1 2 3 4 5 6 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 7 Special Session 8 Tuesday, September 2, 2003 9 10:30 a.m. 10 Commissioners' Courtroom 11 Kerr County Courthouse 12 Kerrville, Texas 13 14 15 16 17 SPECIAL BUDGET MEETING 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X September 2, 2003 2 PAGE --- Commissioners' Comments 4 3 1.1 Cost-of-Living adjustment (COLA) of 2½% 7 4 1.2 Increase group health insurance by 15% 8 1.3 Establish minimum annual salary 16 5 1.4 Salary increase to Sheriff's deputies 23 1.5 Salary increase to Jailers and Dispatchers 33 6 1.6 Salary increase to Sheriff 39 1.7 Establish Merit Salary Increase Fund 44 7 1.8 Increase/adjust elected officials' salaries 61,101 1.9 Designate required reserve fund balance 67 8 1.10 Establish Information Technology budget 72 1.11 Modify Court Collections budget 72 9 1.12 Modify 216th District Court budget 74 1.13 Modify 198th District Court budget 74 10 1.14 Modify District Clerk budget 79 1.15 Modify Justice of the Peace Pct. 4 budget 79 11 1.16 Modify County Jail budget 80 1.17 Modify Parks Maintenance budget 81 12 1.18 Modify Constable Pct. 1 budget 82 1.19 Modify Constable Pct. 2 budget 103 13 1.20 Modify Constable Pct. 3 budget 106 1.21 Modify Constable Pct. 4 budget 108 14 1.22 Modify Sheriff's Department budget 110 1.23 Modify Juvenile Probation budget 111,154 15 1.24 Modify Health and Emergency Services budget 114 1.25 Modify Rabies and Animal Control budget 115 16 1.26 Modify County-sponsored budget 115 1.27 Reduce or eliminate funding to Ag Extension 129 17 1.28 Reduce or eliminate funding for Books, Publi- cations & Dues, provide through Law Library 130,184 18 1.29 Reduce funding to Public Library 143 1.30 Modify Fire Protection budget 155 19 1.31 Modify Road & Bridge budget 159 1.32 Modify Records Management & Preservation budget 160 20 1.33 Modify Parks budget 161 1.34 Modify Non-Departmental budget 164 21 1.35 Modify County Court budget 165 1.36 Discuss 2003-'04 holiday schedule 180 22 1.37 Discuss adoption of General Provisions 191 23 --- Adjourned 195 24 25 3 1 On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 10:30 a.m., a special 2 budget meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was 3 held in 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: Let me call to order the 8 meeting -- special Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for 9 this date, Tuesday, September the 2nd, at 10:30 a.m. It's 10 approximately 2 minutes after 10:30, so we can proceed. Do 11 you care to do the honors this morning, since we're in an 12 actual meeting? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why not? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're going to need 16 all the grace we can get. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to need all the 18 divine guidance we can muster. 19 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: At this point, we have the 23 Visitors' Input. Anybody who has anything that they'd like 24 to bring to our attention that's not a matter that's listed 25 on the agenda, we would welcome you to tell us about that 9-2-03 4 1 now. If you have a matter that's listed on the agenda, we 2 would prefer and ask that you fill out a participation form, 3 which I assume we have at the back of the room. If not, if 4 you'll let us know, we'll get some. That doesn't mean that 5 you have to do that in order to be able to participate. It 6 merely means that hopefully we won't miss you by having one 7 of those participation forms. So, is there anyone that 8 wishes to come forward and speak at this time on any matter 9 that's not listed on the agenda? Any matter that is not 10 listed on the agenda, feel free to come forward and speak at 11 this time. It appears that there's no one wishing to come 12 forward. We will then move to Commissioners' comments. 13 Commissioner Baldwin, do you have anything for us this 14 morning? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I don't, Judge. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner 17 Nicholson? I mean, excuse me, Williams. I'll get to you. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir. Nothing, 19 Judge. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, sir, nothing. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: And Commissioner Nicholson? 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Nothing. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. As you might imagine, 25 I've got just a few comments. If you'll recall, I had 9-2-03 5 1 earlier talked about business and politics, and kind of 2 thrashed out that subject. I think another thing that needs 3 to be injected into the mix is responsibility. This may be 4 one of the poorest political decisions that I make, but as a 5 matter of personal privilege, I feel it's important that we 6 discuss this issue of personal responsibility. Late last 7 week, our local daily newspaper, in an editorial, took me to 8 task and portrayed me as unrealistic, insincere, and 9 disingenuous as a result of my filing a so-called balanced 10 budget. And, in doing so, it recited as its factual basis 11 to come to that conclusion the following three things: One 12 is that there were no raises for County employees. Two, 13 that there was no provision for increased health insurance 14 costs, and three, that there was no cost-of-living increase 15 for County employees. 16 Now, that newspaper or any other newspaper is 17 entitled to vilify me in any manner it chooses, for any 18 reason. That is its privilege. That's what the editorial 19 page is for, as an expression of opinion. But that 20 privilege carries with it a responsibility. Since I filed 21 the budget that's before this Court right now, I have not 22 talked to, nor have I had a request to talk to a single 23 representative of that daily newspaper. Also, it would 24 appear that the representatives of that paper have not made 25 even the simplest of efforts to even review or understand 9-2-03 6 1 the budget that I filed. Had the representatives of that 2 newspaper taken the time to do either one of those things, 3 the factual accuracy which would have been required for its 4 statements, I submit, would have been different in at least 5 two of the three premises that they utilized, because I 6 believe they are blatantly false. 7 One, the budget which I filed contained 8 raises for a majority of the employees of Kerr County. That 9 budget also contained additional raises for approximately a 10 dozen Kerr County employees, most of which were in cases in 11 which the employees were required to take on an increased 12 case load or workload because the elected official or 13 department head cooperated with me in a shared sacrifice by 14 reducing staffing levels. The estimated cost for health 15 insurance in the budget that I filed was an increase by more 16 than 20 percent over the amount budgeted for this current 17 year that we're in now. That figure was given to me, as it 18 was given to all elected officials and department heads for 19 preparing their respective budgets, by the elected official 20 in charge of personnel, employee benefits, and insurance 21 coverage. 22 No COLA was included; it got that one right. 23 But then, it should have. I told them right up front that 24 it wasn't included. That was a decision and a consideration 25 for this Court as a whole. This Court has a responsibility 9-2-03 7 1 to the employees of Kerr County, the taxpayers and citizens 2 of this county, and I believe this Court is doing our best 3 to balance those interests and discharge that 4 responsibility. I believe the local daily newspaper also 5 has a responsibility to these same people to do the 6 necessary work, to gather relevant information and report 7 that information in a factually correct manner, whether it 8 be contained in a news story or on the editorial page. It 9 occurs to me that the daily newspaper in this particular 10 case has not discharged that responsibility. Thank you for 11 your time. 12 Let's move on to the first item on the 13 agenda, consider and discuss changing the proposed 2003-'04 14 Kerr County budget by granting a cost-of-living adjustment 15 salary increase of 2 and a half percent or other amount to 16 all Kerr County employees and elected officials, and 17 designating source of funds for any increase as necessary or 18 appropriate. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I make a motion 20 that we grant a cost-of-living adjustment salary increase of 21 2 and a half percent. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 24 grant a cost-of-living salary increase of 2 and a half 25 percent to all employees and elected officials of Kerr 9-2-03 8 1 County. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the 2 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item, 7 consider and discuss changing proposed 2003-'04 Kerr County 8 budget by increasing budgeted group health insurance costs 9 for all elected officials and employees by 15 percent, and 10 designating source of funds for any increase as necessary 11 and/or appropriate. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. This says 13 15 percent. In your comments and your original budget, you 14 said 20 percent. What is an adequate number to get the job 15 done? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: That question is directed at 17 me? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: My original budget included a 20 cost increase of slightly over 20 percent, as directed by 21 the -- the county official, over that which was budgeted for 22 this current year. The Auditor has since indicated to me 23 very recently -- week before last, last week. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Last week. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Very recently, that there's a 9-2-03 9 1 belief that it needs to be increased even more; that is, by 2 an additional 15 percent. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what would be the 4 number we would be acting on today? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 15. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Additional 15. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 15? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: An additional 15. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, it's even more -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would be a total of 11 35. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it would be increased by 13 20, and then 15 of that, is what I'm understanding, because 14 the proposed budget that we're operating off of is the one 15 which I filed. That already contained the 20-plus percent 16 increase. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. So, we'd 18 be increasing it 15 on top of the 20 that was in your 19 proposed budget? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir. That's -- that's 21 how I perceived the motion. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, just -- you know, 23 it may be not the appropriate time, but going back to your 24 comments -- and it does relate to this, part of the comments 25 -- you know, and I think the reason for the editorial was 9-2-03 10 1 the result of a discussion you and I had when you wouldn't 2 say, basically, how you felt on specific issues. And I 3 disagree with your position on that. That certainly is your 4 position; that's fine. I think the public has a right to 5 know how each of us think. To me, it would clear up a lot 6 of that if you would vote on these issues today, so we can 7 figure out where each of us stand. And I don't think you're 8 prohibited from voting. I know it's your option, unless 9 there's a tie or your vote has a, you know, direct -- could 10 change the vote. So, obviously, if it's unanimous, it's not 11 going to change it, but I just -- you know, to me, it would 12 solve some of the issues and the questions that I had last 13 week. But -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: As I told you last week, 15 Commissioner Letz, I think if I had any particular feelings 16 about any of the issues we were discussing last week, I 17 think it could fairly be judged by anyone who was paying 18 particular attention concerning my inquiries, my comments, 19 my questions or other things that I may have done or said in 20 connection with particular items of business -- as I told 21 you last week, I will not precommit my vote until I have all 22 the information. I now have, apparently, all the 23 information that I'm going to get, and should the occasion 24 become necessary, I will vote today, because the matter is 25 now before us. 9-2-03 11 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I don't want 2 to deal in semantics or -- or pursue something 3 unnecessarily, but Item 1.2 says we'd be proposing to change 4 the '03-'04 county budget by increasing it 15 percent. I 5 read that as meaning the '03-'04 budget is going to be 6 increased 15 percent over the '02-'03 budget, not the 7 proposed budget that you submitted. I just want to clarify 8 where we are. Are we at 15 percent or 35 percent? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the way I think it 10 reads, and what I intended for it to read, is that 11 15 percent over and above the proposed budget which I filed 12 August the 11th. Now, that budget includes the 20-plus 13 percent increase. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. If everybody 15 understands, that's fine. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: That's where I intended it to 17 be. Mr. Auditor? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Since I had my conversation 19 with our insurance carrier about the percentage increase 20 for -- for health insurance, his comment to me on that 21 question was, what -- what is happening with the industry. 22 Since that time, I've talked more specifically with -- with 23 our third-party administrator. Their -- preliminarily, they 24 -- their guess is that -- that maybe it might be less than 25 15 percent. So, the percentage we're giving you here is -- 9-2-03 12 1 is an estimate based on -- on what the industry, on the 2 average, is seeing as far as renewals are concerned. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now I'm confused. I 4 thought I understood it. Is the total increase -- is it -- 5 if we add another 15 percent here, we're saying we're having 6 an increase of about 35 percent? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: No. Because the -- we budget 8 -- well, we're having a 35 percent increase on what we 9 budgeted for '02-'03. We're having a 15 percent increase in 10 what we actually -- what it actually cost us in '02-'03. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're budget -- so 12 the number is less than in the Judge's proposed -- original 13 proposed budget? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: No. If you'll remember, we 15 did a budget -- we did a budget amendment of 140-some-odd 16 thousand just two weeks ago. That was to increase the 17 budget by the amount of the actual cost for '02-'03. So, 18 the Judge -- the Judge's proposed budget included that 19 amendment. So -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: It included actually more than 21 that, I believe. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: And -- but this 15 percent is 23 15 percent on top of his proposed budget. 24 MS. NEMEC: And it's not 'cause the rates 25 went -- or the rates are going up 35 percent. It's because 9-2-03 13 1 last year we didn't have an estimated, so we underestimated 2 what the cost was going to be. So, part of that increase is 3 last year's increase, not this year's. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're increasing the 5 amount in the August 29th budget by 15 percent? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: What is that -- that number, 8 in terms of dollars? The 15 percent? 9 MS. NEMEC: I don't have that. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have a number, Judge. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Quick calculation, based on 12 260 employees, tells me it's about $214,000. Does that 13 sound about right? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: That sounds right. I did a 15 calculation. My worksheet's somewhere. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Does that sounds like it's in 17 the ballpark? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: In the ballpark. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, 15 percent is 20 200-some thousand. If it's already an increase that was 21 greater than that, compared to our last year's budgeted 22 numbers, we're going up some $450,000, give or take. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the scenario, as I 24 understand it, Commissioner, is that we had the current 25 year's of $4,555 employee cost. And, in starting to prepare 9-2-03 14 1 the budget, the Treasurer and the health benefits person 2 said we're going to use $5,484 per employee as the cost. 3 That was included. After that was done, it seems like we 4 had a shortfall in this year's, so we had to adjust the 5 budget, and now, in order to try and play catch-up, 6 apparently some -- there's a request for another 15 percent 7 on what's in the current proposed budget. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Wasn't last year $5,484 9 was the actual cost? The budget was a little bit short of 10 that, so what this 15 percent -- my understanding is all of 11 us prepared our budget at the $5,484 price, which is what we 12 asked. So, the 15 percent would be 15 percent on top of the 13 $5,484? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, it would. Which was 15 20 percent more than what was budgeted originally for this 16 year. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because of the shortfall 18 last year? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, as we're going 21 through this, could either Tom -- probably Tommy, or 22 possibly Barbara, tell us on each item if they're in or out 23 of that -- the last run of the budget? Some of these items 24 I know are in there. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: That -- 9-2-03 15 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those are -- the first 2 two, I believe, are. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Both of those items are in 4 what -- what you have. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move the increase. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 8 the proposed '03-'04 Kerr County budget presently on file be 9 increased by budgeting group health insurance costs for all 10 elected officials and employees increased by 15 percent. 11 Any further questions or discussion? 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I -- I don't 13 like having to vote for this. I'm going to vote for it, 14 because there's not any alternatives, but between now and 15 the first of the year, we need to find out what our 16 alternatives are. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I know we're going 19 to do that, but that's -- let's commit to making a good 20 effort of that. This is -- this is too much money. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's unacceptable, but 23 maybe not -- no option. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Any -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go ahead. 9-2-03 16 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 2 discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, 3 signify by raising your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The next 8 item is consider and discuss changing proposed 2003-2004 9 Kerr County budget by establishing a minimum annual salary 10 of $20,812 for Kerr County employees and granting salary 11 increases up to such minimum to all employees making less 12 than such minimum, and designating source of funds for any 13 increase as necessary or appropriate. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we're going to do 15 this, the personnel officer pointed out to me that if we 16 modify that -- that proposed minimum annual salary by a 17 little bit, it would fit into our current rate schedules. 18 And that was how much, Barbara? 19 MS. NEMEC: $20,826. That would be a 14-2. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 826 instead of 812? 21 MS. NEMEC: $826. And if that's adopted, 22 then that means that that -- on that particular entry level, 23 they wouldn't start at a 1; it would be a -- a 14-2. That's 24 as close as we can get on the schedule. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That equals a 14-2? 9-2-03 17 1 (Ms. Nemec nodded.) 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a 3 question. What does that -- that's -- now, if we approve 4 that, that would be a new entry level. Do we have any 5 longer-term employees that are now in that position of a 6 14-2? 7 MS. NEMEC: Yes, we do. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it seems to me 9 that what we're possibly doing is putting entry-level people 10 in the same place as four-, five-, six-year employee people. 11 MS. NEMEC: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a problem, I 13 would think. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a problem with 16 me. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is a problem. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And rolling it around 19 in my brain, I don't see an answer to it. The only thing I 20 can see is us to just raise everybody on up, which would be 21 impossible; there's not enough money in the state of Texas 22 to do that. But -- so what do we do? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the roll-over 24 effect and how does it -- can you simplify the roll-over 25 effect -- roll-up effect? 9-2-03 18 1 MS. NEMEC: Well, without really going 2 through here and doing a spreadsheet on how many people that 3 would affect -- but just, like, for instance, looking at one 4 in the County Clerk's office, she's been here since '99, and 5 she is making $20,826. And, of course, you have the problem 6 of the employees who have more responsibility that are just 7 a little above that. Without changing everybody up a little 8 bit, that's going to happen. You know, that might be 9 something y'all want do this year, and then look at the 10 others next year, since we don't have the money to do all of 11 them. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, once you start 13 bumping up, though, I mean, it goes all the way up the line. 14 MS. NEMEC: Right. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It never ends. 16 MS. NEMEC: If you want to -- exactly. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you finished, 18 Commissioner, on that point? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, sort of. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm -- I mean, I agree 21 with you on what you said. But, additionally, you know, two 22 other things. I guess, first, Barbara or Tommy, what is the 23 -- I guess the value of our health insurance to the employee 24 itself? I mean, it's, what, 400 -- how much is it a month? 25 MS. NEMEC: Four -- well, what we're paying 9-2-03 19 1 now is 457 and some change, I believe. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think that's an 3 important number, because if you say that's valued at 4 $6,000, $5,000 or somewhere in that range, you have to take 5 the salary and add $5,000 to it. That's part of their 6 compensation package, so I think that it's a -- you know, 7 and I'll use this to go back to something I said in the very 8 beginning. I don't like the federal numbers. I don't think 9 they apply to Kerr County. I don't -- in fact, I don't know 10 how Washington came up with a poverty level, other than 11 that's the number they use for grants and all kinds of 12 federal programs. I don't think it has any relevance as to 13 what poverty is, the way I think poverty is defined in the 14 dictionary, or by most of our minds. So, I just have a -- I 15 think there's two issues there that I think you have to look 16 at: What we're doing in Kerr County, and what we're doing 17 with our employees. And I don't think it's as relevant to 18 try to equate that with a federal number. 19 Do we need to pay some of our lower level 20 employees more? Definitely, and I'm in favor of doing that. 21 But I don't know that this is the way to do it, because I 22 think, one, it doesn't take into account the health 23 insurance, and if we're truly trying to get them to a 24 minimum amount, you have to include health insurance or 25 other benefits, retirement and other -- there's a value to 9-2-03 20 1 all the county benefits, so I think you have to look at 2 that. I would rather look at the pay schedule, or the -- 3 the schedule and figure out ways to boost those that are, 4 you know, at the bottom. And I think there are some 5 areas -- I think we have one employee that was about a 9; 6 that was an entry level, I think, in Maintenance. To me, 7 that's unacceptable. But I don't know that, you know, you 8 have to go all the way to what this proposes here. 9 MS. NEMEC: Well, we did move that one 10 employee in the reclassification when one left. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we resolved those low 12 level employees in connection with a shared sacrifice that 13 the Maintenance Department supervisor was -- that we worked 14 out with him, and actually ended up saving money through the 15 long-term. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I don't know 17 how we address it. I mean, I'm in favor of trying to 18 improve all employees, and I think that we're kind of on 19 a -- on somewhat of a plan with longevity and merit 20 increases and other things to do that. I'm just a little 21 bit -- I'm uncomfortable with setting a minimum that's based 22 on a federal poverty level that doesn't really mean anything 23 directly in Kerr County, and isn't actually taking 24 everything into effect. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, another thing we 9-2-03 21 1 need to watch out for as well in that -- in that line of 2 thinking, Commissioner Letz, is the -- you -- I assume that 3 we're talking about a Medicaid level, is what we're talking 4 about. And, as an example, let's say that we have a single 5 mother with a couple of children -- two children, and we 6 raise that person's salary above this magical federal 7 number, which I agree is -- has been massaged and is not 8 real. Then that person loses their Medicaid, and then tries 9 to purchase county insurance. So, when the numbers all 10 balance out, it's costing them more money. We're not 11 helping them; we're hurting them. I mean, that's a 12 possibility. I just, you know, want to watch that as we go 13 through that. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Helping them may cause an 15 adverse effect. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Are we -- are we maybe looking 18 down the road in the near future of doing another 19 comprehensive look at the salaries across-the-board? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think the 21 County -- I think we're obligated, in my mind, to look at 22 that every so often. I think -- and I think the Court, just 23 about every five years, plus or minus a couple years, has 24 been doing that, and I think you need to continue to do 25 that. That's -- you know, to make sure that we are paying 9-2-03 22 1 competitively. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: It appears -- it seems to me 3 that we -- all this might be leading us to a comprehensive 4 study from top to bottom. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think a lot of what 6 Commissioner Nicholson has brought to the table is, you 7 know, possibly -- or the need, probably, of more time being 8 spent as to what we're comparing to. What is a comparison 9 for Kerr County employees? Is it, you know, the City 10 employees? Is it private industry in Kerr County? Is it 11 other counties? Is it all of the above and some -- 12 (Cell phone rang.) 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If that's not Jesus 14 calling, let's turn it off. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you have to -- I 16 think that's something the Court needs to look at and figure 17 out what's the proper formula. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree that, you 19 know, it is kind of a sticky wicket when you get down to it, 20 and I agree that we have an obligation to boost those on the 21 lower end of our pay scale up to a more realistic number. 22 The percolate-up effect bothers me. And also, you mentioned 23 the health care -- the increase in health care coverage, or 24 the cost for health care benefit to the employees -- all 25 employees is about $160 a month, based on the numbers you 9-2-03 23 1 just approved. I don't know how we deal with this to do it, 2 'cause Commissioner Baldwin raised a good point. And the 3 experience -- 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, 5 Commissioner Williams. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon me? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, absolutely. If 9 you do, you do. When the Workforce Development people were 10 going through those initiatives to get people off the 11 poverty list, they found the same thing; that when you bump 12 them up to a certain level, they lose certain benefits that 13 are important to their well-being. I'm not saying they 14 should continue to do that, and I don't think we want to get 15 ourselves mired in that, but I think we need a structured 16 approach, and we have to have that. We have to see what the 17 up-perk effect is, and it could be pretty significant. So, 18 you know, I'm at a loss to know exactly what to do about 19 this, unless we commissioned a study pretty quickly to 20 determine what that effect is. I think we have some roll-up 21 effects that are going to be hard to deal with. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion on this 23 issue? Do we have a motion to be offered in support of the 24 item or against the item? Being none, we will move on to 25 1.4, consider and discuss changing proposed 2003-'04 Kerr 9-2-03 24 1 County budget by granting salary increases to Sheriff's 2 Department deputies in the amount of $3,000 each or other 3 amount, and designating source of funds for such increases 4 as necessary and/or appropriate. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This -- this item 6 and the next one, I think, are connected, and probably 7 everybody in the courtroom -- almost everybody has heard the 8 rationale for doing it. It's -- it has a lot to do with -- 9 with equity, with the comparison to the amount paid by City 10 of Kerrville for law enforcement officers. Probably the 11 cost of this, or some portion of the cost of it, will be 12 recouped by a reduction in turnover -- voluntary turnover, 13 and the associated costs with that. The $3,000 for the 14 Sheriff's deputies will not bring them up to equity with the 15 Kerrville Police Department officers in terms of base 16 salary. That would take something like $4,700. But we're 17 taking into account the value of -- to the employee of being 18 able to take a patrol car home. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, as you know, 20 Commissioner, I'm not -- I can't base my thinking process on 21 what the City does. I'm just not into that comparison 22 thing. I don't think it's a good comparison. And it 23 appears to me that if -- if we adopted the budget as-is, 24 with this increase to the deputies, and then the next one, 25 the jailers and dispatchers, that there would -- you know, 9-2-03 25 1 as-is, as we've talked about and laid before us, that there 2 will be a -- somewhat of a tax increase in order to pay for 3 these things, and I don't -- I don't know how much. I 4 haven't run those numbers. But, in my mind, I think we need 5 to start looking for ways in all of this to start cutting 6 back a little bit and to keep us from raising taxes on the 7 taxpayers of Kerr County. And these next two items -- 8 actually, next three items are a place to do that. 9 Now, I don't have some kind of magical number 10 to replace the $3,000, but I would think $1,500 or $2,000 or 11 something like that to replace those numbers -- cut all 12 these numbers in half and see what that does for the -- for 13 the reduction in the bottom line numbers. That would be my 14 proposal, is to cut -- cut these in half, and then next 15 year, try to pick up the other half. And I know we're 16 notorious about this planning about this half thing, but -- 17 but if -- if -- in our court orders, in adopting these 18 things, if we're -- if we get -- use really specific 19 language and specific numbers, I think that next year, we 20 can come back and revisit these things and know exactly 21 where we are. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, overall, on -- on 23 this one, on 1.4, which is just -- just the Sheriff's 24 deputies, you know, I -- I'm somewhere close to where 25 Commissioner Baldwin is. I was between -- you know, I'd 9-2-03 26 1 rather do it, just because of the budget situation this 2 year, part now, part next year. I know the preference 3 you've stated previously is, let's get it all done at once. 4 It's just hard to do that, as I see it, with the budget that 5 we're working with this year. I think that there is a 6 likelihood of -- of a little bit of room to work next year 7 with the budget, based on the impact we have of longevity 8 increases this year. So, certainly, I'm in favor of doing 9 it. I think it will be a big plus to the citizens of the 10 county if we can get, you know, better people and paid 11 better -- better not say better people. If we can get -- 12 get better pay for our people in the Sheriff's Department. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He really didn't say 14 that. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Didn't say that. And if 16 it takes, you know, two years to do it, you know, good. 17 Hopefully we'll get to a point of catching up with the City. 18 I think that is -- I differ a little bit with Commissioner 19 Baldwin on this point. I think it is a comparison we need 20 to look at. I think it is somewhat the same market, though 21 I think there's lots of other reasons that go into it. I 22 think it's a useful number, but I think the fact that we do 23 provide cars that they can take home, that does help them, 24 and also, it's just a different position. I mean, there are 25 people that may choose to be a Sheriff's deputy as opposed 9-2-03 27 1 to a K.P.D., regardless of salary, and I think there are 2 probably some that we have in the Sheriff's Department that 3 were formerly K.P.D. people. So, you know, I think that it 4 is something you need to strive for. And, you know, 5 somewhere between the $1,500, $2,000 this year, try to catch 6 up next year, would be my feelings on this one. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My approach differs a 8 little bit, in that I'm not totally certain that there is 9 not always a disparity in the wage structure between 10 sheriff's departments, plural, wherever they may be, and 11 police forces, wherever they may be, and I'd like to know a 12 little bit more about those disparities. I agree that we 13 need to improve it. But what -- so what I'd like -- kind of 14 like to see us do would be to take that number that's 15 detailed in 1.4, which is $3,000, cut it in half, and do a 16 little bit more comparables -- do a little bit more of a 17 study on comparables to determine if there are disparities 18 in other sheriff's departments and the reasons for them, and 19 as opposed to just going blanket against Kerrville Police 20 Department. I share a concern that other Commissioners have 21 raised, in that I don't know that we'll ever catch up with 22 the City of Kerrville with respect to total parity between a 23 Sheriff's deputy and a Kerrville Police Department officer. 24 I recognize that the risks are the same, but I also 25 recognize the tax bases and the way taxes are appropriated 9-2-03 28 1 is different. County government is a different animal than 2 city government, and we spend our dollars differently. So, 3 I would be in favor of halving that number. I'm not so sure 4 I'm quite to the point that Commissioner Letz indicated, as 5 to guaranteeing that we will do the second part. I would 6 like to have more information before we commit to the second 7 half. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no problem with 9 that. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't subscribe to 11 the theory that these -- the jobs are different, the 12 deputy's job versus the police officer job. They both have 13 the job of serving and protecting people in Kerr County. 14 The Sheriff's deputies serve a few more people than the 15 police officers do. The Sheriff's deputies cover a much 16 larger area than the city police officers do. They both 17 deal with the same bad guys, in Kerrville or in the county. 18 The jobs are -- are much more similar than they are 19 different. There's not much -- I don't see any differences 20 in them. The only major difference I see is that a city 21 police officer doesn't leave the city limits, and the deputy 22 cover the entire county. I -- I would like to eliminate 23 the -- the disparity, but I'm also understanding your 24 arguments about the reality of county finances. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's where the 9-2-03 29 1 rubber hits the road. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Do I have a motion with 3 respect to 1.4? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Sheriff had his 5 hand up, Judge. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'd like to make one 7 comment about it, the $1,500 or the $2,000. To -- and I 8 understand the budget and the tightness of the budget, but 9 with the way it works, too, a lot of times coming back and 10 trying to do more the following year, and how that works, I 11 would really strongly urge the Court to seriously consider 12 at least the $2,000 for the officers. That will get us up 13 at least to where I may not lose officers to the City. It 14 gives them a little bit. But, you know, I strongly 15 encourage you to look at it again next year, but for 16 immediate for officers, I think the $2,000 should at least 17 be seriously considered. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: How many officers was it that 19 you had indicated that you had lost? 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Total certified 21 officers, counting your S.R.O.'s and that, I believe it's 22 41. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: No, that you lost to the City 24 of Kerrville, I'm sorry. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I've lost 16 employees 9-2-03 30 1 to City of Kerrville. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Employees? 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Were those deputies or -- 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Some are deputies, some 6 are other employees. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I understood it was 8 deputies. That was -- 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I've lost 16 employees. 10 I'd have to go back, Judge, and look at exactly -- most of 11 them are deputies, okay. Probably 80 percent of those are 12 the deputies that we have lost. I've got -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Over what period? 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: About four -- I couldn't 15 tell you right off. I'd have to go back and look. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Four, five years? 