 know. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Buster, Hartley County 6 pays the County Judge less than we do. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Parker County 9 is a good one. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Parker? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Need to use that one. Which 12 county? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just picked Hartley at 14 random. We picked every other county in the state. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: In the panhandle; wheat 16 farmers. 17 (Discussion off the record.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's move along here. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did we just do 20 anything? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, yeah, we -- we gave the 23 -- we gave the Treasurer some -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A charge. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: A charge, that's correct. And 8-22-03 wk 162 1 she's going to take care of that for us and have that to us 2 immediately, if not sooner. (Laughter.) Are we -- where 3 are we? Are we back to the salary -- the proposed position 4 schedule again? I thought we'd petty well plowed that 5 ground. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we quit 7 after Page 3. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Maintenance is actually 9 on Page 4. We covered that, with the exception of -- 10 there's one adjustment apparently in the Tax Assessor on 11 Page 4, and I don't recall what Ms. Rector -- I think that 12 -- I think there was a mid-year adjustment on that, if I'm 13 not mistaken. To go back -- yes, I recall now. What had 14 happened there was that, in the particular case of this 15 individual, that individual got missed in the year in which 16 it should have occurred, and she went back and picked that 17 individual up. 18 MS. UECKER: I have one of those in mine. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm just giving you the facts, 20 fellas. Just do what you want to with them. 21 MS. NEMEC: Got missed as long -- as 22 longevity? Or got missed what? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll bear with me just a 24 moment, I'll tell you what that is. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We might want to 8-22-03 wk 163 1 think about doing salary budgets separate from the rest of 2 the budget, maybe a little earlier. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I said 4 opening day. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, you did. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what you do. 7 And I think that's -- I think that's what you do. It's a 8 whole separate animal. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Apparently, that particular 11 individual was due a longevity, and somehow it got omitted 12 from the previous schedule. That's the explanation I have 13 here. 14 MS. NEMEC: Could you tell me who that was? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, Hellums. That's the one 16 that's shown on your -- the one that's where the adjustment 17 was made in there. 18 MS. NEMEC: Well, I show she had a start date 19 of February this year, so therefore she'd only be up for her 20 longevity with the new policy this coming February of 2004. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 23 MS. NEMEC: So, my -- my schedule that I turn 24 in would be correct, then. I've given her longevity. She 25 went from a 12-5 to a 12-6 on this position schedule that I 8-22-03 wk 164 1 turned in, and that was due to longevity. But I'm not 2 giving her her longevity until February 2004. So, I have 3 included that. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You're showing that as 5 kicking in in February 2004? 6 MS. NEMEC: Right. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: That may solve the problem. 8 MS. NEMEC: Okay. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: In fairness to Ms. Rector, I 10 wanted to give you the best information that I had, and -- 11 and as indicated in my notes from my discussion with her, 12 there was -- she indicated that there was an omission for 13 that individual in the -- in the longevity. I assume you've 14 got the -- the start date correct? 15 MS. NEMEC: I'll double-check it. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: You keep those records. 17 MS. NEMEC: I'll double-check it. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't have any way 19 of knowing. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: No, I don't. 21 MS. NEMEC: I'll double-check it and correct 22 it if it's incorrect. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: That's one to look at, though. 24 And -- 25 MS. NEMEC: Then Page 5 just reflects several 8-22-03 wk 165 1 of the changes that would take place with the new policy in 2 effect. All those there in the middle with the 14-2's, 3 those are just figured on the new policy. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: The new start date for 5 anniversary? 6 MS. NEMEC: Right. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 MS. NEMEC: Page 6, the only thing I got out 9 of those budget workshops was that the part-time Deputy 10 Constable 4 should be at $4,800. Is that correct? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 12 MS. NEMEC: Okay. Page 7, again, the 13 adjustments are just due to the new policy. Page 8, same 14 thing there. Page 9, just one in the Juvenile Probation 15 office was affected by the new policy, that one employee up 16 there. So, I changed that. Page 10 is just for my payroll 17 purposes only. Page 11, it's throwing in that page on my 18 computer. I don't know what's wrong, but it -- it's 19 supposed to be blank. But since the pages were numbered, I 20 left it in there so you could see that. And then we get to 21 Road and Bridge. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Hold on just a minute. If 23 you -- 24 MS. NEMEC: Okay. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: If you might, please, 8-22-03 wk 166 1 Ms. Nemec, go back to Page 9 under the -- the probation 2 officers. 3 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: You indicated that that 5 adjustment was made? 6 MS. NEMEC: Off to the side where you see the 7 next longevity, and it has four years for 2004, that 8 employee should receive -- with the new policy in January, 9 should be moved 2 and a half percent. So his salary right 10 now is $26,318, and then figuring 2 and a half percent added 11 to that starting in January for the remainder of the year. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: No, I'm -- I'm referring to 13 the last one there. The third one. Was there not an 14 adjustment in that one? There should have been an 15 adjustment in that particular one. 16 MS. NEMEC: Due to what? Oh, I remember them 17 talking about that, but I haven't received anything in 18 writing. That they were going to bring that person up to 19 another salary, but I haven't -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: It was included in the 21 Juvenile Probation Department budget. 22 MS. NEMEC: Okay. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: To include putting that 24 position on parity. I think there's going to be a little 25 difference because of COLA's or -- 8-22-03 wk 167 1 MS. NEMEC: Right. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: -- or maybe a longevity 3 adjustment that one of them had, but it's going to basically 4 be brought up to parity with the other two. 5 MS. NEMEC: Okay. I'll get those figures 6 from them. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: And I want to be sure that 8 gets included, 'cause I know that was specifically approved 9 as part of the Juvenile Board approval of the budget. 10 MS. NEMEC: Okay, I'll go back and redo that 11 one. Okay. Then Page 12 is Road and Bridge. That 20-12 12 and 19-3, all those are affected by the new policy. That's 13 why those numbers are there. And then on the Administrative 14 Assistant, that is a 19-6. Those are the figures with the 15 2 and a half percent COLA. The one that is highlighted in 16 blue is the request that they have made, and so I just need 17 to know whether to take that figure and plug that figure in, 18 or just delete that figure and stay with the one that I 19 have. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Delete the blue. 21 MS. NEMEC: Thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Minority report. 23 I -- I see that Ms. Hardin generally fits the description of 24 a supervisor. She puts people to work, holds them 25 accountable, and I view her as a supervisor. 8-22-03 wk 168 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's the same as, 3 I mean, other -- 4 MS. UECKER: Same as a chief deputy. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Chief deputies and other 6 supervisory people. So -- 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Should that go to 19-7, as 9 opposed to a -- a level point? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's that? That part 11 of my page is missing. 12 MS. NEMEC: She was a 19-5 last -- no, she 13 got moved up to a 19-6. She's not due any longevity, so 14 what I did was figure a 19-6 with a 2 and a half percent 15 COLA. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's it. Same 17 as everybody else. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Everybody on the same page 19 there? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My page is different, but 23 it's okay. 24 (Low-voice discussion off the record.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: 13? 8-22-03 wk 169 1 MS. NEMEC: Page 13, I believe there was -- 2 yes, a reclassification on one of the employees down at the 3 bottom, third from the bottom. That employee was a 12-1, 4 and being that a position was deleted in the Maintenance 5 Department, that employee got additional duties, which moved 6 them up to a 14. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where are you at? Ag 8 Barn? Is that where you are? 9 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the name? 11 MS. NEMEC: Evans. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Evans. That's part of 13 Mr. Holekamp's restructuring. 14 MS. NEMEC: And that's it. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to go back 16 to Page 3 for a minute. I recall Judge Wright had to leave, 17 and she asked us to consider doing something more for the 18 clerks that are in their courts. I don't have a proposal; I 19 just wanted to honor Judge Wright's request that we look at 20 it. 21 MS. NEMEC: The only comparison I can make 22 with those employees are, they are -- their starting -- 23 their step and grade is 15. You know, what their 24 responsibilities are compared to the responsibilities of the 25 employees in the District Clerk that are 15, I don't know if 8-22-03 wk 170 1 those are comparable, or if their responsibilities are more 2 and should be above a 15. I really don't know. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- 4 MS. UECKER: Should probably be 17's. 5 MS. NEMEC: 17's. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think a little bit 7 higher, because they tend -- they have a lot of 8 responsibility, a lot of coordination, a lot of -- you know. 9 MS. UECKER: I thought they were 17's, 10 actually. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think their 12 workload and the -- the various dimensions that they are 13 involved in requires a lot of work. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I spent quite a bit 15 of time before on this, and that young man, Mitchell, he 16 runs that office. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's good. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He's a very -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So does Lin Navarre. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, well they're -- they are 21 a single -- single-staff-person office, and the whole 22 thing's in their lap essentially. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They deal with a lot of 24 different issues. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Takes a lot of 8-22-03 wk 171 1 know-how. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What am I hearing? 3 That they should be -- 4 MS. NEMEC: 17's. So, I'll just put the 5 grade 17 along with their step that they currently hold. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's fair. 7 MS. UECKER: While you're thinking, Jonathan, 8 I just wanted to make a point, too. Going back to the 9 janitor part versus deputy clerk, those deputy clerks have 10 to be bonded and insured also. He could hire one of my 11 12-1's, but I can't hire one of his 12-1's. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're right, Linda. 13 MS. UECKER: I'm always right. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're not going to 15 pay your person; we're just going to get this other person 16 out of poverty. On a related issue, looking at these 17 clerks, they're all paid pretty close to the same, in that 18 they're probably all paid relative to each other, right? 19 But three -- the J.P. 2, 3, and 4 has a $700 item for 20 temporary staffing. Each -- all of them have the same. The 21 J.P. 1 has $2,830 for temporary help, and I think I heard 22 him say he's paying $12 an hour or some -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He said $12 is what -- 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's different 25 about Precinct 1 that he needs four times as much? 8-22-03 wk 172 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm curious, myself. 2 MS. PIEPER: Well, the difference is that 3 when the other J.P.'s -- when their clerks go on vacation or 4 conference or something, the J.P.'s fill in. Like, Dawn 5 Wright's down right now answering the phone and doing 6 whatever kind of paperwork. And he chooses to go to Merit 7 Temporaries and hire someone. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: What did we do when our 10 secretary went on vacation? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Closed the door. 12 MS. PIEPER: We hired somebody. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: We covered it. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We covered it ourselves. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I can still 16 calculate if the hourly rate for the employee is less than 17 the hourly rate for permanent. I'd cut that back several 18 hundred dollars. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page are you on? 20 MS. NEMEC: The policy states that -- the 21 policy states that when you hire a part-time or a temporary 22 employee, they cannot be paid more than what your full-time 23 employee makes in that position. So, if his full-time 24 employee doesn't make $12 an hour and he hires someone, then 25 I'm not going to pay them more than -- 8-22-03 wk 173 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm just going on 2 what he said. 3 MS. NEMEC: Yeah. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When we get back to 5 that page in the budget, I'd like to cut that back to seven. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's already -- 7 it's -- the recommended is -- there was considerable 8 discourse about that the other day, wasn't there? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, there was, and 11 it was brought about by Judge Wright's current dilemma out 12 there. Even so, with the recommendations that she made, 13 Judge, we're still in disparity there. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what was the 16 recommendation? 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: $700. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: 700. That's what I got in 19 there. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what you have 21 in there? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: But he had requested, because 23 of two weeks vacation and a one-week training and some -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not in there, so 25 don't worry about it. 8-22-03 wk 174 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm really wondering 2 whether the 700 is adequate to take care of contingencies 3 that happen over and above vacation replacement. And I 4 think it's probably not. I think $1,000 is closer to being 5 the number, to take care of contingency. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have an 7 opinion on -- I just think -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A gut feeling? 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- they all ought to 10 be the same. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. 12 MS. NEMEC: I have one full-time person and I 13 have a part-time person. My part-time person works three 14 days a week. When my full-time person goes on vacation, my 15 part-time person doesn't get to work five days a week. I 16 just have to make sure that my office is covered by me being 17 there. So -- 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 19 MS. NEMEC: You know, it's just a matter of 20 how you run your office, I guess. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what we do. I 22 answer the phones sometimes. Not much. 23 MS. NEMEC: Or let them ring. That's why we 24 have voicemail. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, it seems to me 8-22-03 wk 175 1 that, until we get a new budget run, it's really hard to 2 know where we are. And I know you've been taking notes 3 throughout, and I trust that you kind of have captured all 4 of this conversation today and the past three days. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Of course. Absolutely. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway -- you know, and I 7 think -- and also, because it'd be total confusion if all 8 five of us try to get with the Auditor and try to go over 9 the changes. I think we're at the point, really, we need to 10 get, you know, some of the things that we've agreed on, 11 which is -- put them in the budget, rerun it, and see what 12 it looks like, and then we can talk about some of these 13 other things. I mean, and some of the other things that 14 will be included with that would be Commissioner Nicholson's 15 about bringing everybody up to a minimum salary and things 16 of that nature. You know, I think we can talk and talk and 17 talk, but if we don't have the money, you know, to do some 18 of these things, we either have to start cutting programs to 19 do it or raise taxes, and so I think we need to get to a new 20 starting point. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We -- we have the 22 money; it's in the taxpayers' pockets. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Shaking it loose is 24 what's difficult. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do we have any -- 8-22-03 wk 176 1 are we anywhere close to a consensus on the concept that -- 2 that we -- Kerr County should pay Sheriff's Department 3 employees a rate that's competitive with Kerrville Police 4 Department? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think I like -- 6 I really want to look at a new budget run before I say yes 7 or no there. I mean, I -- would I like to? Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would like to, yes. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But we've got to know, 11 you know. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We don't -- we don't 13 hate the idea. We're just not sure where the money's going 14 to come from. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Love the idea. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Love the idea. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: All right. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've loved almost 20 everything I've heard today. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The problem is 22 parity. If we establish the parity there, are we not 23 obligated to create parity in other places? 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And I don't have the 25 answer, except I would clearly see law enforcement wages 8-22-03 wk 177 1 being a local labor market issue, and elected officials 2 being a different kind of an issue, for example. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just think we're at a 4 point we have to stop and get new numbers and regroup. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right now, we're in 6 a -- we are in a taxing mode. The only thing unresolved is 7 whether it's one cent, two cents, three cents, or more 8 cents. So, I think we need to do what you said; take a look 9 at it, where we are. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think I'd also 11 suggest to the County Judge that we call another -- I think 12 either a workshop or meeting for probably next Wednesday. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tuesday. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tuesday or Wednesday next 15 week. Because I don't see that we're going to be able to 16 iron all this out here in Commissioners Court on Monday. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I agree. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: I would agree with that. Out 20 of an abundance of caution, maybe we ought to just do it for 21 both days. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why not? Yeah, 23 after -- after Commissioners Court. And then -- 24 MS. PIEPER: Or Tuesday and Wednesday. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Tuesday and Wednesday, yes. 8-22-03 wk 178 1 Tuesday -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10:30? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Tuesday we can start at 10:30. 4 Wednesday, we can start at -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10:30? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: -- about 10:00 or 10:30, 7 either one. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What happened to going 9 to work early? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Tuesday I've got mental 11 health cases, remember? Those cases that I don't get paid 12 for. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've talked a lot about 14 those. Let's not get on -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: The ones I don't get paid for; 16 those are the ones. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was my next 18 question. Do you get paid or not? I still don't know. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would be wrong 20 with a workshop Monday after regular Commissioners Court? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 'Cause we're tired. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or the weekend. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How about Wednesday? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to do Wednesday, 25 too. 8-22-03 wk 179 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why don't we come in 2 early in the morning? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9 o'clock? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure, we can start at 9:00 on 5 Wednesday. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 7:00? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Start -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 8:00. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: That's like the Juvenile 11 Board; we'll do it at 7:00. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No one would be here. 13 No, I didn't say that. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: 10:30 Tuesday, if you would, 15 please. And 9 o'clock on Wednesday. 16 MS. PIEPER: Okay. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: And I guess we can use the 18 same posting; unresolved, outstanding, remaining, unknown -- 19 MS. PIEPER: Unresolved issues. 20 MS. NEMEC: I think Tommy was under the 21 impression he was going to have to come in this weekend and 22 wrap this up, and I'm supposed to call him and we're 23 supposed to get together on all this. Should I call him and 24 let him know the pressure's off? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: No. He and I could get 8-22-03 wk 180 1 together this weekend. 2 MS. NEMEC: Okay. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: So that we can run this. 4 MS. NEMEC: Okay. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Or try and run it. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Really, I would really 7 like to see the run. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to want Commissioner 9 Letz' cell phone number so that every time one of these 10 issues comes up, I can get ahold of him by phone and we can 11 jaw it out a little bit. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. Where do 13 you want me to write it down? 14 MS. UECKER: Where's he going to be? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll be here. I'll be 16 here. He's talking about over the weekend. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's -- have we got any more 18 issues we need to discuss in the workshop session, 19 gentlemen? If not, we'll stand adjourned. Thank you, 20 Ms. Kathy. 21 (Commissioners Court workshop adjourned at 4:26 p.m.) 22 - - - - - - - - - - 23 24 25 8-22-03 wk 181 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 31st day of March, 8 2004. 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 8-22-03 wk