1 2 3 4 5 6 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 7 Budget Workshop 8 Wednesday, August 27, 2003 9 9:00 a.m. 10 Commissioners' Courtroom 11 Kerr County Courthouse 12 Kerrville, Texas 13 14 15 16 2003/2004 BUDGET WORKSHOP 17 Unresolved Remaining Budget Issues 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 On Wednesday, August 27, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., a budget 2 workshop 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. It's a few minutes 8 after 9 a.m. Let's call to order the budget workshop 9 scheduled for this date at 9 a.m. This matter was posted as 10 required by law, and in order that we might try and get some 11 preliminary matters out of the way, I note that Ms. Tina 12 Woods with Dietert Senior Citizens -- or Senior Center is 13 here with us today, and she indicated that she'd like to 14 have a few minutes of the Court's time, so I thought I'd 15 afford that opportunity and let her get back to work taking 16 care of her senior citizens, of which we have a number in 17 this county. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We do. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Woods? 20 MS. WOODS: Jonathan's smiling, 'cause he 21 doesn't think he's a senior citizen. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm getting there quick. 23 MS. WOODS: Technically, I am at 51, if you 24 want to deal with AARP's description of senior citizens. I 25 appreciate your time. I know this is a hectic budget year 8-27-03 wk 3 1 for y'all, and I apologize. I haven't come to you earlier 2 simply because I didn't understand exactly what this process 3 is. I talked to Judge Tinley briefly yesterday, and I just 4 want to have a chance to, first of all, thank you for the 5 money that you have been able to give to the senior center 6 in the past several years. We have a contract with the 7 County for $20,000, and I pulled the invoice from last year 8 as the breakdown of -- of that $20,000. And, as you all 9 know, we are not doing public transportation any longer; 10 AACOG is going to handle that. $5,000 was devoted to public 11 transportation, and another $15,000 was devoted to 12 activities at our center, which we put to our nutrition 13 program. We serve about 150 Meals on Wheels every Monday 14 through Friday to county residents who are eligible. We go 15 out and do an assessment of those folks. They're either 16 able to -- or rather unable to shop or prepare meals or they 17 have physical impairments that keeps them from leaving their 18 house. These are probably our most frail elderly, which we 19 would commonly call shut-ins. That 150 meals a week -- I'm 20 sorry, a day -- turns out to be 750 a week, so 39,000 meals 21 annually that we supply to county residents. We do another 22 350 meals a week in our dining room, or 18,200 meals per 23 year. So, our total meal production is 57,200 meals. We 24 use that $15,000 of county money to support that program. 25 We buy food, we repair equipment in our kitchen. We also 8-27-03 wk 4 1 bought a freezer last year to help with our food storage. 2 So, I just -- I appreciate the fact that y'all have been 3 able to devote this kind of money to our seniors in our 4 community. I think you probably know them well, because 5 seniors are very big voters, and they're very vocal folks in 6 our community. Just to give you a breakdown of the numbers 7 of folks in the last census figures, 31 percent of our 8 county residents were aged 60 or older, and that breaks down 9 to about 5,000 who are 55 to 64, another 5,000 who are 65 to 10 74, and then 5,500 who are age 75 and up. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 5,500, 75 and up? 12 MS. WOODS: Mm-hmm. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Huh. 14 MS. WOODS: Yeah. I mean, it's a lot of 15 folks in our community. I think three-quarters of them go 16 to the senior center every day, which is great. That's why 17 we're there. But my concern is for the most frail elderly 18 that we have, and that's a significant number, because those 19 who are 85 and over in our county are 1,483 folks, so 20 that's -- that's a significant group. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: You've got a break point at 22 60, I believe you said, and it was 31 percent? 23 MS. WOODS: 60 and over, yes. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do you have a break 25 point at 65? 8-27-03 wk 5 1 MS. WOODS: 65 to 74 is 12 percent of the 2 population. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I guess everything over 4 65, then, I have to add all the rest of them together. 5 MS. WOODS: Yeah. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, okay. 7 MS. WOODS: But, anyway, I appreciate your 8 time. I don't know if this -- copies of this invoice would 9 be helpful for y'all. I don't know. It's up to you. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're fine. 11 MS. WOODS: Okay. I thank you very much. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you for being here. 13 MS. WOODS: Thank you on behalf of our 14 seniors. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tina, I wanted to say 16 something. We have -- we are interested in -- of course, in 17 what y'all are doing over there, and we've called over there 18 a couple of times; this whole Court has wanted to go over 19 and have lunch. 20 MS. WOODS: Oh, please do. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But we never know 22 until we get in here in a meeting to know if we can do that 23 or not. We've called, and everything's been booked up. 24 What can we do to fix that? 25 MS. WOODS: Just call me. I'll make sure 8-27-03 wk 6 1 that you'll have room. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tina? 3 MS. WOODS: We're going to eat today. 4 Basically, what happens is we ask for reservations, because 5 we -- we have a set number -- we know we're always going to 6 do about 150 for Meals on Wheels, and then we adjust up from 7 that for the dining room. But -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 9 MS. WOODS: -- we can always accommodate, you 10 know, five or six more. So -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, good. 12 MS. WOODS: Just let me -- I would love to 13 host y'all, have you come over and see it. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We would like to do 15 that. We just couldn't do it -- I mean, we couldn't call 16 over there, like, yesterday and make reservations, 'cause 17 we -- we never know who's going to be here and who's 18 available for lunch and that kind of thing. But, okay. 19 Thank you. 20 MS. WOODS: Okay. Thank y'all so much. 21 Appreciate it. 22 (Discussion off the record.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I think when we 24 adjourned yesterday afternoon, our concern was with some of 25 the number-crunching that had gone on on a hurried basis, 8-27-03 wk 7 1 and there was a desire to doublecheck and reconfirm those 2 figures after we adjourned and bring them back here this 3 morning. Commissioner Nicholson, is that where you are this 4 morning? 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. Tommy's 6 reworked the salary cost numbers to reflect the changes that 7 we discussed yesterday, and he finds that the -- the cost of 8 salary increases would be $465,000. And the -- the salary 9 cost decrease that resulted from -- well, that's not quite 10 right. The -- as I understand it, the only departments we 11 have volunteering to reduce head count is County Clerk, 12 jail, and Maintenance. The Tax Collector has not yet 13 weighed in on that issue that I know of. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: District Clerk also, but it's 15 not listed there. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: District Clerk. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Has done some shared 18 sacrifice. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. So, it looks 20 like that number, 252, is about -- the 20,812, five -- so 21 252 is really about 230 -- 231, give or take a few dollars. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the 156,657. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's -- yes. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Now, the 4,000 increase 25 for jailers and dispatchers, when we see each deputy -- 8-27-03 wk 8 1 dispatchers fall under jailers, don't they? 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We've lumped jailers 3 and dispatchers together, yes. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You roll those over in 5 a different category? 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And each deputy 9 means every commissioned officer, from patrolman up to chief 10 deputy. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What does benefits at 13 .2144 mean? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: That's the FICA. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Retirement. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: Worker's comp and retirement. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: How many -- how many jailers 18 is this 189,446? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: 39. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: 39? That's the net number of 21 jailers? 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's counting jail and 23 dispatch and jail administrators. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. But the 189 is a net 25 figure after deducting the four jailers that we've been 8-27-03 wk 9 1 talking about? 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I haven't seen their 3 figures this morning. What it would have been was -- was -- 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We had 43; now we 5 got 39. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Jail, dispatch -- yeah. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So that -- 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Minus -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: -- jailers and dispatchers, 10 that includes 39 jailers, plus dispatchers? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: No, that's total. Jailers 12 and dispatchers, 39 total. That's the number Commissioner 13 Nicholson gave me. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, let me make sure I 16 understand. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me say it. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Jailers and 20 dispatchers together, we had 43. We cut out four jailers, 21 so now jailers and dispatchers total is 39. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, the 189 figure 23 represents the 39 jailers and dispatchers, net, after 24 reducing the four head count. I don't see that you can do 25 any deduction down at the bottom, then, if you've already 8-27-03 wk 10 1 netted it out up here at the top. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think -- I mean, 3 the way I'm looking at it is -- I mean, that top number, is 4 that the cost of the increase, or is that total cost? The 5 189,000? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: That's the total. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's total? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: That's the total of the 9 increase. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Total of the increase is 11 that. But we're -- to me, in my mind, the way I look at it, 12 we're getting a savings of 83,000 still. If we didn't -- 13 the way I look at it, it's a -- I like it the way it's 14 presented. It's making sense to me. I won't try to explain 15 the way I'm looking at it. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: When it comes to the bottom 17 line numbers on the budget, are we increasing the budget by 18 a net of $465,251, or are we increasing the budget under 19 these figures, disregarding County Clerk, Tax Collector and 20 Maintenance people down here at the bottom, or are we 21 decreasing the budget by the difference between 465,251 and 22 the 252,649? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: The latter. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Increase is 235. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: If you don't consider the -- 8-27-03 wk 11 1 if you don't consider the two non-Sheriff's Office people, 2 then you should take out the four jailers on the bottom, 3 because they're already out in the second group of numbers. 4 So -- so, I think that -- that the incremental cost is the 5 difference between the 456 and whatever the second number 6 is. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, I agree on 8 some of them, except that in the numbers we have in the 9 budget -- in the current run, the County Clerk's reduction 10 and the Maintenance reduction are already in that number. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, the tax -- 13 MR. TOMLINSON: No, but I -- I thought that 14 there was a -- I thought there was supposed to be another 15 person. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think these are 17 the ones -- these are the ones that have already been cut, I 18 thought. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought so, too. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: From the Clerk and the 21 Maintenance. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think that's 23 right. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's not another 25 person. 8-27-03 wk 12 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're already in 2 the previous run you did. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two of them are the 4 District Clerk's. Maintenance and County Clerk's are in the 5 previous run. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: That's not what I thought we 7 agreed to. I thought that there was an additional person in 8 each one of those departments. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: So, is the answer to my 10 question now the former as opposed to the latter? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: It's the latter. I mean, 12 disregard the bottom totally. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: The net -- the net increase is 14 465, as the budget now stands. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, correct. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And we also need to 19 know that some of our department heads and elected officials 20 have reduced our payroll cost by something over $200,000 21 from where it would have been had they not done that. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, is that a correct 24 statement, Commissioner? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so. 8-27-03 wk 13 1 JUDGE TINLEY: If -- if the jail reduction is 2 reduced, but then you turn around and give it back, that's 3 not a reduction if you add it all back. Now, in the case of 4 the other three that have -- that have participated in the 5 shared sacrifice, the net savings to the County is probably 6 50 percent or less of what -- or more of what they gave up, 7 according to the figures that I was looking at yesterday. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Look at the line 9 that says 4,000 increase for jailers and dispatchers, 10 189,446. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If the Sheriff had 13 not cut jailers by four, would you agree that that would be 14 something larger than $16,000 more? Four times 4,000 is 15 16,000, plus 20 percent rollup, that would be -- that would 16 be $20,000 more than 189,000. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- you have 18 to look at it, the -- of what's in the current budget run. 19 In the current budget run, there are 43 jailers and 20 dispatchers. So, from the jail standpoint, you have to net 21 out the 189 and the 83, because there is going to be a 22 savings when we do the next budget run from the -- but from 23 the County Clerk's and Maintenance, they're already in the 24 budget, so that doesn't -- we drew a line through those on 25 the bottom. 