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: About -- longer than 18 four or five years. But I've got three considering it now, 19 one that's already tested with them and everything. And his 20 whole reason -- we had a visit this morning -- is salary. 21 Might not lose them if we can at least get them close. 22 That's why I strongly urge the $2,000. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of these 16, how many 24 under your watch and how many under the previous Sheriff? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think nine of them are 9-2-03 31 1 since I've been Sheriff. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nine? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Of the nine, how many 4 were deputies? 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Seven. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many did you get 7 back from Kerrville Police Department in the same length of 8 time? 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I haven't. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: That's a net loss of seven -- 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Officers. I lost my 12 dispatch supervisor, lost other ones too on top of that. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we started out with 14 16, now we're down to seven. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Since I've been -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you haven't hired 17 any city policemen to come over from there over to your 18 place? 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I hired, and then they 20 went back. They couldn't make it. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like maybe 22 they're kind of lost. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Can't do a financial 24 statement for them, but I would just strongly urge the Court 25 to consider the $2,000 at a minimum. 9-2-03 32 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd like to 2 make a motion that we grant salary increases to Sheriff's 3 Department deputies in the amount of $1,500 each. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second the motion. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 6 seconded that the proposed 2003-'04 Kerr County budget be 7 changed to grant salary increases to Sheriff's Department 8 deputies in the amount of $1,500 each. Any further 9 discussion? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And there is no 11 language in this order about doing another half next year 12 and all that. We'll look at it as we go. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't remember saying that, 14 Commissioner. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No, you didn't. 16 I just wanted to make it clear that I didn't -- sure didn't 17 say it. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I picked up on that, 19 Commissioner. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is this in addition 22 to the 2 and a half percent COLA? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, it would be. Any further 25 questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion, 9-2-03 33 1 signify by raising your right hand. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item 6 is consider and discuss changing proposed 2003-'04 Kerr 7 County budget by granting salary increases to Sheriff's 8 Department jailers and dispatchers in the amount of $4,000 9 each or other amount, reduction of jail and/or dispatch 10 personnel, and designate source of funds for any increases 11 as necessary or appropriate. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We've debated this 13 long and hard, and what I'd -- I think a good approach would 14 be is for the Sheriff's to tell us what -- what he feels he 15 could live with, an amount less than $4,000 that would work 16 on his extraordinary turnover problem, and -- and get the -- 17 get the head count up to a rate that we can safely operate a 18 jail with. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I've agreed to not fill 20 four of the current jail positions in order to try and get 21 this. I truly feel that anything -- if you cut it back to 22 anything less than $3,000 per employee, we'll ruin our whole 23 scheme of trying to get us up there. It will not put us 24 much more at all than Boerne and other jails, Kendall County 25 jails and that. And I think we need to at least get to the 9-2-03 34 1 $3,000 additional each officer, and at that point we can 2 still not fill the four jail positions; we'll eliminate 3 those four and drop this from four to three. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, what, if 5 any -- 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This would help. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- problem does more 8 money for jailers -- what additional problems does it create 9 for you if your jailers get more money than your deputies? 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Jailers are $10,000 11 behind deputies. They'll never get more money than 12 deputies. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And, you know, I'm -- I 15 come from both sides. I come from being a deputy, and I 16 also come from being a jailer. And I honestly feel, across 17 the state of Texas, jailers are totally underpaid, and they 18 should be paid equal to any -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So the answer is, for 20 you, it doesn't create a problem -- 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- if the Court were 23 to grant more of an increase to jailers than we considered 24 for deputies? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not at all. 9-2-03 35 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wouldn't be a 2 problem? 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not at all, 'cause 4 they're so far behind. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you'll recall, we 6 had a discussion about the economics of this. The -- the 7 reduction of a full-par manpower count by four would produce 8 an annual savings of $82,000 base salary, plus payroll 9 roll-up, so this -- this item will be partially funded by 10 the offset from -- if he was at full-par manpower, by that 11 amount. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many jailers are 13 we talking about here? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We got 37, I think. 15 Or -- 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's jailers and 17 dispatchers; that would be the 37. 'Cause we cut the four 18 out. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that 20 we increase the jailers and dispatchers in the amount of 21 $3,000. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 24 seconded that the proposed 2003-'04 Kerr County budget be 25 changed to grant salary increases to Sheriff's Department 9-2-03 36 1 jailers and dispatchers in the amount of $3,000 each. 2 Reduction -- or was that not part of your motion? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Excuse me, yes. And 4 would coincide with a reduction of four positions in the 5 jail. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Four approved jail 7 positions. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Judge. Read 9 my mind. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Reduction of three jailer's 11 positions. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three or four? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me, four jailer 14 position. I'm getting that confused with the $3,000. The 15 raise would be $3,000 per remaining jailer, reduction of 16 four jail personnel, jailer positions. Any questions or 17 discussion about that? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a couple 19 comments, Judge. This, too, would be in addition to the 20 cost-of-living allowance which the Court previously 21 approved, and that would create for the Court about a 22 negative $30,000 to do what we're talking about. 23 (Discussion off the record.) 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just Item 1.5. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much? 9-2-03 37 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thirty on the 2 reduction versus the increase. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: You get a net cost of -- of 4 how much? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thirty -- however 6 many you said. How many? 35? 34? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 37. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 37 times $3,000. And 9 somebody earlier said that a minus four was $82,000. Three 10 times 37 is 111,000, take away 82. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm looking at some numbers 12 that were last furnished and revised as of last Wednesday, I 13 believe, on a $4,000 increase, and what I did was 14 interpolate that down to -- to three-fourths of it, and I 15 get 142,000 there. And then, of course, you've got to take 16 out of that the -- the 83-plus, plus the payroll and other 17 benefits. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you rolled 19 the benefits in; I didn't, Judge. That's the difference. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's just a base 22 salary. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the net 24 difference, Judge, that you have? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to get probably 9-2-03 38 1 about 40 -- well, probably close to $50,000, the net. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And these -- 3 well, it's -- this -- all these items we're discussing are 4 in the run that we -- the full amount is in the run that 5 we're looking at from 8/29, correct? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, they are. The only 7 difference is, I used the number of 39 jailers and 8 dispatchers. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 39? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I recall 11 hearing. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It may be. It may be, 13 because one was a dispatch supervisor. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: That's the number that I've 15 had all along. I don't know where the 37 came from. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think that's correct. 17 It may have been misquoted before. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thirty-nine before 19 the cut of four, or after? 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: After. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: After. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: So you got 43. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those are the numbers -- 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Jailers and dispatchers. 25 I believe that's correct. 9-2-03 39 1 MR. TOMLINSON: So, the 39 is reflected in 2 the budget that you have. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I think 50 is probably the 4 closer net cost. But, without being able to take some 5 difficulty, we'll go ahead and -- is there any further 6 question or discussion about this particular motion? All in 7 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 8 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 10 (No response.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item, 12 consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County 13 budget by granting salary increase to the Kerr County 14 Sheriff in the amount of $26,500 or a level comparable to 15 that of the City of Kerrville Chief of Police, or other 16 amount. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: May I make a comment on 18 this first, Judge? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hope so. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I hope you do, before 21 we do. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I didn't ask for this. 23 This is parity. I mean, it is a legit figure with what the 24 Chief of Police is. I think it's -- it's not correct, okay, 25 to do that or to even consider doing that. This Court, I 9-2-03 40 1 believe, or most members of this Court will recall, and I 2 think I heard some of that discussion last week, about that 3 the elected official or the Sheriff should be about $5,000 4 above the chief deputy's salary, whatever that was. And 5 that's what I would recommend, and then take the remainder 6 and just divide it between the other elected officials or 7 whatever. But don't consider that kind of raise. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to reiterate 9 the -- one of the bases for this proposal, and that's the 10 comparison between our Sheriff's compensation and the Chief 11 of Police compensation. And I can see that our Sheriff has 12 a bigger job. Again, like the -- consistent with the 13 argument for the -- for the Sheriff's deputies, they serve 14 and protect more people than the -- than the Chief of Police 15 does. They have a larger area of the county, and they have 16 the -- the complexity -- not "they," the Sheriff has the 17 complexity of managing a jail. I can -- I think I can make 18 a good argument that -- that the Sheriff should be paid as 19 much or more than the Chief of Police. But I'm also -- I've 20 got a few phone calls on this. Recognizing the reality 21 of -- again, of our -- the economics facing the County, what 22 I'm going to propose is -- is that we pay the Sheriff 23 15 percent more than his chief deputy. Fifteen percent 24 is -- is a commonly used number in salary administration 25 between levels of supervision. If we did that, we can cut 9-2-03 41 1 this number in half, and provide for a $13,250 increase. 2 That would actually be a little more than 15 percent. I 3 figure 15 percent is about $12,500. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the 5 Sheriff's salary needs to be treated like any other elected 6 official salary. If we're going to establish a policy, I 7 think it has to be uniform across the county. I don't see 8 why the Sheriff should be tagged at 15 percent and the 9 District Clerk should be tagged at $1,000 or whatever. I 10 mean, I think it should be uniform. And I really would 11 rather deal with his salary along with everybody else, all 12 other elected officials' salaries. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just for the purposes 14 of enlightenment, what is the Sheriff's salary, and what is 15 the chief deputy's salary currently? 16 MS. NEMEC: The Sheriff's salary, with the 2 17 and a half percent increase cost-of-living, is $47,032. And 18 the chief deputy, with the $3,000 raise, is $50,205. And 19 the Sheriff is $47,032. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that includes? 21 One more time, for the record. 22 MS. NEMEC: That includes cost-of-living on 23 both salaries, 2 and a half percent cost-of-living, and that 24 also includes the $3,000 -- well, no, the deputies were 25 awarded $1,500? Okay. Then, no, it's $48,205 plus $1,500. 9-2-03 42 1 $49,705. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be -- 3 MS. NEMEC: For the deputy. The chief deputy 4 is $49,705. That includes the 2 and a half percent 5 cost-of-living, and it also includes the $1,500 raise. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $49,705? 7 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the chief deputy? 9 MS. NEMEC: That's correct. And the Sheriff 10 right now, with the 2 and a half percent cost-of-living 11 increase, is at $47,032. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right, thank you. 13 MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we have about a 15 $2,700 disparity there right now, correct? 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we took that 17 $2,700 disparity and then raised -- added it to the current 18 salary, and then raised that by the 15 percent increment 19 between the levels of supervision, looks like we'd come up 20 with something like 57,5 -- $57,500, compared to the Chief 21 of Police, $72,000 or whatever -- there's probably a raise 22 coming up. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There was, earlier, a 24 number thrown around that -- last week when we met, that had 25 to do with a $5,000 increase for the Sheriff for the purpose 9-2-03 43 1 of getting him -- some space between himself and the chief 2 deputy. If we were to consider, based on the numbers that 3 the Treasurer just gave us -- maybe I got it wrong. I was 4 going to say 10 percent would get you there, just about. 5 $4,700 on top of 47. That would get you there. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Somebody do something. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is a motion on the 8 floor? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: There is no motion on the 10 floor. I -- Commissioner Nicholson said "I propose," but 11 beyond that, I've -- I didn't perceive that as a motion, 12 unless you want to confirm that it is. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that the 14 Sheriff's salary be increased by 10 percent, based on the 15 numbers provided by the Treasurer, for the purpose of 16 elevating his salary above the chief deputy. That's the 17 purpose, in my mind. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Where does that 19 10 percent take his number? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, I'll give it to 21 you; just a second. He's at $47,032, times 10 percent. It 22 gets him up to $51,735. That puts -- that's about a $2,000 23 clearance between he and his chief deputy. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that a motion? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I made it as a 9-2-03 44 1 motion. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second it. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 4 the salary in the proposed '03-'04 budget be changed to 5 provide that the Kerr County Sheriff be increased by 6 10 percent to a total of $51,735. Any further questions or 7 discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, 8 signify by raising your right hand. 9 (Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Nicholson voted in favor of the motion.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed? 11 (Commissioner Letz voted against the motion.) 12 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I could comment, I 15 think we're obligated to do it to all other elected 16 officials. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. We'll end up 18 doing it, too. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Next item is consider and 20 discuss changing the proposed '03-'04 budget by establishing 21 a Merit Salary Increase Fund as a new budget line item. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm still thinking 23 about that last one. Just a comment on that, but without -- 24 I don't want to be argumentative, but the idea that we have 25 to do the same thing for other elected officials, there 9-2-03 45 1 aren't any comparisons. They don't have a County Clerk job 2 over there that would compare to it. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: City Clerk. But it 4 doesn't compare. In my mind, it doesn't. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, go ahead. I'm 6 sorry. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, let me make a 8 comment. My comment was for the methodology used; it was 9 10 percent. You know, if you would have set the amount, 10 that's one thing, but setting a percentage above your next 11 -- your highest -- next highest person, I think that is a -- 12 it's a policy. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't believe that's a 14 percentage above the next highest person. It's just a 15 percentage of an increase. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I hear your logic. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I understand. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I just looked at the 19 $51,735 and said, that's the best deal we'll get here today. 20 It's not enough, but it's a reality. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you got it. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we now on Item 1.7? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, we are. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This -- this concept 9-2-03 46 1 of a merit fund of money to be used for granting merit 2 salary increases came up in our earlier deliberations, and 3 we talked about it being used in a way that we reward -- 4 would reward employees for productivity increases. At that 5 time, we were envisioning that there might be some magnitude 6 of staff reductions through attrition to increase 7 productivity on the order of -- seems to me like it was 12 8 to 15 -- 10 to 15, I don't know. We did get some 9 cooperation from some of the departments, and they came in 10 and said we can do our work differently and get by with -- 11 with fewer people, one or two fewer, but we didn't get the 12 -- the volume of productivity improvements that we expected. 13 So, we -- I can see now that the -- the $25,000 budget item 14 for -- for merit salary increases is -- exceeds what we'll 15 need, and I recommend we drop that number to $10,000. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion? 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Where would you put that new 19 line item? 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd ask the Auditor. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: I think I already have it in 22 the line item, in the -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Nondepartmental. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: In Nondepartmental, in the 25 budget you see, at the -- at the proposed $25,000. 9-2-03 47 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would further 2 suggest -- this is not part of the motion, but that we 3 establish a process for nomination and approval of -- of 4 those who participate in this merit increase pool. And I 5 don't have a process to recommend right now, but it's not 6 rocket science. We can come up with one. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm glad you raised 8 that point, 'cause that point kind of troubles me, about how 9 merit increases are -- are determined. One of the things 10 that bothered me about the merit pool, as such, and still 11 does, is -- I'll ask a question as opposed to making a 12 statement. Does that put the Court in the position of 13 having to make the determination on merit for any particular 14 department, as opposed to the department head making that 15 determination? 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think, between 17 this Court and the -- and the County's Personnel Officer, 18 that we can come up with guidelines -- pretty simple 19 guidelines that -- where department heads and elected 20 officials would nominate -- follow those guidelines and 21 determine whether or not their employees are eligible, and 22 then nominate employees for participation. Then I would say 23 that this Court would make the decision on how that's spent; 24 specifically who -- who participates, who -- who gets part 25 of that fund and how much. 9-2-03 48 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you saying that 2 this Court is going to make the decision for Linda Uecker, 3 who's going to get the -- 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm saying that, 5 based on the guidelines for how it's spent, Linda Uecker 6 would determine whether or not her employees are eligible, 7 and if so, she would nominate the employees to receive part 8 of that fund, and then we would then look at a merit salary 9 budget that says, here's 10 or 15 people who have been 10 nominated, and we would approve that budget. It's not 11 something that needs to be done by -- by October 1st. It's 12 something that can occur when -- when we're ready to do it. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As an alternate 14 approach, Commissioner, I'm wondering, is it not feasible 15 that the department head makes the decision as to who in his 16 or her department deserves merit, and for the particular 17 reason? You know, I like your thought -- your creating some 18 guidelines or setting some parameters so that everybody 19 doesn't get a merit just because today is a nice day and 20 it's sunny outside. But would it not be just as effective 21 if the department head made those determinations and just 22 built that into its -- that department head's budget request 23 for the ensuing year? As opposed to creating a pool? I'm 24 kind of asking to kind of air it out. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which we have done 9-2-03 49 1 before. 2 MS. NEMEC: And with this, with setting aside 3 a certain amount, my question would be, who's going to get 4 it? The person that comes in here first? Well, if you run 5 out of that money and there's still employees on the list, 6 then how do you determine who's going to get it? 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What I expect to see 8 is a list that says, here's all of the people in the county 9 on County payroll who are nominated for merit increase. It 10 won't be one list from each -- that's something you would 11 pull together, using guidelines. Each department head or 12 elected official would say, "I want John Doe to receive -- 13 participate in this merit budget, and here's the rationale 14 for that," and would put together a merit budget, and the 15 whole budget would come to this Court. It's not a complex 16 process. It would be pretty easy to administer. I think it 17 should be separate from the regular salary budgeting 18 process, because I think the money is distributed in that 19 case in ways that does not reward productivity improvements 20 and outstanding performance. It very often gets spread 21 evenly among the employees, simply because the 22 decision-maker doesn't want to have to identify those who 23 perform the best. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you're on to 25 something. I think that is better than putting it in the 9-2-03 50 1 specific budgets, and I'm certainly willing to go along with 2 that. But these guidelines, I think, have to be really 3 specific in how it -- how the thing works. And, I mean, I 4 can't see how that's going to happen, but I'm -- I'm sure 5 you can, Commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll work on that. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dave, if you will 10 respond to Barbara's question about what -- what would 11 happen, hypothetically, if we were to have, in a particular 12 budget year, more merit increases proposed than we had 13 funded? How do you see that working itself out? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One possible way we 15 could address that is just by shaving back the amount 16 recommended for each one of them. If they come in here with 17 -- if we had $10,000, they came in here with $15,000 worth 18 of recommendations, we would just cut -- and we saw that 19 they were all deserving and met the guidelines, we'd just 20 cut them all back by a third. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- maybe I'm 22 missing something. I don't see the point. I don't see why 23 we just don't do this in the budget process each year, and 24 just -- I mean, I think the -- I'd like to see guidelines 25 developed, and I'd like to see, you know, a lot of the work 9-2-03 51 1 you're talking about implemented, and I'd like to see -- I 2 think it's a good plan, but I don't know why we just don't 3 do it at the end of next budget year, or each budget year, 4 and put it in the following-year budget. Because, I mean, I 5 just -- seems like it's getting overly complicated by doing 6 it midyear. And I don't understand how you can budget for 7 it, because there truly may be one person that's entitled to 8 it or there truly may be 20 that are entitled to it, and I 9 don't see how you -- you know, if we -- how we determine 10 that when we have a fixed pool of money going in. It's -- 11 just seems difficult. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, if -- if you 13 can't determine who should get it, then we're saying that we 14 can't distinguish between outstanding performance and just 15 coming to work every day. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we do it the 17 following budget year. I think we do take into account -- 18 and I think we've done some of that this year by 19 reorganization and adding responsibilities and, you know, 20 taking the recommendation of the department heads and 21 elected officials and their people, and giving merit 22 increases, which is essentially what we did in some 23 departments where we -- and we kind of tagged it to 24 productivity this year, which I think is good. But I think 25 we have guidelines that the Court adopts, and let, you know, 9-2-03 52 1 elected officials and department heads know those 2 guidelines. I just don't see why it can't be done during 3 the budget process. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, if you recall, 5 we did grant some merit increases a couple of months ago, 6 and it appeared that then -- I know it's -- that's not part 7 of our policy. It appeared that the criteria for them had 8 to be, in part, that there were funds available, and this is 9 a way to avoid that, so they have funds available. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sort of leaning 11 toward giving a -- giving it a try. If -- if we were to 12 fund it on a limited basis for -- for this budget year, and 13 after developing the parameters by which a department head 14 should be guided, so that we don't have a situation where 15 everybody in a particular department has performed 16 meritorious duty, I kind of want to give it a try on a 17 limited basis. This does presuppose that once a merit is 18 given, it carries through. Once you get it, you got it; it 19 doesn't go away after a year or two. That's the way I 20 think. 21 MS. UECKER: I just have one question. Would 22 this put the Commissioners Court in a position to grant a -- 23 to allow the County Treasurer to give a merit increase, oh, 24 for her employee over an application by another elected 25 official for a merit increase of one of their employees? 9-2-03 53 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. The personnel 2 officer's job would be simply to compile the recommendations 3 and -- 4 MS. UECKER: I was just using her as an 5 example. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But that's the 7 proper function of that office, I think. She would compile 8 the recommendations that came to her, and assure that they 9 meet the guidelines criteria, and then hand those 10 recommendations over to the Commissioners Court to -- 11 MS. UECKER: Well -- 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- approve or alter. 13 MS. UECKER: -- my question was, is this 14 going to put the Court in a position to decide one merit 15 over another? 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 18 MS. UECKER: Okay. How do you know that? If 19 you don't know what -- what the basis for the recommendation 20 was in the first place? 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, we're going to 22 require you to tell us what the basis of the recommendation 23 is. 24 MS. UECKER: Okay, yeah. I -- I like the 25 idea, Commissioner. I just feel like it's going to be -- 9-2-03 54 1 end up being a real political race to the Commissioners 2 Court, you know, for increases. And I -- I don't know. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do, too. And that's 4 where -- what I'm saying about these parameters. I think 5 that they have to be clearly, clearly defined so that you 6 understand them just like we do, if we do this thing. I'm 7 not sure -- 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think you have to set, 9 like, two days a year that the Court would actually vote, so 10 there's not a run for somebody to get one and use it up 11 before -- y'all set a certain time of year that's a cutoff, 12 all the nominations have to be in, and then each department 13 head has to justify to you, and you select out of all those 14 at one time. 15 MS. UECKER: The problem you're -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not how often 17 you vote; that doesn't trouble me. It's the aftermath of 18 the vote that kind of troubles me, where you come back and 19 you say, "Well, you know, my guy did so-and-so and 20 so-and-so, and you didn't take that into consideration, but 21 her girl did so-and-so and so-and-so, and my guy deserves 22 more of a merit than she does." That's what bothers me. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that's a position 24 the department head's going to have to make, and then it's 25 up to the Court. I guess it's the way it's -- 9-2-03 55 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can manage this. 2 When Commissioner Letz was working for Exxon, he got merit 3 increases, and there was some documentation that said he was 4 faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap tall buildings 5 in a single bound. And -- and if those managers at Exxon 6 are smart enough to manage this, we surely are. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What happened to 8 those skills, Commissioner? (Laughter.) 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion that -- that 11 we change the proposed '03-'04 Kerr County budget by 12 establishing a Merit Salary Increase Fund in the 13 Nondepartmental budget account in the sum of $10,000, as a 14 new line item. Do I hear a second to the motion? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it, 16 'cause I want to get to a point where we can do a little 17 more discussing. I have a question. Are we talking about 18 this happening at any time during the year? Or a particular 19 time during the year? 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I 21 would envision doing the guidelines, and the process would 22 be, say, by November 1, submit nominations for merit 23 increases that meet these criteria. I'm pulling -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you will work 25 with the County Treasurer to develop the criteria? 9-2-03 56 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mm-hmm. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now I'm confused, which 3 has happened several times this morning. If you had the 4 guidelines due November 1, that's basically merit increases 5 for last year, based on the way we do our budget. I mean, 6 you have the month of October. If they did great work in 7 October, you could give it. I mean, to me -- 8 MS. NEMEC: I'd like to see it six months 9 into the year, kind of give them a chance -- they're already 10 getting raises. Let them prove themselves for six months, 11 and let us see what -- who falls under the guidelines for 12 those six months, and then -- 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That will work. 14 MS. NEMEC: Or four months, you know, 15 whatever. But give us some time after the budget goes into 16 effect, after new salaries go into effect, to see what our 17 employees are doing from there. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But -- 19 MS. UECKER: Plus the fact that this $10,000 20 is going to cover half a year, based on -- 21 MS. NEMEC: What? 22 MS. UECKER: It would not be a whole year, 23 but it's going to impact the following budget as it goes on. 24 Is that right? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. 9-2-03 57 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Seems to me that it would, 2 absolutely. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think one of the 4 keys is this set of guidelines coming out of the gate with 5 the money, so that we all -- so that everybody understands 6 exactly what they're doing. As you go through the first six 7 months in evaluating that person, what are the -- what is 8 the criteria that you evaluate by? We may be heading 9 down -- your comment scared me a little bit, about Billy Bob 10 giving Sally Sue a raise, and the next department over feels 11 like that their employee's much more important than that 12 one. We're -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's an inherent 14 risk. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's more than a 16 summer storm, believe me. 17 MS. UECKER: I -- I just fear that, you know 18 -- you know, that every elected official's going to come 19 with some names. I mean, that's a given. The only thing I 20 fear from, you know, decisions made in the past, is that may 21 be -- you know, some of the elected officials within the 22 courthouse are going to be left high and dry, as compared to 23 Road and Bridge and the Sheriff. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Sheriff gets 25 it all, and y'all don't get any. Is that what you're 9-2-03 58 1 saying? 2 MS. UECKER: Well, could be. Or Road and 3 Bridge. You know, based on last month's decision about, you 4 know, a merit. That's just the only thing that I'm 5 concerned about. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm -- 7 MS. UECKER: And this Court's going to be 8 different, of course. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have the same 10 concern. And I are one of these guys, but I have that 11 concern as well. I just can't see how you're going to get 12 around doing that. 'Cause if I give mine -- my employee an 13 increase and you don't get to get one, then you and I are 14 going to be mad at each other. I mean, it's as simple as 15 that. 16 MS. UECKER: In other words -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And history shows that 18 the courthouse is bad about that. 19 MS. UECKER: -- you're going to be saying 20 that you believe the Sheriff over believing me about my 21 opinion of -- of my merit increase request. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What this has the 23 potential danger of being is, Commissioners never win. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Personally, I think it 25 should just be very strong and written that no merit 9-2-03 59 1 increases during the middle of the year, and at budget time, 2 if an elected official or department head wants to try and 3 get a merit raise for their employee, they prove it to y'all 4 as part of the process. Like it's kind of been, except the 5 line's got to be stronger, and you don't give any during the 6 middle of the year. They have to all do it in the budget 7 process. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, I'd 9 like to offer an amendment that no merit increase from the 10 pool be considered sooner than six months into any budget -- 11 any ensuing budget year, and a further amendment that the 12 initial year, no merit increases will be given until the 13 parameters are designed and approved by Commissioners Court. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll second that 15 motion. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Give a specific date; 17 don't just say six months. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Well, October, 19 November, December, January, February, March. There would 20 be no merits considered before March 30th of -- or 21 April 1st -- April 1st of the ensuing -- of the budget 22 year -- the ensuing budget year. So that you always have -- 23 six months has to elapse in a current budget year before you 24 can consider it. And, secondly, that none be given in the 25 first year until the parameters are designed and developed 9-2-03 60 1 and approved by Commissioners Court. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: You mean be given, or become 3 effective until April 1? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I guess we're 5 saying the same thing. Become effective. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. And the 7 amendment -- the amendment has been seconded. Is there any 8 further questions or discussion concerning the motion? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just wondering if 10 April Fool's Day just happens to be a part of this. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a point I 12 hadn't considered. (Laughter.) 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's a good 14 one. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could be. Everybody 16 gets a merit. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Is everybody clear on the 18 motion? Any further questions or discussion? All in favor 19 of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 20 (Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Nicholson voted in favor of the motion.) 21 22 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed? 23 (Commissioner Letz voted against the motion.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 25 (Discussion off the record.) 9-2-03 61 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Next item, consider and 2 discuss changing proposed 2003-'04 Kerr County budget by 3 increasing or adjusting the salary paid to Kerr County 4 elected officials and designating source of funds for any 5 increases as necessary and/or appropriate. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now we're talking 7 about things outside of COLA, are we not? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hopefully outside the 11 Sheriff. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hopefully. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, a few days ago, 16 seemed like to me that we talked about a $1,000 increase in 17 elected officials. Did we not have that conversation? 18 Hello? Is anybody home here? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 20 Yes, sir, we did. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We did. That 22 conversation took place, as I recall. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It did. And in that 24 same conversation was that $5,000 for the Sheriff. So -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm getting a feeling 9-2-03 62 1 here that maybe that number's changed some. Am I just 2 feeling wrong? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. Try something, 4 see what happens. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Auditor is waving his 6 hand. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, what you have in front 8 of you includes $1,000 per elected official. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Other than the Sheriff. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One more time? I 13 didn't hear it. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: The budget you have in front 15 of you includes the $1,000 per elected official. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Excluding the Sheriff. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Excluding the 19 Sheriff? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Excluding the Sheriff. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And his was 26,5? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, we saved 24 some money there. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How many elected 9-2-03 63 1 officials do we have, excluding the Sheriff and the 2 Commissioners Court? 3 MS. NEMEC: We have 18. Then minus six, 4 then. And I may not be right on that, but I think it's 18 5 all together. I can check here real quick. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is a question, 7 not a recommendation. If we were going to spend $18,000 -- 8 18 times $1,000 -- would we spend it $1,000 9 across-the-board, or -- or give it some other way? Do we 10 need to give as much to the lowest level ones as we give to 11 the highest? 'Cause there's a bigger disparity compared to 12 other -- other counties or whatever? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you -- 14 MS. UECKER: I think when the discussion 15 happened last year -- I'm not sure. I think some large 16 adjustments were made to the constables, and did that 17 include some of the J.P.'s or not? 18 JUDGE O'DELL: We got 600, I think. 19 MS. UECKER: But, anyway, that was over and 20 above those, other than the constables, because -- because 21 of the -- you know, you don't have a vehicle, so you're 22 going to get a bigger increase. So I think the discussion 23 about taking care of it next year did not include 24 constables, as I recall. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Auditor? 9-2-03 64 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Those -- those numbers do 2 include the Commissioners Court and the County Judge, in the 3 numbers you have. So -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And constables? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: There was an issue raised by 6 Commissioner 4 that that might not be correct, so I want to 7 make that clear before -- before we tackle this. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Barbara, how many, 9 excluding the Sheriff, elected officials are going to be in 10 a situation of making less than their chief deputy or chief 11 -- are any of them under the current schedule? 12 MS. NEMEC: None. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: None? 14 MS. NEMEC: Excluding the Commissioners Court 15 and the Sheriff, and excluding the County Court at Law 16 Judge, because I think his salary is set -- and I may be 17 wrong about that, but I show 13 elected officials. That's 18 including J.P.'s, constables. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Be a total of 18, then, when 20 you include the Commissioners Court? 21 MS. NEMEC: Right. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: And the Sheriff? 23 MS. NEMEC: Nineteen with the Sheriff. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 25 MS. UECKER: And I think, Commissioner Letz, 9-2-03 65 1 the discussion of the elected officials making less than the 2 chief deputy that came up last week was the elected 3 officials -- the Treasurer, the County Clerk, the District 4 Clerk, you know, the Tax Assessor -- making less than the 5 chief deputy -- the Sheriff's chief deputy, because of the 6 administrative responsibilities that that chief deputy has 7 compared to what an elected official does. I think that's 8 where I was going with that -- talk about that. And I know 9 we can't do that this year, but I think that's something to 10 look at down the road. And because, you know, the -- if you 11 look at the structure of -- of the elected -- each elected 12 official, I think it's important to realize that it's only 13 the County Treasurer, the District Clerk, the County Clerk, 14 and the Tax Assessor/Collector that don't have secretaries 15 to perform some of those administrative functions for us. 16 So, here we sit without secretaries, but yet we have 17 employees. Yes, we have, but they're doing the duties that 18 the Government Code says they're supposed to do, which does 19 not include secretarial work, so we have do our own 20 secretarial work, you know, added to our administrative 21 positions. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- 23 MS. UECKER: And I'm not asking for a 24 secretary. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're not getting one. 9-2-03 66 1 MS. UECKER: Now, in the future, maybe. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- when 3 we -- if we're talking about constables as well, there's 4 another agenda item which affects their compensation, so I 5 don't know -- I mean, I'm not saying we need to exclude 6 them. I'm just saying it's addressed in another agenda item 7 specifically related to the constables. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The $1,000 9 across-the-board seems to feel good to me, excluding the -- 10 excluding the Sheriff and the constables and the 11 Commissioners Court. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 14 all elected officials, excluding the Sheriff, constables, 15 and Commissioners Court, be increased -- the salaries be 16 increased by $1,000, and the proposed '03-'04 budget be 17 changed accordingly. Is that correct, gentlemen? Any 18 further questions or discussion? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In addition to the 21 COLA which was previously approved? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, this is on top of any 23 other items. That is my understanding. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Just wanted to 25 get it out there. 9-2-03 67 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No comment. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 4 discussion concerning the motion? All in favor of the 5 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. We are 10 right at lunchtime. Why don't we adjourn and come back 11 at -- 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What time? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: 1:15. 14 (Discussion off the record.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Correction, we'll stand in 16 recess till 1:30. 17 (Recess taken from 12:02 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 18 - - - - - - - - - - 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, it's a bit after 1:30. 20 Let's come back to order. The meeting that was scheduled 21 for today, Special Commissioners Court meeting that started 22 at 10:30 this morning, which went into recess right at 23 lunchtime to reconvene at 1:30. It's now a couple minutes 24 after that. By my count, we are at Item Number 9, consider 25 and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County budget 9-2-03 68 1 and/or establishment of fiscal policy by designating 2 required reserve fund balance to be maintained by Kerr 3 County during such fiscal period. In case some of are you 4 wondering why we're not looking at the Auditor right now, I 5 got a message during the lunch hour that his wife had -- was 6 -- had some sort of illness, and he was seeing to get her 7 some medical help. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wow. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: So, that's where we are on 10 that one. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we maintain a 12 25 percent balance in the reserve. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 15 the -- I guess that would be the establishment of a fiscal 16 policy? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Designating a required reserve 19 fund balance of 25 percent. I assume that's of general 20 operating -- general operating funds? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any question or -- or 23 discussion? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A brief discussion. And 25 this is just more so that the record, I think, is clear that 9-2-03 69 1 that amount is -- as I understand it, is the recommended 2 amount for, I guess, governmental entities that rely on ad 3 valorem taxes. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The state 5 recommendation. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: State-recommended, and 7 it's not just an arbitrary number. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By the Comptroller. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Comptroller has -- 10 recommends that, and that is basically what the Auditor told 11 us last week. And that is a minimum amount, not an absolute 12 amount, as I understand it. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My thinking on it, 14 Commissioner, is, if my understanding is correct, that we've 15 almost always been above the 25 percent, and that if we had 16 ever been as little as 25 percent, we would never have 17 exhausted the fund. And it doesn't mean it won't happen 18 this year, but I have some degree of comfort that that will 19 be -- be at least adequate. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: My recollection of the 21 Auditor's expression of druthers was that he thought we 22 ought to maintain at least 30 percent. I guess I'm somewhat 23 conservative, as is he, that -- that that's a more 24 comfortable level, at least in my mind, especially in view 25 of the fact that we are creating, by the actions of the 9-2-03 70 1 Court, a lot of obligations in the future, and I'm concerned 2 that while we may have the reserves this year to take care 3 of those obligations, I'm concerned about ensuing years. 4 In addition, we have at least one item on the 5 horizon that could cause -- give us considerable difficulty 6 in the future, and that is the constitutional amendment 7 that's now pending which would allow local governments, 8 counties, and cities to freeze ad valorem taxes, or would 9 require us to freeze ad valorem taxes on residential 10 homesteads of those over 65 or disabled. I fully suspect 11 that amendment will, one, pass, and two, there will be a 12 very rapid move to see that it's implemented in Kerr County. 