8-27-03 wk 14 1 JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which makes the 3 decrease less than -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- the estimated 230. 6 It's going to be less. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tax Assessor hasn't 8 agreed to any. The only savings is 83,248, because the 9 County Clerk and the Maintenance, the District Clerk are 10 already in the budget. Tax Collector hasn't agreed to any 11 cuts, so the only one that's a real number is the 83 -- the 12 jail is a savings. The rest of them are already in the 13 numbers. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For current budget 15 purposes, that's absolutely correct. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you're -- 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And it's interesting 19 to note -- to look and see the numbers and how much was 20 saved. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Because of their 23 efforts to reduce staff. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, as I say, to me, 25 those bottoms are useful, but they're not necessarily 8-27-03 wk 15 1 affecting how they affect the budget. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what is the number 3 that's the total increase? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: 465,251. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Less four jailers? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm? No, I don't think -- 7 you've already netted out the jailers up here. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's just the cost of 9 the increase for 39 new employees. You still have to take 10 out the base salary of the four that you're getting rid of. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: That's already in -- in the -- 12 okay. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- that four -- 14 because the budget number that we have right now has those 15 four jailers. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Down at the bottom, 18 the 82,048, do you not subtract that from the 465? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you would. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. That's what I 21 wanted. What is that number? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: 382,003. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, that's the total 24 increase to the budget? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I think. 8-27-03 wk 16 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Jonathan, is that four 2 on jail and dispatch and three on deputies? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it what? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $4,000, Jail/Dispatch, 5 three on deputies. Is that the figures y'all are -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. That's what -- 7 what's on the paper. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: All right. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Now, relevant to 10 that, Barbara Nemec, our Treasurer, has provided us with 11 a -- a run -- salary run that would conform the proposed 12 increases for jailers and dispatchers to our -- 13 MS. NEMEC: Commissioner, may I say something 14 before you go on? 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. Please -- 16 please step up here. 17 MS. NEMEC: Oh, I'm sorry. The Sheriff and I 18 were just talking, and we figured out a way to go ahead and 19 do what you're proposing, the $4,000 for the jailers and the 20 $3,000 for the deputies, so I did all that for nothing. If 21 I do two different schedules, one for jailers and one for 22 deputies, then just increase this first number by those 23 amounts, everything will move forward, so I think we'll be 24 okay. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's not an 8-27-03 wk 17 1 impediment. We don't need to -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, this is for 3 naught? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's trash. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Joins a stack of 6 trash I got up here. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I got a lot. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge? 9 MS. UECKER: Recycle. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question, if I 11 may, for you. In the -- I was thinking about -- in my long 12 drives to and from the eastern part of the county, which -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Business away from the 14 courthouse. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- which have been many 16 in recent days, in the past week or so, we've pretty much 17 been going around the table tinkering with your proposed 18 budget, but you haven't -- other than directing and 19 commenting and explaining, I mean, I don't recall really 20 hearing your point of view on all the changes and things. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: You got my point of view, 22 Commissioner, when I laid it on the table the 11th day of 23 this month. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So -- well, so 25 what you're saying is you don't want to give a COLA, or you 8-27-03 wk 18 1 don't want to do any of the things that we've discussed in 2 the last two weeks. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: You got my point of view when 4 I laid it on the table and said that is a decision for this 5 Commissioners Court to make. It goes from the top to the 6 bottom, and that's a matter that this Commissioners Court 7 needs -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you're a member of 9 this Commissioners Court. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly right, and I'll 11 cast my vote at the time that those items come up. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you're not going to 13 give us your feelings on these items? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, I think I've -- where I've 15 felt it appropriate to make comments, you've heard comments 16 from me. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I know. I just -- 18 and I'm not -- I don't want -- and I'll tell you, I'll be 19 very blunt. I don't want to be hung out and have you come 20 at the last minute and vote against the budget and say that 21 you presented a balanced budget and we voted for a 22 cost-of-living increase and some other increases, and blame 23 it on the four Commissioners, when you participated in the 24 process. So, I want to know your point of view and what 25 you're going to do now. 8-27-03 wk 19 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm required by law to 2 participate in this process, Commissioner. I don't have to 3 give you or anybody else a precommitment on how I'm going to 4 vote on -- on a particular issue, and I'm not going to do it 5 till I hear all the information and see how it all fits in 6 the whole scheme of things. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think I'd be 9 discharging my duty to the voters, taxpayers, and citizens 10 of this county if I were to do so. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you're not going -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe you've done so, but I'm 13 not going to participate in precommitments. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're not going to 15 participate in a discussion of the budget beyond what you 16 submitted until it comes time to vote? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm required by law to 18 participate in this process and act as a -- act as a 19 facilitator, if nothing else, and presiding officer of this 20 Court. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you're not going to 22 answer my question, bottom line. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I think I have answered your 24 question, Commissioner. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't see much 8-27-03 wk 20 1 point in, you know, having a workshop today. I'm ready to 2 go home. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we all took that 4 position, we would still be where we were last Monday. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And, you know, 6 I'm willing to do nothing, then, today. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have anything 8 further? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, wait a minute, 10 now. Wait a minute. Let's -- y'all just get a little hot 11 under the collar. We've got lots of work to do. I see -- 12 on this minimum -- this salary schedule that Number 4 13 presented, I see a $382,003 increase in our budget. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the other 16 things that we have done throughout the budget? Are we 17 talking -- I mean, I'd like to kind of know about where we 18 are. Are we talking -- here's $382,000. Is there another 19 $14 million or another $500,000 or another $700,000? What? 20 I mean, I'd kind of like to know where we are, because I'd 21 like to start kind of seeing in my mind, are we talking 22 about a 3-cent tax increase? I'd like to start thinking 23 about that, knowing where we are and where we're going. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Auditor? Can you clarify 25 it for this Commissioner? 8-27-03 wk 21 1 MR. TOMLINSON: I didn't -- I don't have with 2 me the prior budget summary. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, are we 5 talking about -- are we knocking on the door of a rollback? 6 Or are we -- you know, where are we? I'd like to know that 7 today so I can think about it. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: The first one -- the last 9 budget printout, we have a -- a total of $13,348,000 for the 10 General Fund. Road and Bridge hasn't changed significantly. 11 So, Commissioner Williams, what -- what is that total of the 12 one prior to this? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hold on, I got it 14 here in this stack someplace. Judge came up with it first. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: 12,877,391. You want to know 16 the difference between those two, Mr. Auditor? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: It's approximately 500,000. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: 486,939. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. That's the question 20 that the -- Commissioner 1 asked, and that's the difference. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me tag on another 22 question to what Commissioner Baldwin's asking. Would the 23 382,003 that we talked about this morning as representing 24 the parity matters that Commissioner Nicholson has been 25 initiating, would that be on top of the last run? 8-27-03 wk 22 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, that puts 3 us at the $700,000 mark. 4 MR. TOMLINSON: What -- basically, what's -- 5 the change -- the $486,000 change from -- from the first run 6 to this run primarily is the COLA and 15 percent increase in 7 health insurance. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, those two 9 items. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Those two items alone make up 11 90-plus percent of the 486,000. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the last run that 13 you gave us, which included the COLA and the rollup on 14 insurance, did it also include other minor things we have 15 done? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it did. Every -- 17 everything that there was a consensus on prior to -- to 18 Tuesday -- to last Tuesday is in here. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what we don't 20 have is what we did yesterday, in addition to the 382,003? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $700,000. 23 Three-quarters of a million dollars. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is there still -- in the 25 Judge's original, that 480-something went on top of what the 8-27-03 wk 23 1 Judge originally proposed. Wasn't there already a $500,000 2 cut from last year's overall budget to what you proposed, 3 Judge? 'Cause I think there was 238,000 out of my 4 department alone from last year's to this year. Or that 5 he -- no, that was from -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: His proposed budget 7 didn't include health insurance for employees; it didn't 8 include an increase. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Did not include the 10 15 percent, no. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It included the 5884. 12 But I'm talking from his proposed budget to what that first 13 run was, above last year's budget, wouldn't it only have 14 amounted to less than 100,000? And then you're talking 15 about 300 top of that, so it would be about a $400,000 16 increase from last year to this year? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I don't know that 18 comparing last year to this year -- you know, I'm not sure, 19 number one, that that's even relevant. We're talking about 20 what we got to work with this year. But the -- the run-up, 21 the summary that we got from the Auditor as of Monday 22 morning was the 480 -- 486 -- 487, roughly, and then what 23 was done yesterday would go on top of it, any net increases. 24 And then the -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 382. 8-27-03 wk 24 1 JUDGE TINLEY: 382 that we're dealing with as 2 an item, that would go on top. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All the changes, 4 yesterday's and the day before. All the cars for 5 constables, which -- I mean, these numbers aren't real big, 6 but you probably add another 50,000 over the -- you know, 7 things that were left out by omission and a few other items. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: My calculations are you add a 9 net of 62,4. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 62-what? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Four. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 400? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Round figures, 62,397. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to set them 15 up. We're getting close to my question here; just my 16 opinion, now. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, you need to know that, 18 and I think you should have that information. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I do. So, I'm 20 looking at almost -- right at -- knocking on a million 21 dollars here. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I get 931,000. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 931? 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. Is that what 25 you get, Jonathan? 8-27-03 wk 25 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not adding, I'm just 2 copying yours. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's pretty close. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: 931, yeah. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 931,342. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's possible we 7 might have forgotten one or two things. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's close to a 9 million bucks. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Now, Mr. Auditor, tell us 11 about the calculation of the rollback rate on the 12 information that you made available to us on Monday. You've 13 got an '02-'03 rate and an '03-'04 rate. What's the 14 difference in those -- those rates? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: The total county rate, I left 16 the same, .3721. The .0309 for Road and Bridge is the 17 three-quarters of one cent that moved down from -- 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Right. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: -- from the General Fund. 20 There's the same -- difference in the M & O General Fund 21 rate is the same three-quarters of one cent. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me -- 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Now, rollback rate is -- 24 that's a rate that I receive from the Tax Collector. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask you this question, 8-27-03 wk 26 1 if I might. If we -- if we reallocate that three-quarters 2 of a cent of the tax rate over to Road and Bridge, are you 3 telling me that what we've got to work with between present 4 rate and rollback rate is the difference between .3876 and 5 .3721? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: And if we don't do that 8 reallocation, are you telling me that the difference we'd 9 have to work with is the difference between .3975 and .3721? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: No. No, the matter -- the 11 rollback rate won't change. The total -- if we reallocate 12 the three-quarters of one cent back to the General Fund, it 13 still makes no difference. The total rate remains the same. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: So, you're telling me that the 15 roll -- we have about one and one-half cents, or 1.55 before 16 we hit rollback? Is that what you're telling me? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: That's exactly right. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How much? Say that 19 again. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: 1.55. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: 1.55. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's from the number 23 that we're -- we've just added up? Or -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, okay. 8-27-03 wk 27 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Between our -- what it would 2 take to -- to raise those taxes, which I -- 3 MR. TOMLINSON: That's -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: They're already in the initial 5 summaries. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: That's approximately 7 $366,000. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what 1.55 9 equates to. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: One and a half -- one and a 11 half cents equals approximately 366,000. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: What are you using, 235? 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Two -- two, four. The -- the 14 tax, the last number I have, the total taxable value is 15 2 billion, 423 million. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: So, one cent you equate to how 17 much? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: 242,000. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: 242? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I was using 240. I get 22 $375,100. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Does that answer your 25 question, Commissioner Baldwin? 8-27-03 wk 28 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, let me make sure 2 that I'm hearing it. So, in order for us to pick up this 3 931,000, we'd have to increase taxes by 3 pennies -- 4 basically, 3 pennies? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, that's close. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And what -- what -- I 7 understand the penny, but what is a percentage of that -- 8 what does that equate to, a percentage? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have my calculator. 10 I'm not that good. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say it again, 12 Commissioner? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand the 14 penny -- that we would have to raise taxes by 3 cents, but 15 how does that equate to a percentage? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, that's about 17 10 percent. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Almost 10 percent. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: About 10 percent. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Little under 10 percent. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 9 percent, maybe. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: 3.8. 3.85. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a pretty heavy 25 tax increase. I can't imagine us doing that. So, now what? 8-27-03 wk 29 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Back to the drawing 2 board. 3 MS. NEMEC: We haven't discussed the elected 4 officials' salaries, either. I presented y'all with a -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: More than 10 percent. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably not a good thing to 7 bring up at this time, is it? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My -- I'll just make a 9 kind of a blanket statement. Elected officials' salaries, 10 if there's a tax increase, I'm not supporting anything other 11 than COLA for any elected official. Last time, I recall 12 we -- 13 MS. NEMEC: So you're putting them at the end 14 again. Doing everything else, and putting the elected 15 officials at the end again. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- the last time I 17 recall that I raised my hand with a slight tax increase, 18 which was for a designated item such as, I believe, the 19 thing next door, or maybe it was the deputy -- the Sheriff's 20 communications system, the front page banner for the 21 entire -- for the next six months, "Commissioners Court 22 Raises Taxes to Give Elected Officials Salaries." And -- 23 you know, and that's just -- that's not true. That's not 24 what the tax increase was for. So, I don't see any reason 25 to do that. 8-27-03 wk 30 1 MS. UECKER: That's not our fault, though. 2 MS. NEMEC: Y'all had said y'all were going 3 to discuss these salaries before y'all did some other 4 increases, and you didn't, so now it's going to appear that 5 way because you put this till the very end. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It appears that way -- 7 the press is going to report it that way any way you look at 8 it. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: My recollection is not real 10 good, but it seems to me that there's been considerable 11 discussion in this court over several days about at least 12 one elected official's salary. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I believe -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: It's been batted around pretty 15 good. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I believe it's in 17 here. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it ended up a 19 decrease, didn't it? 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only comment I would 21 have to that, I do think the elected official ought to make 22 more than somebody else in their own department, whether 23 that means -- whatever, but I don't think it's right that 24 any elected official makes less than their own subordinates. 25 And we've done that in the Sheriff's Department every year 8-27-03 wk 31 1 I've been Sheriff except for last year. They all -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many departments 3 -- how many departments does that happen in? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Happens in Sheriff's 5 Department. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm asking the 7 Treasurer. 8 MS. NEMEC: I believe just one. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Sheriff. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what you need to 11 say is, "I believe that my chief deputy shouldn't make more 12 than me." Not other departments. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't -- you know, 14 Commissioner Nicholson said about a percentage difference 15 between the elected official and the salary. We go through 16 this every -- every year. The only problem I have is, for 17 all the years I've been Sheriff, if you add up the totals, 18 okay, last year was the first year that the Sheriff himself 19 made more than his chief deputy, by a couple hundred 20 dollars. Now we're going back down, and I think the Sheriff 21 does have a great responsibility, and I just don't think 22 it's right -- whether it's me being Sheriff -- I'm not 23 asking for a raise for myself, per se. I make a decent 24 living; my wife has a decent job, thank goodness. But what 25 I'm saying, I don't think it's right overall that the chief 8-27-03 wk 32 1 deputy of a department does make more than the Sheriff. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I don't think it's 4 right that you cut the chief deputy's salary when that went 5 along with the -- "N" word -- the Nash deal that everybody's 6 agreed was inadequate when it was done. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct, and I agree, 8 and I think everybody at this table -- everybody in this 9 room agrees. 10 MS. UECKER: Didn't I hear you say, Buster, 11 day before yesterday or Friday, that you -- you thought that 12 the -- you should keep your commitment of what was promised 13 to elected officials? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely, I do. I 15 do. Sure do. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I said it, and 17 I'll say it again. We're looking at spending something like 18 800 -- close to $900,000 on increases in various other 19 things, and we're leaving the elected officials hanging out 20 there dangling again, having not fulfilled the original 21 commitment we made three or four years ago. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, on that point, I'll 23 just go down through some of them. This is on the numbers 24 that I got from Barbara yesterday. If you look at the 25 increase that was given in 2001/2002 to get them up to 8-27-03 wk 33 1 parity, and what the study showed the difference was, County 2 Clerk was paid $23 under the average. County Clerk got a 3 $422 raise. I'm just going to -- you know, District Clerk 4 was paid $87 over average; District Clerk got a $422 raise. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't see the figures as to 6 what was under or over. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The J.P.'s were $581 10 under. They all got a $996 raise. County Attorney was 11 $1,420 over; got a $322 raise. Treasurer was $216 under; 12 got a $422 raise. Tax Assessor was 352 over; got a $422 13 raise. The Sheriff was $626 under the average; Sheriff got 14 a $2,720 raise. County Judge was $9,212 under; got a $4,700 15 raise, and Commissioner was $6,240 under; got a 3,000 -- 16 almost $3,300 raise. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 3,300. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 3,300. The -- you know, 19 I don't know where -- you know, I'm not real sure, and from 20 what I gather, Barbara isn't real sure where these numbers 21 came from, but if you look at the discussion, we did the 22 commitment in 2000 that we said we were going to do for 23 everybody except the people that sit at this table. So, the 24 only ones that we're saying we're not going to fulfill the 25 commitment to is four Commissioners and a County Judge. 8-27-03 wk 34 1 Everybody else, we equalized it up to the average three 2 years ago. 3 JUDGE WRIGHT: Go back down to J.P.'s. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: J.P.'s got a -- they were 5 paid, on average, $581 under the average, and they got a 900 6 -- I take that back. Two of them got different raises. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One got 996, one got 8 393. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two got -- I don't know 10 why two got 996 and two got 396. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You got the 396. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: That was because there were 13 different amounts in travel that got rolled in, and they 14 were -- they were -- the salaries were unequal as a result 15 of that, if my analysis is correct. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess that's why I 18 kind of support unrolling the travel allowance, so we know 19 what the true salary really is. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- and I agree 21 with that, but I think that if we do that, from what the 22 Auditor's -- or one of the reasons that we rolled it in, 23 people are going to have to keep salary logs and get 24 reimbursed. We can't just give a blanket allowance and not 25 count it as salary. 8-27-03 wk 35 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, you have to give a 2 blanket allowance. You have to count it as salary. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if you 4 ever really completed your thought -- your point when you 5 started in on this. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My point is that I think 7 that we fulfilled the commitment the Court made in 8 2000/2001. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Partially. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there's -- I 11 think J.P. 2 and 3 are the only ones I see that we didn't 12 fulfill the commitment to, other than the people on the 13 Commissioners Court, you know. So, I mean, I -- unless I'm 14 missing something in the numbers, these are the numbers that 15 the Treasurer gave me -- or gave the Court two days ago -- 16 or yesterday. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'd really like 18 to hear the comment of somebody so we -- because if we leave 19 here without discussing this and getting to the bottom of 20 it, there's going to be a thorn in this thing. It's going 21 to fester. I'd really like to have the discussion and put 22 this thing to bed, if we could. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. You know, and 24 if -- if the elected officials think that these numbers 25 aren't right, you know, I'll just -- I don't -- they came 8-27-03 wk 36 1 from the Treasurer. That's all I know. 2 MS. NEMEC: No, these didn't come from the 3 Treasurer. This is what you're comparing it to. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was the -- 5 MS. NEMEC: You're comparing my numbers to 6 this, and this makes no sense whatsoever. There's pages 7 missing from this, to begin with. You can see on here it 8 said on Page 1 -- 9 MS. UECKER: That's part of the -- 10 MS. NEMEC: We don't even have that. And 11 these were salary comparisons that were done in 2000. We're 12 going into 2004. Aside from all that, we're still -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The commitment that you 14 keep on saying that we're not fulfilling is the 2000/2001 15 commitment, and based on the survey -- and the Judge gave me 16 the survey. I probably couldn't find it in any budget book. 17 He found it in the County Judge's file. That was the survey 18 that you're saying we didn't live up to -- the commitment 19 to. All I'm saying is that this Court lived up to its 20 commitment to almost every -- two J.P.'s didn't, and this -- 21 members of this Court did not -- we did not live up to the 22 commitment to, and I think that should be rectified. Not 23 the Court. I think the J.P.'s should be. 24 MS. NEMEC: I don't see how you lived up to 25 your commitment if at the time y'all voted to only give 8-27-03 wk 37 1 50 percent. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We didn't. We gave -- we 3 gave -- that's my issue; we didn't give 50 percent. We gave 4 100 percent and more. 5 MS. UECKER: No, you didn't. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, we did. I mean, I 7 don't see how you can say we didn't. 8 MS. UECKER: Here, I've got the -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The numbers -- I mean, 10 tell me how I'm not thinking this right. The County Clerk 11 was paid $23 under the average. The increase that year was 12 $422. I mean, the -- from what you're telling me, all we 13 should have given the County Clerk was a $12 raise, and we 14 didn't. We gave her $422. 15 MS. NEMEC: I don't know -- I'm not counting 16 on these numbers. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's the -- then, 18 okay, what numbers are the elected officials saying we 19 committed to in 2000? Maybe that's a different way to 20 approach it. 21 MS. NEMEC: Well, there's -- there's 22 something missing from here to compare to. This is what 23 y'all gave me to compare to. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Okay, and my 25 question -- 8-27-03 wk 38 1 MS. NEMEC: I don't agree with this. I don't 2 think this is what we -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What numbers -- are the 4 numbers correct? 5 MS. NEMEC: I don't know. Y'all have those 6 numbers. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Those are the numbers. 8 MS. UECKER: Jonathan, back when that -- when 9 that commitment was made, it was not based on those figures, 10 per se. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was it based on? 12 MS. UECKER: Well, I don't know. It was a 13 figure that the Commissioners Court came up with at the 14 time. I think we can look back at the transcript. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have. Those are the 16 numbers, according to the workshop records. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a document that 18 came out of this Commissioners Court. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That right there. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Of course, I don't 22 have any recollection of that, so I'm at an advantage here. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, you are. 24 Distinct. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But what -- 8-27-03 wk 39 1 Commissioner Letz is making sense to me, but what I'd like 2 somebody to do is to say, "You didn't keep your commitment, 3 and my salary would be 'X' had you kept it," and give me 4 some -- give me something to back that up. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, this is 6 what we can -- what -- you know, I went through it. The 7 Judge went through it. This is what we could find in the 8 paper that we've given is the -- what we found in the court 9 records the commitment was, you know. I don't know. If 10 there was something else that we don't have in the court 11 record that we committed to, and it isn't in the court 12 minutes -- I mean, I don't know how else we can solve this. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, there was -- there was 14 an addition to -- to the process that -- that the Court 15 committed to that never was followed through. 16 JUDGE WRIGHT: Ours was 2,000 this year and 17 2,000 in two years, is what we understood. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: And what I recall is that the 19 Court agreed to -- for each -- for the County Judge and the 20 four Commissioners to appoint one person from the -- from 21 the citizens to form a committee to study elected officials' 22 salaries, and I got charged with the duty of -- of coming up 23 with -- with the data necessary for that committee to 24 function. And I -- I did that, and I met with a committee 25 one time after -- after -- I think I compared the -- the 8-27-03 wk 40 1 salaries, the -- the total assessed values of different -- 2 18 different counties, coming up with even what -- what the 3 per capita increment was in each of those counties; compared 4 counties -- the resources of these counties with -- with the 5 amount paid to elected officials. And I did all that and I 6 met with the committee, and the committee never met again, 7 because -- because, I mean, it wasn't my call to -- wasn't 8 my call to have the committee meet. I was the support 9 person. I still have those numbers. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you provide 11 them to us? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, sure. I mean, I -- I 13 didn't -- I didn't know we were going to talk about -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think this is in 15 better shape than what we're looking at. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't have a 17 problem -- if we have the commitment out there, I don't have 18 a problem with trying -- of doing everything we can to 19 fulfill it. But the numbers that were in the court record 20 are what we're working with. If there's something else 21 floating out there that -- you know, we can look at it. 22 But, still, the numbers we're talking about are the ones 23 that are in the minutes of this court. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me ask a 25 question, please. Judge Wright is the only one I've heard 8-27-03 wk 41 1 so far put a number on what she thinks this commitment is, 2 and I'd like to hear more about that. 3 JUDGE WRIGHT: It's in our record -- our 4 request when we turned in our budget, the original budget. 5 The commitment we -- as we understood it being 2,000 and an 6 additional 2,000 in two years. And that's -- 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, you're saying 8 that you understood a commitment back in 2001/2002, that 9 you -- that you'd get 2,000 then? 10 JUDGE WRIGHT: Right, and then -- 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 2,000 last year -- 12 or this current year? 13 JUDGE WRIGHT: This year. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: From your point of 15 view, we're -- we didn't follow through on a $2,000 16 commitment. 17 MS. UECKER: I thought it was $2,000 total. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me address this, if I 19 might. The -- this all occurred in the budget year 20 2000/2001, if I'm correct. In trying to determine what 21 existing commitments Kerr County had to its personnel in 22 preparing the budget that I prepared and laid on the table, 23 that was part of what I was trying to accomplish. Determine 24 what those commitments are that now exist. Not fresh ones, 25 not new ones, but existing. Looking back, it probably was a 8-27-03 wk 42 1 mistake in at least one respect, but be that as it may, a 2 number of elected officials, when I sat down and talked to 3 them, they asked about, quote, "the other half." And we 4 talked about the other half. Some had a figure of $2,000, 5 some had a figure of $642, and some had other figures. I 6 went back and tried to ascertain from the work the Court did 7 in doing what it did in the 2000/2001 budget to try and 8 ascertain what clear commitment existed on behalf of Kerr 9 County to the elected officials, and I was so confused and 10 so bamboozled by the time I looked at what I reviewed in 11 order to try and ascertain what commitment, if any, existed, 12 I threw up my hands, I left that out, and when I laid the 13 budget on the table, I said, "Guys, if there's going to be 14 an elected officials' salary increase, it's a brand new, 15 wide-open ball game. It's up to you, 'cause I cannot 16 clearly define any preexisting obligation." Now, I realize 17 that doesn't resolve the issue about what amount, if any, 18 should be given to any particular elected official as a -- 19 as a salary increase, or whether or not there's a 20 commitment, because I couldn't -- I couldn't clearly define 21 the commitment. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a good 23 point. I think another good point is that that study was 24 done almost four years -- four years ago, and things have 25 changed in four years. You know, I just think we need -- to 8-27-03 wk 43 1 me, no one has been able to show that there's a commitment 2 existing out there to anybody that makes sense. A lot of -- 3 I read through the same minutes, and it's not clear, you 4 know. Judge Wright says -- you know, they're saying it was 5 2,000. Well, I didn't see anything in the minutes about 6 2,000. I doesn't mean that, you know, some individual -- 7 and it could have been me -- said 2,000 to you, but that's 8 not reported -- you know, reflected in the minutes from the 9 workshop. So, all I'm saying is I don't see a commitment 10 out there that we've left unfulfilled to elected officials. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, if it -- if it was 12 2,000, 2,000 twice, -- 13 JUDGE WRIGHT: That was my understanding. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that means that her 15 salary was $4,000 below the median. 16 JUDGE WRIGHT: Now, that was not your survey. 17 That was another survey. That -- that came from -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wasn't my survey. We 19 used -- Commissioner Griffin's survey was the one that the 20 Court utilized. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me ask Tommy 22 something. Tommy, in the material that you prepared for the 23 subsequent study group, do you remember, we did appoint a 24 study group? You may have been on it; I don't know. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it was my idea to do 8-27-03 wk 44 1 it. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does the material 3 that you prepared for that subsequent -- that group that 4 subsequently studied this issue on one meeting, did it show 5 what -- the survey that we worked from, and did it show what 6 the elected officials were given that particular -- in that 7 particular budget, and the committee was supposed to move 8 forward? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: I'd have to look at it again. 10 I mean, I did this a year ago. I mean, I -- it may be, 11 but I'd have to -- to try to retrieve my system and see. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I, for one, would 13 like to see what the Auditor put together. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who else was on this 15 committee with you? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: I was the only one from the 17 County. Each -- each person -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Each Commissioner 19 appointed one, I believe. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the Judge appointed 23 one. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, there were five 25 on it? 8-27-03 wk 45 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All from the citizens 2 at large, and the Auditor represented the County. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh, I see. Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The hope was -- obviously 5 didn't work -- to remove it from all the elected officials. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I remember that. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And go with the 8 recommendation of the community. But -- 9 MR. TOMLINSON: I wasn't in charge -- wasn't 10 charged with directing the activities of the committee, I 11 mean, so -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, they were 13 supposed to elect their own chairman. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what did the 15 minutes say of our meetings back there? That we did this 16 study of several counties, and we found -- we weren't trying 17 to raise our salaries up equal to them, but 50 percent of 18 what -- no, the median of those. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We were trying to get our 20 salaries to the median of the counties that were surveyed. 21 And the survey -- and my memory tells me it was Commissioner 22 Griffin that prepared the numbers, and he used counties 23 that -- some were different than we've traditionally used; 24 some were the same, but I think only four or five counties. 25 It wasn't -- 8-27-03 wk 46 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it was 15 2 counties. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's some as few as 4 eight or nine, and some as high as 12 or 13, I think. 5 Anyway, and it was the -- the idea was to get us to the 6 median of that survey. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we did -- we do 8 half of what it takes to get to that median one year, and 9 half -- does the minutes say all that? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't remember. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: My recollection of the minutes 12 is that -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty confusing. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: -- that there was a discussion 15 whether we should do 60 percent/40 percent, 50 percent. 16 Everybody seemed to light on 50 percent, but not to -- that 17 50 percent could not exceed 10 percent of the elected 18 official's salary, with the balance coming the following 19 year, whatever that balance may be. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I listened. I was 21 in Commissioners Court listening to those discussions, and I 22 do recall -- I don't know what the -- the resolution of it 23 was, but I do recall the -- we can go 50 this year and 50 24 next year, or 60/40, that kind of thing. So, that was part 25 of a scheme. Whether or not it came into play or not, I 8-27-03 wk 47 1 don't know. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 75 of the 3 minutes, which I think the Treasurer provided. Judge 4 Henneke: "Seems to be where we are; 50 percent," -- which 5 would be the reference to the study -- "10 percent cap," -- 6 no matter what, particularly to the Court, I believe the cap 7 did apply -- "plus COLA. Okay. All right." Commissioner 8 Baldwin: "Do you think we need to say one more time what 9 the 50 percent means...?" Obviously, we did. (Laughter.) 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Wise man. 11 MS. NEMEC: That's why I'm saying -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fifty percent -- I 13 commented, "You're reading my mind. Fifty percent of the 14 parity adjustment." We were looking for parity. And this 15 is out of the minutes. Commissioner Griffin: "If any 16 elected official is above the average, they get the COLA. 17 That's all they get. If any elected official is below the 18 average, then what we're going to do is we're going to 19 account for 50 percent of the difference. It would still be 20 below the average, but they account for 50 percent of that 21 difference, and there would still be a 10 percent cap..." 22 Well, that's how come the numbers got skewed, because they 23 got a cap applied to them. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the cap only applied, 25 I believe, to the County Judge and Commissioners. 8-27-03 wk 48 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "So it is not raising 2 it to the average; it is something below the average. If 3 they're above the average, they don't get anything." Judge 4 Henneke: "Tommy?" Mr. Tomlinson: "I have two items that I 5 noticed in reviewing the budget." First -- okay, different 6 topic. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Williams, let me 8 ask you, then. Referring to this recap of the actions that 9 occurred in 2001 and '2, does that suggest that these 10 numbers that are highlighted, the dark numbers, the total 11 increase for 2001 and '2 -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way I'm 13 reading it, Commissioner. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Was that 50 percent? 15 Do you owe them the other half of that? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be my 17 reading of it. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If J.P. 2 got 396, 19 does J.P. 2 expect another 396? That's my question. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be my 21 reading of it. 22 MS. UECKER: That's the way I understood, 23 because at the time, the -- and I know it's not in the 24 minutes, but I thought that it -- that it was a total of 25 2,000; we'd get a portion of that one year and a portion of 8-27-03 wk 49 1 it next year. That -- that's the way I remember it. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- I mean, part 3 of that, though, the intent was to get them to parity. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if parity could be 6 achieved with a $23 increase, that means there should have 7 been a $12 increase. Well, there's a $422 increase. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are there COLA's in 9 there? 10 MS. NEMEC: No. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, it was. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, not in -- 13 MS. NEMEC: That's why I don't think you have 14 the correct document that you need. 15 JUDGE WRIGHT: Doesn't sound like what I 16 remember. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That could be correct. 18 But, you know, I don't know where the other -- where the 19 correct document is. 20 MS. NEMEC: I don't know, but these are the 21 figures right here. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only thing I have to 23 say, if this Court feels that -- and I'm talking about my 24 position, because I told you I haven't asked for a salary 25 increase. I've never come to this Court and asked for a 8-27-03 wk 50 1 salary increase for myself. There's one proposed this year 2 to get parity, okay. And this Court, last year, when they 3 corrected it, said -- except for the two members that 4 weren't on it last year, said it wasn't right that a chief 5 deputy make more than the Sheriff. And if this Court now 6 feels that the chief deputy should make more than the 7 Sheriff, leave my salary like it is and we'll go on. But -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if you were the 9 only part of the equation that we're dealing with, Sheriff, 10 I guess that would have great value, but you're not. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree, I'm not. But 12 that -- unfortunately, mine is the only part that the chief 13 deputy of the department makes more than the elected 14 official in the department. 15 (Discussion off the record.) 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How long would it 17 take you, Tommy, to get us that document you prepared? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: 15 or 20 minutes. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Need a break? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not sure what that 21 document's going to do. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. I'd 23 like to see it. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't recall what all 25 I have, so I just have to look. 8-27-03 wk 51 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, this is probably as good 2 a time as any to be taking a break, so why don't we stand in 3 recess for at least 15 minutes. We'll be subject to recall 4 after 10:15. 5 (Recess taken from 10 a.m. to 10:29 a.m.) 6 - - - - - - - - - - 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order 8 after the recess. It's now a little bit before 10:30 in the 9 morning. We went into recess at approximately 10 o'clock, 10 as I recall. The Auditor was going to provide us with some 11 information that he was going to dig up, and I believe we 12 now have it in front of us, and he's going to give us a very 13 clear and concise explanation of this information. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm not going to try to 15 attempt to explain part of it, but the first -- the first 16 two pages are -- represents the work that I did after the 17 committee was formed. This is a list of the counties and -- 18 and the information about those counties that I thought was 19 pertinent to the project, and the second page is the monthly 20 salaries for each one of those elected offices. It shows 21 the average of those, and then the difference between the 22 average and what Kerr County's was at that time. Then I 23 annualized that. And part of my study on the commissioners 24 was whether or not the -- the county had a unified road 25 system or not. And, so, then I averaged the monthly 8-27-03 wk 52 1 salaries of the -- of the counties for commissioners that 2 were under the unit road system. And then, just for 3 information, I put, you know, two of the -- of our 4 neighboring counties' salaries for each one of those elected 5 offices. The next 11 pages is what I -- what I got from -- 6 from Commissioner Griffin after the study. The first page, 7 I think, is what you have now, this page that you've been 8 looking at. The remainder is individual pages of the study 9 that represents each elected office, and don't ask me to 10 explain those. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Except that you used 12 the same counties that were in the study? 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, they're not exactly -- 14 not all of them are the same. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: I think I went more on -- 17 on -- as you can see, I used market value, the assessed 18 values, and then I also looked at total budget. And I did 19 that to try to rank the counties in relation to the values 20 and the per capita income of the county. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But they were the 22 same counties. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't know. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, they are. I 25 just looked. 8-27-03 wk 53 1 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know if they're the 2 same counties or not, Commissioner. Maybe they are. I just 3 don't recall. I believe they are. I was thinking that I 4 added one or two, but this -- I mean, it's been some time 5 ago that I did this. That's essentially what I did. And 6 I -- I don't really know all the criteria that went into 7 the -- to the study that I had no part of, so -- so that's 8 all I can tell you about that. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Did you -- do you have any 10 minutes of that meeting, or a summary of what was discussed 11 at that one meeting I believe you said that you had? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: No. No, I don't. All I -- 13 all I know is -- is -- well, the first meeting was -- was an 14 effort to educate the committee members and to try to relay 15 to them what -- what the Court had charged them with. And 16 they -- they asked me questions, and they -- I presented 17 this to them, and it was more of a general discussion. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: You presented them with the -- 19 with the documents which -- 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: -- comprise the so-called 22 Griffin study, we'll call it, for lack of a better term? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: No, I gave them the one I 24 did. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What about the other 8-27-03 wk 54 1 one? Did they have that one available to them? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: No, they did not have that 3 one. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Have you looked at 6 this -- this document, Linda, that summarizes the so-called 7 Griffin study? 8 MS. UECKER: No, I haven't seen it. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm just using you 10 as an example so I can try to get to the bottom of this. 11 It's got an item in here that says "Amount above or below 12 average per year. District Clerk, $107 below average." 13 MS. UECKER: What page are you on? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Page 1 of the 15 Griffin study. 16 (Discussion off the record.) 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Flip it around, Dave, 18 so I can see what page. 19 MS. UECKER: It says what? Under 107? 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It said -- according 21 to that study, it says that you were $107 per year below 22 average. 23 MS. UECKER: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Then it grants a 25 1,355 adjustment, including COLA. 8-27-03 wk 55 1 MS. UECKER: No, I had not seen that. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if I back the 3 COLA out of that 1,355, I guess I'd have $107 or something 4 left over. And then, if I can extend that one step further 5 in my fantasy, it would suggest that if it was a fifty-fifty 6 deal, you're owed another $107 -- or half of $107. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Half of 107. 8 MS. UECKER: I don't know. Does that make 9 sense? 10 (Discussion off the record.) 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Barbara, Jannett, 12 same question. Same question. Is that logic valid? 13 MS. NEMEC: Are you looking at this? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 15 MS. NEMEC: Okay, I'm sorry. Can you ask the 16 question again? 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Look at your line 18 item, your Treasurer -- yeah, County Treasurer. 19 MS. NEMEC: This one here? 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This so-called 21 Griffin study, the recap. 22 MS. NEMEC: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, for County 24 Treasurer, it says that you were $575 below average for the 25 year, and then you've got an increase of 1,355, including 8-27-03 wk 56 1 COLA. So, my question is, if I back COLA out of that 1,355, 2 would that result in a number being 50 percent of -- of the 3 promise? 4 MS. UECKER: No, 'cause I don't think those 5 figures even came into this. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: In the District Clerk's case, 7 it amounts to $398. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Plus or minus. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it's an order, 10 obviously. If you back the COLA out of 39,261, assuming it 11 was a 2 and a half this year, which I believe that's all 12 we've had, isn't it? 13 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. If you take mine, the 14 1,355, you back out the COLA of 933, then it leaves the 15 increase of 422, which I got. That is correct. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, see up here just 17 above the -- the chart, it shows an example, when you get 18 50 percent of your equity adjustment in 2002, and you get 19 2.5 on that, and you're capped at 10 percent. And, again, 20 I'm trying to imagine what was in everybody's mind back 21 then. There's no record of it, but what I've -- the form 22 that I've described here might be close to what was going 23 on. 24 MS. NEMEC: May I show you something? 25 Looking at this -- 8-27-03 wk 57 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mm-hmm. 2 MS. NEMEC: Here's mine. If you take this 3 933, plus the 422 salary -- this was the COLA. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mm-hmm. 5 MS. NEMEC: This was the salary adjustment. 6 That adds up to the 1,355, which gives me a salary in 7 2001/2002 of 39,261, which is this amount right here. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. Now, where 9 would the 50 percent be if that was in here? 10 MS. NEMEC: The 50 percent would be right 11 here. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In the 422? 13 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if all these 15 assumptions were correct, the promise made to you was for 16 another 422? 17 MS. NEMEC: That's what it looks like. 18 MS. UECKER: And, in reading the transcript, 19 Judge Henneke says, "We ought to commit ourselves on the 20 Court to bring those salaries up to the average over a 21 two-year time frame, which means that this year we could 22 decide, okay, we're going to take -- move up to one-half of 23 the average this year and the other half next year, with the 24 exception of the Sheriff, which stands out among us all. 25 And the next year -- or 40 percent this year and 60 percent 8-27-03 wk 58 1 next year." Then Commissioner Griffin says, "We could do 2 40 percent. We can do 30 percent. We can do zero or 100." 3 But I think they decided on -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 50. 5 MS. UECKER: -- the 50. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If -- again, if 7 these numbers highlighted here represent 50 percent of the 8 promise, one way of attacking this would be to grant those 9 numbers. Now, you -- you're looking at the J.P., for 10 example. That wouldn't work, however, because if we granted 11 those numbers again, then the J.P.'s would be out of whack 12 compared to each other. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 2 and 3 wouldn't be 15 paid as much as 1 and 4. So, in that case, you might have 16 to sort of average them. But I think the closest we're 17 going to get to identifying what happened back there two 18 years ago is to look at these 2001-2002 increases. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess the question I 20 have, if you go to the constables -- I mean, for everyone 21 that was paid under, these -- that makes sense. But go to 22 the constables. On average, they were paid 6,237 more, 23 based on the new number Tommy just gave us, and they got 24 anywhere from -- well, four because of the deputy, but they 25 got a salary increase and they were already paid 6,000 8-27-03 wk 59 1 above. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We didn't follow the 3 formula, did we? 4 MS. UECKER: Yeah. And that's -- that's the 5 whole problem. 6 MS. NEMEC: With the constables, I believe 7 that was because of the vehicles, wasn't it? 8 MS. UECKER: Yeah. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They don't recall that, 10 but that's what I recall. 11 MS. UECKER: That's the way I recall it. 12 They got the increase because they didn't have the county 13 vehicles. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What goes around 15 comes around, right? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the only other one 17 that was paid below on these newer numbers -- or paid above, 18 rather, was the County Attorney, and he got a very small 19 increase that year, though his -- his median or his average 20 -- he's paid 9,937 above the average. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: Commissioner, my numbers are 22 different -- would be different for another reason; is that 23 I think -- I think Commissioner Griffin got his numbers 24 from -- from Texas Association of Counties. I actually got 25 a budget from every county that I -- that I studied, and I 8-27-03 wk 60 1 went through the budget and -- to make sure that the 2 salaries were all-inclusive to make sure that -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 4 MR. TOMLINSON: We were trying to compare -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Apples to apples. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: -- the same numbers. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: And so I don't -- I don't 9 think that some of the numbers that were provided by those 10 counties to -- to Texas Association of Counties was exactly 11 the same that I picked out of the budget. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: For whatever it's worth, the 14 numbers that are on that survey that I did, to try and get a 15 handle on where I was, I got those numbers directly from the 16 counties that are listed there, through their County Judge. 17 I'm sure he gathered it from the other officials or from the 18 budget, but that was my source of the information. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on Tommy's numbers, 20 though, it still doesn't make sense from a constable 21 standpoint, other than the car issue, because constables 22 were paid an even higher average in this county than other 23 counties. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: I know -- I know there were 25 some counties that pay their constables one dollar. 8-27-03 wk 61 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: In fact, we did -- Kerr 3 County did that at one time. 4 MS. UECKER: Well, and the other thing that 5 we tried that we talked about last year and the year before 6 is that we should -- and I don't -- in discussion, that if 7 we commit to a study, whether it be the Nash or Tommy's or 8 Mr. Griffin's or whoever, we need to commit to the study all 9 the way through, not just pick out and say, "Okay, this 10 study says..., and this is where we're going to put you." 11 But on this department, it doesn't matter; we're going to do 12 that a little different. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There was a study 14 committed to several years ago involving the Sheriff's 15 Office, and that one's been thrown in the trash, and each 16 Commissioner appointed a member to it. 17 MS. NEMEC: I would say, 'cause that study is 18 so old, that it would -- I think would be fair, if that's 19 what you want to call it, to just give each elected official 20 $1,000 each, with the exception of the Sheriff; bring him 21 to, like, $5,000 over what his top-salary employee makes. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of a 23 number that was sticking in the back of my head, was $1,000 24 across-the-board. I thought about the Sheriff -- 25 MS. UECKER: And based on the agreement of 8-27-03 wk 62 1 some of the Court, agreement to a comment I made Friday, 2 is -- you know, I don't think any elected official should 3 make less than the Sheriff's administrative chief officer, 4 which is his chief deputy, because that's what we are. But, 5 you know -- and I know some of you said, "Yeah, I agree with 6 that." 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that. I 8 mean, I don't think we should ask any elected official to be 9 paid less than the people in their department. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, we have Road 11 and Bridge people that make more than we do. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think everybody else 13 makes more than just about everybody here. 14 MS. NEMEC: No. No, I saw the salary when 15 you said -- the salary schedule when you said that. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've been going over 17 your numbers. 18 MS. NEMEC: Look at them again. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't have them in 20 front of me. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Len Odom doesn't make 22 more than we do? 23 MS. NEMEC: Leonard does, yeah. He's -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I mean, here we 25 are. Before this conversation, before elected officials' 8-27-03 wk 63 1 salaries, we were at approximately a 10 percent tax 2 increase. And -- and if we did the $1,000 thing, which I -- 3 it's probably not enough, but a $1,000 thing, and then 4 Rusty -- get him above his chief deputy, which I think we're 5 committed to do, Rusty, 'cause I don't want to hear about it 6 any more, then I don't know what the tax increase is. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're up more. So, 9 what I'm -- what I'm going to -- and there is no way that I 10 -- that I could support that. I don't think anybody at this 11 table would support a 10 percent tax increase. I don't know 12 that, but I can't imagine it. So, what I think we should do 13 is take care of our elected officials, whether it's that 14 1,000 or 2,000, and put this schedule off till next year, 15 and see what that does to our numbers. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I didn't want to be 17 the one to first bring up the dreaded "T" word, but as a 18 strategy, if we have some -- if we have some compensation 19 issues that need to be dealt with for various reasons, 20 mostly for competitiveness and for operating efficiently, to 21 be able to recruit and retain the right number of people, 22 and if we're going to have to have a tax increase, I think a 23 good strategy would be to clean it up all at once, and not 24 have to face the same issues again next year. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, do a 12 percent 8-27-03 wk 64 1 tax increase and -- and do everything? We're at 10. I 2 think that we're sure that we were at 10 before we started 3 addressing elected officials' salaries. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- just to confuse it 5 a little bit more -- now, I am not going to vote for a 6 budget with a 12 percent tax increase; I can tell you that 7 right now. But I think that there are some other things 8 that we need to look at. And if everyone would go to the 9 budget summary, the most recent one that Tommy has given us, 10 'cause we're all on the same page, has the fund balances on 11 it. I think that the -- and this is probably the -- really, 12 most important guide, in my opinion, of where the County is 13 financially. And if you look at the first line, which is 14 the General Fund, that's probably the most important line, 15 in my mind, of this fund, because that's the -- you know, 16 most of the rest of the funds are funded by specific taxes 17 or fees or, you know, other sources. The rule of thumb 18 that, as I understand it, the County should follow is that 19 you should keep in reserves 25 percent, which is three 20 months operating, of that line. And our expenditures -- and 21 keep that amount in reserves. 22 If our expenditures are estimated to be at -- 23 you know, just under -- this is using -- you know, not 24 counting all the increases, but at this point there was 25 about expenditures of 11 million. 25 percent of 11 million 8-27-03 wk 65 1 is, you know, $2,750,000. Our current -- so, that should be 2 the amount that we should target in reserves. Our reserves 3 estimated the end of next year are 3 and a half million, so 4 that shows me that we have -- I don't want to call them 5 excess reserves, but we have reserves larger than the 6 minimum requirement of about $750,000. If you look 7 historically at the -- that line item, even in years of 8 deficit budgeting, which we've done the past few years going 9 in, we still end up increasing the reserves in that 10 category, or staying within the -- you know, the tolerance 11 of -- of a minimum of three months operating. 12 So, I think that something needs to -- you 13 know, I look at that if we keep more money in reserves than 14 we need, we need to either -- we're doing two things. One, 15 we're planning for a certain expenditure, such as a building 16 or some kind of a capital improvement; we're kind of 17 bankrolling so we can just pay for it all out of budget one 18 year, or we're taxing too much. I mean, we should not, in 19 my opinion, try to build a savings account of taxpayers' 20 moneys when it's not recommended by the state and it's just 21 not prudent. So that number, to me, we need to look at, you 22 know, when we're talking about the expenditure side, because 23 there is some leeway. Now, if we add a lot of the increases 24 back, that number's not going to be 750,000 in reserve; it 25 may be closer to 500,000 excess reserves, or maybe less than 8-27-03 wk 66 1 that. I'm not sure. But I think there is an amount there 2 that I would support using to meet this year's obligations, 3 because I think that's the prudent thing to do. And I am 4 certainly not in favor of raising taxes 12 percent when we 5 have excess reserves already. That doesn't make sense. 6 That's not good business. 7 The other thing that I think needs to go into 8 our overall thought process is another schedule that Tommy 9 gave us, I believe yesterday, a schedule of long-term debt. 10 If you look at that schedule, we have -- next budget year, 11 2003/2004, we have 410,000 going for Tax Anticipation Note 12 for the annex renovation, and then the following year, 13 '04-'05, there's 430,000. After '04-'05, that obligation is 14 met, and if we were to leave the tax rate constant -- which 15 is not what this Court said it would do. The Court said 16 when we did that that we would reduce that -- you know, 17 lower taxes by that amount in '05-'06. But if we were not 18 to do that, we would be -- you know, we essentially have a 19 tax increase built in that year. So, that even makes -- you 20 know, to me, going back to the reserves, you know, I'm 21 really willing to kind of keep reserves at the minimum 22 requirements by the State, because I see a huge inflow of 23 revenue in two years, "huge" being over $400,000 a year if 24 we were not to, you know, change taxes. I'm much more in 25 favor of taking that approach than raising taxes a whole 8-27-03 wk 67 1 bunch, because historically, even though we said we were 2 going to reduce taxes, once we raise them, we're not going 3 to reduce them. So -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Using your approach, 5 which is a legitimate approach, the amount that we've been 6 talking about in terms of increases in the operating -- in 7 the budget, most of which go for salary improvements and 8 parity and equity and so forth, that -- that would just 9 about, by my calculations, take care of two of the three 10 cents that is standing out there that we have unfunded at 11 this point, leaving still about one penny that needs to be 12 addressed. I don't have a problem with what you're saying, 13 because I don't think we're in the business of -- of 14 managing savings accounts. I think we need to be prudent 15 about our General Fund balance. My calculations indicate 16 that right now, as we sit here right today, before anything 17 is done, we're about almost $800,000 above in the G and O 18 fund balance of where the State recommends to be a prudent 19 way to manage your business. So, I think those dollars are 20 available, and I think -- but you -- you may have 21 underestimated a little bit, Commissioner, in terms of the 22 amount of money that -- after the '05 budget would come back 23 to the County based on the debt that we're servicing, and 24 it's going to be closer to $450,000. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I still would like to 8-27-03 wk 68 1 return that money to the taxpayers; I mean, lower tax rates 2 that year, if possible. But I also see that we have a lot 3 of other obligations and some things that we've probably let 4 not be addressed as long -- or we've let them be unaddressed 5 too long. Minimum salaries, I think the -- I think I agree 6 with Commissioner Nicholson; we need to get to a point where 7 it's done this year or next year or, you know, however we do 8 it, but we need to get all employees at a minimum salary 9 level that's above -- you know, I guess, to quote, "poverty 10 level." Now, I disagree a little bit with how that number 11 is determined, but, you know, that's a Washington number and 12 I'll go along with it. 13 I also think that we need to try to make some 14 improvements and make some changes in the compensation in 15 the Sheriff's Department and jail. I think that those 16 things need to be done. That's a real problem, and it's 17 probably costing the County, and the County has huge 18 exposure by not correcting those. And I think there's 19 other -- possibly other people that are employees of the 20 County that we -- you know, probably should be compensated 21 better. And not -- that doesn't exclude elected officials. 22 Some of them -- or many of them probably should be 23 compensated more. But, you know, I don't know that we can 24 do it all at one time. I just don't see that we can afford 25 it all at one time. I think the -- the trend of the Court 8-27-03 wk 69 1 for the last five or six years has been to try to catch the 2 County up, both on the employees, elected officials, pretty 3 much everybody. Now, sometimes we take two steps forward, 4 and everyone else takes two steps forward; I don't know that 5 we're gaining. But, you know, I think overall we are in -- 6 our employees are better off now than they were five or six 7 years ago. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's about 9 $800,000 excess in the reserves. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: "Excess" in terms 12 of -- Tommy's biting his fingernails back there, talking 13 about reserves. Our list of the things we need to do is 14 about a million dollars. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're about one penny 16 out around right now. About one penny out around. And to 17 spend a penny to make a significant step/grade improvement 18 in one year doesn't seem unreasonable to me. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm -- I will point out, 20 a slight fallacy in this argument is that next year, all of 21 these will be in the budget again and we're not going to 22 have the reserves to bail us out, so there'll probably be a 23 tax increase the following year. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Excellent point, Commissioner. 25 Mr. Auditor, have you got any thoughts you'd like to give us 8-27-03 wk 70 1 about the reserves, or any of the other discussion that's 2 taken place up here? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: You have the podium, sir. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, first observation has 6 to do with the longevity increase. But if -- if -- you 7 know, if the Court considers deferring some of the -- some 8 of the ideas that have come to the Court within the last two 9 days, every employee that was here today that was here in 10 the Nash study was included in that longevity. So, this 11 year, '03-'04, is loaded with -- with those people, so 12 you're -- I mean, as long as people stay, we're not going to 13 see that -- that heavy amount for the next three years. So 14 -- so, that -- I mean, so I think that that is a problem for 15 this year, the fact that a large percent of our employees 16 were subject to that. As to the -- as to the reserves, you 17 know, I'm not -- I'm not satisfied that -- that we have -- 18 we need to keep our reserves at absolutely 25 percent. 19 I think you -- I want to -- there's been a 20 study done by -- by a national organization on Texas 21 counties. I mean, I don't -- I don't remember all the 22 counties that were picked, but -- but Kerr County fits into 23 this -- into their study, in that their conclusion was that 24 in a county where you have a large percent of residential 25 growth, that for every dollar that you receive in taxes 8-27-03 wk 71 1 on -- on residential property, it costs approximately $1.40 2 to service that residence. So, their -- and part of their 3 conclusion was that -- that for an ad valorem tax to support 4 county government in -- in those counties, the more you 5 grew, the worse off you were. So -- so -- and that's -- 6 that's the reason that if you'll look at all the tax rates, 7 county and statewide, you'll see that -- that in those areas 8 is where the high rates are. 9 And, so, the only way -- the only way that 10 those counties have been able to stay afloat is to raise -- 11 is to raise taxes every year. I mean, and they -- and 12 they've done it. And, so, you know, you just -- I mean, the 13 conclusion is that you just cannot support, you know, the 14 services demanded by the residential community on -- on ad 15 valorem taxes alone. So, that situation, coupled with the 16 fact that -- that we're uncertain as to what our economy is 17 going to be in Kerr County, and uncertain as to how the -- 18 the results of the constitutional election will affect 19 our -- our county as far as the exemption -- or the freezing 20 of -- of values for people 65 and over, we don't -- we don't 21 know what that's going to do. I'm not -- I'm not sure 22 that -- that 25 percent is adequate. 23 I mean, for all the unknowns, I think -- I 24 think it might be wise to come to some -- to some number 25 between the -- between that and -- and a third. I mean, I'm 8-27-03 wk 72 1 comfortable with a third, with 33 percent. And there are -- 2 there are other considerations in that, you know, we -- we 3 do have -- we -- we do have obligations out there in the 4 form of indebtedness; bonds and certificates of obligation 5 that, you know, the County has -- has entered into bond 6 covenants, that based on -- based on the -- on the fact 7 that, you know, the County did have and will agree to -- to 8 maintain, you know, a certain level of -- of reserves. And 9 so I think we have some obligation to -- to the bond holders 10 of our debt to -- to maintain an adequate reserve. I think 11 that's about it. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You just took care of 14 the reserves. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Well -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because we're looking 17 at an $11 million budget. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm not going to stand here 19 and say that -- that that's an absolute. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I understand. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: But I -- I do think that -- 22 that some of the uncertainties may make it more necessary to 23 have some -- some cushion. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, there's a lot of 25 maybes in your talk there. One of the -- one of the issues 8-27-03 wk 73 1 -- I want to ask you about one of those issues, and that's 2 the constitutional amendment. Now, that is to freeze taxes 3 on -- 4 MR. TOMLINSON: Property values. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- property values for 6 65 and older. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that kind of 9 thing. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Will it only freeze property 11 values, or will it freeze taxes, period? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: I understood that it was 13 values. I'm not sure. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The way I understood, 15 it was the rate. It's similar to what the independent 16 school districts have the authority to do now. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that it applies to 18 both. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Both. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: You can't boost it with a rate 21 increase; you can't boost it with a valuation increase. 22 Their tax level -- amount of taxes is frozen, and you can't 23 go either direction to get above it. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you're right. 25 But my question about that is, when would that become 8-27-03 wk 74 1 effective if -- if it -- I don't think in this budget -- in 2 this budget. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Not in this budget year, 4 but -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Next year? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- next year. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Golly, here we are 8 dealing with next year's budget. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Anybody know the 10 answer to this question? If that amendment passes, is it on 11 a county-by-county basis? Each county has the authority to 12 do that? Or is it statewide? 13 MR. MOTLEY: Local option. Local option. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's local 15 option, but you can bet that they'll be packing this room 16 wanting it done. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're going to 18 outnumber us. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: When's the -- Ms. Pieper's not 20 here right now. The election is in September. We'll 21 probably have somebody here in October presenting us with a 22 petition. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: September 13th. 24 MS. NEMEC: Judge? This year we had 157 25 employees who were eligible for longevity increases. Next 8-27-03 wk 75 1 year we'll only have 24 employees that are going to be 2 eligible for that. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: The Auditor's made that point, 4 that -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good point. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: -- we're harboring a lot of 7 longevity increases this year because this is the fourth 8 year that the program was put into effect. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: But -- but by -- by that, I 10 mean, if you want to defer some of the considerations, then 11 -- then the dollars that you're using for this longevity 12 could be -- could be there for -- for additional 13 consideration for next year. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- what is the 15 dollar value of that difference? 16 MS. NEMEC: I have it broken down by each 17 department. With what I handed to y'all, I don't have a 18 total. Tommy might have a total; I don't. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: I think -- I think we -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have it somewhere up 21 here? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Somewhere, it's here. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. It's a pretty big 24 number. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: It's a large number. 8-27-03 wk 76 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. My question is, 2 if we had -- in reserves, we were looking at 25 percent, 3 we're talking about around 800,000. What would be 4 33 percent -- how far would it drop? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it would just 6 about wipe out the utilization, but 30 percent would be a 7 fund balance of about 3.3 million. Three -- yeah, 3.3 at 8 30 percent, roughly. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What would be the 10 circumstances that would prompt you to use up the 2 and a 11 half million dollar reserve fund? Is it natural disaster, 12 or what kind of thing -- what can go wrong? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I would 14 think. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: As the Auditor has explained 16 it to me, and certainly feel free to come on and clean up 17 anything I make a mess out of, we start the budget year 18 October 1. Our ad valorem tax billings go out maybe 19 October; more likely November-December. We start getting 20 our money in from those tax bills sometime in December for 21 people that want to load up their -- for tax purposes, but 22 normally that doesn't start coming in until January. So, 23 we've got to operate for three months before our tax money 24 comes in. That's -- that's a start point of where that 25 25 percent comes from. The -- the remainder of any reserve 8-27-03 wk 77 1 is for contingency, natural disasters, all sorts of Murphy's 2 Law items that start. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Another factor that 4 comes into play, Judge and Commissioners, is if property 5 values begin to tail down, as they did in the '80's. We've 6 been there before, and there are some economists out there 7 who are writing in their respective journals right now 8 indicating that they foresee that happening nationwide. So, 9 that's another factor. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: In order to calculate the 11 reserves, Tommy, we take the total anticipated revenue and 12 then take the factor of that? Is that -- are those the 13 figures we work from? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: No. The way -- the way I 15 calculate the -- my estimated number for reserve -- 16 JUDGE TINLEY: No, I'm just talking about in 17 trying to figure what -- what reserve levels should be. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Oh. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: That's based upon your income? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: I consider the, you know, 21 budgeted expenditures and -- and adjust that somewhat by 22 the -- by the amount of non-tax revenues that we have. 23 And -- and then -- and then use 30 percent of that to 24 determine what -- what I think is necessary. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is 30 percent? 8-27-03 wk 78 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask you another 2 question. What is your calculation as of October 1 of this 3 year for one-third, 30 percent, and 25 percent of reserves? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 30 percent of an 5 $11 million budget is $3.3 million. 30 percent is three 6 million, five. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Three, five? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: What is 25 percent and 10 one-third? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Do you have a calculator? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, got one right here. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Two million, seven -- two 14 million, seven is 25 percent. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Two, seven? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Letz' 18 argument that we should not be in the business of taking 19 taxpayer dollars to simply have it in our savings account 20 appeals to me. The other aspect of that is, if conventional 21 wisdom is that 25 percent is the right number, why would we 22 substitute our judgment and -- and have a fund larger than 23 that? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Is, in fact, 25 percent the 25 conventional wisdom, the minimum, or what is it? 8-27-03 wk 79 1 MR. TOMLINSON: That's the -- that 25 percent 2 is -- is the amount that State Comptroller's Office 3 recommends. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: As a recommended or as a 5 minimum, or as an average, or -- 6 MR. TOMLINSON: That's their recommendation, 7 is 25 percent. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's recommended 10 pretty much to all taxing entities. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, yeah -- I don't know 12 about all. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: School districts, I know 14 they follow the same -- 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, they're -- school 16 districts and cities are different. They have different 17 revenue flow. I mean, you know, I would suspect that cities 18 have more -- a larger percent of non-tax revenues than 19 counties do. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Did we ever get a calculation 21 for one-third? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: It's 3.7. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: 3.7? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8-27-03 wk 80 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those newest numbers, are 2 those based on adding in the 900,000? Or, I mean, why are 3 those different? Are those just taken off the sheet? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: I took that off the sheet, 5 Commissioner Letz. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That be would based 8 on a total budget of what, 11 million or 12 million? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Of 10,970,000. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, so I rounded up 11 to 11. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: From the general funds, and 13 then you don't -- I mean, you don't really worry too much 14 about the sinking funds, because you're going to collect the 15 amount it requires to offset that debt. And, you know, the 16 remaining part of them, I mean, as far as relative to the 17 whole, is -- is immaterial. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: So, I guess the next question 19 is, what do you estimate our reserves to be as of the 20 beginning of the next budget year? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: On -- on this sheet, it's 22 Column 1, the first column. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, we should use the 24 -- what, the first two -- first two lines there? Or the 25 first line? 8-27-03 wk 81 1 MR. TOMLINSON: The first line under the 2 General Fund would be 3 million 969. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's the fund we 4 should use? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's where you see 7 us at the end of the current budget year? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Can I ask a question? 10 Tommy, did you figure this on budgeted expenditures? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Actual. My estimated actual. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Actual. I mean after, 13 because I know the department heads normally try and do real 14 well and not use every bit of their budget each year, so I 15 didn't know what the actual turn-back from all the 16 departments is, and is that figure that's given back to that 17 General Fund figured in? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: The way we calculate that is 19 I just -- I use the audited financial statements to come up 20 with -- to start with, and then I estimate the revenues that 21 we collect for current year based on history and what 22 collection rates are at the present, and -- and deduct 23 whatever items -- what we consider the estimated actual to 24 be to come up with what's left over. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll also make the 8-27-03 wk 82 1 comment that -- you know, just sort of so I'll remember, 2 that we increased Road and Bridge rate a little bit to 3 improve their reserve situation here, and, you know, that 4 is -- that kind of needs to be back there. I guess, if we 5 had to, we could always -- I mean, you could take funds from 6 the general, or you can take funds from the general and put 7 them in Road and Bridge if you had a disaster and Road and 8 Bridge reserves are not enough. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: You can, but -- you can from 10 reserves. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. You can't take it 12 from Road and Bridge into general, but you can take them, so 13 if we -- you know, we're -- 14 MR. TOMLINSON: 'Cause there -- there are 15 funds -- there are funds in the -- in Road and Bridge under 16 the -- because, I mean, statutorily, some of the revenues 17 for Road and Bridge are there for -- as a requirement of 18 law. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, okay. So, it's -- 20 but, anyway, we are, in this sheet, you know, increasing 21 those reserves a little bit at the same time. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Your current summary 23 sheet has that built into it. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it does. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: The three-quarters of a cent 8-27-03 wk 83 1 shift. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, good. Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if we wanted to 5 take back a half a cent now, we could do that, couldn't we? 6 And that would increase the estimated balance up to about 7 363, based on the numbers I'm looking at right now. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it would also result 9 in a continued decline in reserves in Road and Bridge. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it would 11 increase a little bit, a quarter of a cent instead of 12 three-quarters of a cent. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, we're going 14 -- we're gaining, from starting to ending, an estimated 15 $14,000, which is -- basically, we're keeping those reserves 16 constant when we shift the three-quarters of a cent back 17 into there. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I follow you, okay. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're stopping the 20 erosion, really, not building them back any more. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. The tax revenue and 23 the non-tax revenue equals what -- what the budget is, what 24 it amounts to, and that -- that has not been a true 25 statement for the last two or three years. 8-27-03 wk 84 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm done. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: You're through? Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Made all my comments. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have any further 5 comments on this subject? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not that are 7 intelligent. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not that are 9 intelligent, that's right. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only thing I can note is 11 I'd better block out all next week for budget workshops. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Seems to appear that 13 way. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: There are a few items that 15 become part of this mix that need -- that go in. There's 16 some general provisions, as I'm sure that all of you are 17 aware, having dealt with them in previous years, that we 18 need to adopt. There's a -- there's a holiday schedule that 19 needs to be considered as part of it. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Put the same holiday 21 schedule back in. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: We -- well, there may be some 23 input desired by the members of the -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge? I'd really like 25 to -- I did not pull a copy of that, and don't see what you 8-27-03 wk 85 1 recommended for that, so I would like to wait until we -- I 2 don't have a copy to look at right now, so I don't really 3 want to say something. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I apologize, I've not 5 recommended anything, and I haven't made anybody a copy. 6 This is just something that needs to come out on the table, 7 both that and -- and the general provisions. There's a 8 couple of items here that probably need to be provided to 9 everybody so that they can, you know, peruse it, give it 10 some thought, do whatever they want to with it, but it's not 11 in the nature of a recommendation. It's not -- it's not 12 proposed. It's merely out on the table, I suppose. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a -- I have a 14 suggested change. Trade Martin Luther King Day for Texas 15 Independence. 16 MS. NEMEC: We've already done that. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did we really? I'll 18 be back next year, then. I'll be back. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: And if you look at what I got 20 here, I don't think you can tell which one got traded for 21 what or where it ended up, either. 22 MS. NEMEC: Well, no, not for Texas 23 Independence Day; I take that back. But we did take Martin 24 Luther King Day out completely. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Texas Independence 8-27-03 wk 86 1 -- I've been screaming about this for years. 2 MS. NEMEC: Well, let's add it in. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Texas Independence is 4 as important as Christmas. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe not quite as 6 important as Christmas. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, maybe not. 8 Thank you, Jon. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Right up there with 10 Halloween. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think they were 12 celebrating Christmas before Texas was independent. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Buster, you want to be 14 careful; you don't want to lose all your credibility in one 15 statement. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true. Well, 17 you can tell how emotional I am about it. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, of course. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, absolutely. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we took Columbus -- 21 Columbus Day's still -- that's what you always want to do. 22 I want to trade Columbus for Texas Independence. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wanted Martin Luther 24 King Day out of there; never did make sense to me. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't even know when Martin 8-27-03 wk 87 1 Luther King Day is. I apologize; I spent a long time in 2 Arizona. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I bet Albuquerque. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What was the other 5 one, Jon? October 12? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Columbus Day is a day -- 7 I think that we had discussed at one point switching 8 Columbus Day for Texas Independence Day, and I'm in favor of 9 that. And the reason I think we didn't is because of the -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I thought we did. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm still in favor of it, 12 but it was confusing 'cause Columbus Day's a federal 13 holiday, and Texas Independence Day, believe it or not, is 14 not a federal holiday. And it was just -- that was the 15 reason. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Judge has a 17 sheet; he's got several things highlighted. One of the 18 highlights says "Denotes questions," and he's got several 19 holidays. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I got Christmas, New Year's 21 Day, and Independence Day, and I think these are highlighted 22 primarily for the purpose of -- there may be some desired 23 courthouse employee discussion or input. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of how many days? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I may be presumptuous 8-27-03 wk 88 1 when I say that, but I think you're accurate. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you are, too. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Relating to the -- when 4 the second day falls on those holidays, potentially? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: At least Christmas. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know what the input 8 might be, Commissioner. 9 MS. NEMEC: Do the schools have a holiday on 10 Columbus Day? 11 MR. MOTLEY: I can tell you -- I can tell you 12 I have to -- 13 MS. NEMEC: You know, for the working 14 parents. For the -- for the parents, it sure would be nice 15 if this schedule coincided with the school schedule 16 holidays. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the school -- they 18 didn't have Memorial Day -- one of them they didn't have 19 last year, and I'm not in favor of changing that one. I 20 mean, I think Memorial Day should be a holiday. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the school 22 schedule has more holidays than ours does. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: We can take a spring break and 24 four, five days at Easter. That -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take trips. 8-27-03 wk 89 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Ten days -- two weeks at 2 Christmas. That sound okay, Commissioner? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, if we can get 4 copies of what you have in front of you, we can, I think, 5 discuss it next week probably more fully. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I'll happily share. Do we 7 have anything else to be laid out on the table at this 8 point? Are we through for the time being? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm finished. 10 MS. NEMEC: Sir -- Judge? This is only 11 because I got a phone call on this. They asked if y'all had 12 considered department heads' increase in salaries. I leave 13 that with you. I passed it on. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good point. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: That wasn't from me. 16 MS. NEMEC: No, it wasn't from Tommy. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I assume that department 18 heads were -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: They kind of fall under with 20 elected officials, don't they? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, no, I think they 22 fall under employees. Elected officials would be different. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: That's right. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, if a department 25 head gets a longevity increase, they get a longevity 8-27-03 wk 90 1 increase. I don't see there's any difference between a 2 department head and any other employee. 3 MS. NEMEC: Some department heads did get the 4 longevity and then the 2 and a half percent increase, but it 5 was a -- a call I got this morning, so I -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They already have a 7 differential for being a department head. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further, gentlemen? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When do we meet again? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: We are -- we're going to be 11 posted for next Tuesday at 10:30. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I assume it's going to be a -- 14 a workshop. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, do you have clear 16 direction as to what you're going to do? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, that's what I was going 18 to -- I'd like something definitive as to what exactly you 19 want me to change. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Haven't you been paying 21 attention? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, yes, but -- 23 MS. NEMEC: That's the problem. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tuesday at 10:30, 25 right? 8-27-03 wk 91 1 (Low-voice discussion off the record.) 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I need to bring 3 that. There is a Friday, 1 o'clock meeting. Three of you 4 guys, don't forget that. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll be there. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who else is going to 7 be here? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge is here, and I 9 think Letz has agreed to come in. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to be here? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you told me you 12 were. You said you was always here. 13 MR. MOTLEY: Short meeting, very short. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, if we are 15 essentially done, I'm off for an AACOG getting. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Good luck, 17 Commissioner. Anything further? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, wait. Wait. 19 I'm not sure what Tommy's referring to of not getting it 20 all. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: I know -- I remember there 22 has been some definitive changes. At least I assume there 23 were. I will make clear where those are. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me too. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Before I do these. 8-27-03 wk 92 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just as an example of 2 how much -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Wait a minute, hold on. My 4 reporter is trying to do things here. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much reserves are 6 we talking -- did we decide we're going to move? 25 or 33? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or 30. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or 30, whatever it 9 was. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think there's been a 11 decision, except to get the numbers and know what they are. 12 But I think now the issue is to get the new numbers run up 13 as a result of the discussions we've had the last two days, 14 and then see where those numbers are relative to the reserve 15 numbers he gave us. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's going to run the 18 correction -- just to restate it a different way, the 19 request is to have the Auditor rerun the numbers with a 20 12-cent -- or a 12 percent tax increase, which -- fine. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's probably -- 22 that's wise. That's good. Or whatever the tax increase is. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Clear to me at this 24 point. 25 MS. NEMEC: What did y'all decide on elected 8-27-03 wk 93 1 officials? He doesn't have that number. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Last I heard was 1,000 3 across the board. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Plug in 1,000. 5 MS. NEMEC: And 5,000 or 7,000 for the 6 Sheriff? 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Leave the Sheriff 8 where it is. Not where the salary is, where the 9 recommendation is. We want to see the full impact of all of 10 these. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Wasn't that 5,000 above 12 whatever his -- 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $26,500 salary 14 increase. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, right, Buster. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Isn't that what we 17 were figuring? 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That'd be parity with 19 y'all. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's put all the 21 numbers in. 22 MS. UECKER: Give all the money to Rusty, let 23 him divide it up. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Started out working 25 a zero-based budget; now we're working with a budget that's 8-27-03 wk 94 1 got a filtered wish list in it. We can work down from 2 there. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're including this 4 document. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Everything on there. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Yeah, we're going to 7 plug those numbers in. Now, that does not include the 8 Medicaid level. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's on there. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Is it? 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 50,000, 60,000. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Minimum salary, 20 13 grand. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 25,000 merit line. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I really -- I mean, I 17 personally think it's a waste of time to do this, but I 18 don't see any way that we're going to move forward. But I 19 would recommend that we -- so we get action at our next 20 meeting, it be posted as a meeting so we can put each of 21 these items as an agenda item and we can vote on them one by 22 one and be done with them. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Each item meaning -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All these things we're 25 adding in the budget. We can put a COLA up there, raise our 8-27-03 wk 95 1 hands if we're going to be for it or against it. And, I 2 mean, because we're -- I don't see that we're getting a 3 whole lot of progress, other than talking a lot right now. 4 And -- you know, and I think if we don't do it this way, 5 we're going to end up with a budget that's going to be 6 presented and not pass. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would think we 8 start making some cuts and making some decisions. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to, you 10 know. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, somebody's going to have 12 to give -- do you want -- as to each specific item that is 13 -- was not included in the budget that was filed on the 11th 14 day of August, you want a general agenda item on each and 15 every one? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to start 17 making votes on them, yes. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could we not count 19 this as an item? This one document, the entire program, as 20 an item? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see it different. I 22 would say no. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you would -- you 24 would count the County Judge -- I'm sorry, Clerk as an item, 25 Records Management as an item, District Clerk as an item? 8-27-03 wk 96 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which page are you 2 looking at? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: His plan. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you do them in 5 groups. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I see. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's two groups. 8 There's the cost-of-living issue, and there's the law 9 enforcement issue. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see jailers as an 11 issue, I see deputies as an issue, I see the cost of getting 12 everyone to a minimum as an issue. Then his salary as an 13 issue, and merit increases as an issue. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I guess what I need -- 15 if you'll provide me with a list, Commissioner Letz, of the 16 items that we need to do specific agenda items, I will see 17 that the agenda gets posted for next Tuesday. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, I'll try. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything -- anything further? 20 We'll stand adjourned. 21 (Workshop adjourned at 11:32 a.m.) 22 - - - - - - - - - - 23 24 25 8-27-03 wk 97 1 2 STATE OF TEXAS | 3 COUNTY OF KERR | 4 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 5 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 6 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 7 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 8 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 20th day of April, 9 2004. 10 11 12 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 13 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 14 Certified Shorthand Reporter 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8-27-03 wk