13 And I'd hate to see us getting ourselves to where we can 14 bump that lowest level, looking at obligations such as that 15 down the road, and possible difficulties of -- of being able 16 to raise sufficient funds without forcing us to get into a 17 rollback situation. I don't see us there now, but that 18 doesn't mean we couldn't get there pretty easily if -- if we 19 pushed the envelope. I just -- I just think a more 20 conservative fiscal policy would be to possibly have it a 21 bit higher than 25 percent; possibly 30 percent, or even 22 possibly a tad higher. But -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My comment, you know, 24 just -- and I think that the 25 percent is sufficient. I 25 think what the Judge said and what the Auditor recommended 9-2-03 71 1 at 30 percent, I mean, is -- there's nothing wrong with 2 that, necessarily. But the other side of that is that 3 reserve funds -- if you keep an excess balance in reserve 4 funds, that is taxpayers' money that we're basically keeping 5 in a savings account, and you're taxing more than is 6 required, assuming you don't need it. If you do need it, 7 you know, you'll have to deal with that event. But I think 8 that the -- the State Comptroller recommends a number of 9 25 percent, and I think that is a -- for this year, and also 10 if you're looking down the road a little bit, based on what 11 we can project from some long-term indebtedness being paid 12 off in two years, along with the longevity hit, if you want 13 to use that word, that we're taking in the budget this year, 14 which we will not have next year, I think that 25 percent is 15 an appropriate number, if you take the overall, big things 16 into account. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Based on what I see 18 on the last -- last run that we have here, where the 19 requested expenditures in the general line was 11.5, 20 25 percent of that would be 2.882, and the estimated balance 21 was greater than that. If you consider the cuts that we've 22 made today and will continue making in some of these line 23 items, we're going to end up at an estimated balance greater 24 than 2.9, so it's going to be more than 25 percent anyhow. 25 It will be closer to 28 or 29. 9-2-03 72 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 3 discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, 4 signify by raising your right hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item, 9 consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County 10 budget by establishing an Information Technology Department 11 budget at the same funding levels as specified in the 12 '02-'03 Kerr County budget, plus any applicable longevity or 13 other adjustments as may be designated. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 17 Item 1.10 be approved. Any question or discussion? All in 18 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 23 MS. PIEPER: Judge, who seconded? 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I did. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Item Number 1.11, consider and 9-2-03 73 1 discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County budget by 2 modifying Court Collections budget account by, one, 3 decreasing Books and Publications line item from $75 to $50 4 or other amount; two, decreasing Travel line item from 5 $1,200 to $300 or other amount. And I might point out to 6 you gentlemen, I lumped these kind of by department, and 7 certainly, if we get to a point where you want to break any 8 of them out separately, we can certainly do so, but I did so 9 for -- for, I think, clarity purposes and maybe some degree 10 of convenience, 'cause I think they can probably all be 11 handled in one item. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded 15 that -- that Item 1.11 be approved. Any questions or 16 discussion? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question. On 18 the Travel line, the $1,200 down to the $300, that $1,200 19 was -- they thought about going to Huntsville and doing all 20 this stuff? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Exactly. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the reason for the 24 decrease, when that kind of got scrubbed. Any further 25 questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion, 9-2-03 74 1 signify by raising your right hand. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Item 1.12, 6 consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County 7 budget by modifying 216th District Court budget account by, 8 one, deleting elected official salary line item of $1,080 or 9 other amount, and two, adding Special Trials line item in 10 the sum of $150,000 or other amount. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 14 item 1.12 be approved. Any further question or discussion? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment, that the 16 -- the reason for the $150,000 in Special Trials is pending 17 a capital murder trial that's in the 216th District Court. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct. That's why 19 it's there. Any further question or discussion? All in 20 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Item 1.13, 25 consider and discuss change in proposed '03-'04 Kerr County 9-2-03 75 1 budget by modifying 198th District Court budget account to 2 add the Special Trials line item in the sum of $150,000 or 3 other amount. I threw this in because I was advised very, 4 very late in the game that there's another capital murder 5 trial scheduled in the 198th to occur sometime this year. 6 Sheriff, what's the defendant's name? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The 198th capital 8 murder? The only one I know about -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Where the baby -- 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, that's a city case. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a civil case? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: City. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: City. Police Department 15 worked that case with the -- involving the death of an 16 infant child. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that would be 19 scheduled to -- to be tried sometime this year. And I can't 20 think of the name. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that gentleman in custody? 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: He's not in custody? 24 MR. PICKENS: Baby's name is Josh. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Bond. He's on bond. 9-2-03 76 1 MR. PICKENS: Josh Freeman was the name. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Then he may not go -- 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not going to carry as 4 much as the one in the 216th, but capital murder is a 5 capital murder trial, and I don't know if there will be 6 something to waive the death sentence in there or not. 7 Whatever. There could be all kinds of options in that; just 8 don't know. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I realize this particular 10 item, there's been no prior discussion on it through the 11 workshops. This was brought to my attention at the very end 12 of last week, and out of an abundance of caution, I put it 13 in. Now, we can -- my personal opinion is that it probably 14 will not be tried as a capital case. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: For whatever that's worth. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm trying to find the 18 198th. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 19 -- Page 19. And 20 it's zero. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Special Trials there. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing in there. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do we have on 25 Court-Appointed Attorneys? $78,000? It appears that 9-2-03 77 1 there's -- I mean, there's a larger amount than estimated 2 for this year in Court-Appointed Attorneys, which is kind 3 of, you know, akin to this. I don't know if this person's 4 going to need court-appointed legal services or not. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't recall. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: With an individual on bond, 7 you can generally presume that if they can make bond, 8 they're going to have a hard time convincing the trial judge 9 that they need a court-appointed lawyer. That's kind of an 10 unwritten rule. There's obviously some exceptions. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is your department, 12 Rusty, or K.P.D. responsible for the security and things of 13 that nature? 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Security would be all 15 our department once the trial starts, no doubt. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think we need 17 to budget for it if -- I mean, you know, if there's 18 something there, we need to budget for it. It appears -- 19 from what I'm hearing, I don't see that -- there may not be 20 anything there that we need to budget for. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, question. 22 Could we just raise the Court-Appointed Attorney to 23 $100,000, which gives it some -- some additional money 24 there? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't think that 9-2-03 78 1 would be the appropriate line item, just because the 2 conventional wisdom at the moment is he's probably not going 3 to need court-appointed -- 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So let's put $75,000 5 in Special Trials. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Linda, they're letting 12 me make motions and everything up here. 13 MS. UECKER: Oh, no. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 15 seconded that the '03-'04 proposed Kerr County budget be 16 modified, that the 198th District Court budget be modified 17 to add $75,000 in the Special Trials line item. Any further 18 questions or discussion about the motion? All in favor, 19 signify by raising your right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed -- 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I voted for it. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All opposed, same sign. 24 (No response.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item, 9-2-03 79 1 consider and discuss change in proposed '03-'04 Kerr County 2 budget by modifying District Clerk budget account by, one, 3 decreasing Operating Equipment line item from $2,600 to $600 4 or other amount, and two, adding Capital Outlay expenditure 5 of $2,600 or other amount for acquisition of big printer. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 9 Item 1.14 be approved. Any further questions or discussion? 10 All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. 11 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 13 (No response.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Number 15 1.15, consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr 16 County budget by modifying Justice of the Peace, Precinct 17 Number 4 budget account to increase Office Supplies line 18 item from $2,095 to $2,600 or other amount. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 23 approve 1.15. Any further questions or discussion? All in 24 favor, signify by raising your right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9-2-03 80 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. 1.16, 4 consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County 5 budget by modifying the County Jail budget account by, one, 6 increasing Employee Medical Exams line item from $4,000 to 7 $4,500 or other amount; and two, increasing Jail Uniforms 8 line item from $8,000 to $9,000 or other amount; and three, 9 increasing Prisoner Meals line item from $170,000 to 10 $180,000 or other amount; and four, increasing Prisoner 11 Transfer line item from $16,000 to $25,000 or other amount; 12 and five, increasing Radio Repair line item from $500 to 13 $1,000 or other amount; and six, increasing Training line 14 item from $4,500 to $8,000 or other amount. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember most of 16 this, but I don't remember all of it. Is that what we kind 17 of nodded around here last week? 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It is. The only one 19 that I would say you could leave is that very first one, 20 from the $4,000 to $4,500. Since we eliminated four 21 positions, you can leave that at the $4,000. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cool, dude. I'm with 23 you. I'm with you, Rusty. You and me are buddies. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: With that -- with that change, 9-2-03 81 1 do I hear a motion that 1.16 be approved? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 5 1.16 be approved, as modified, by item one, decreasing from 6 -- by leaving it at $4,000, not increasing to $4,500. Any 7 further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion. 8 Signify by raising your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item, 13 1.17, consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr 14 County budget by modifying Parks Maintenance budget account 15 to decrease Operating Equipment line item from $2,000 to 16 $1,200 or other amount. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a second, Judge. 18 I may have a question here. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: This is the one where -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: -- apparently the Auditor 22 plugged in off of another line $2,000, when, in fact, it 23 should have been $1,200 too begin with. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. My question 25 has to do with another -- 9-2-03 82 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 5 1.17 be approved. Any further question or discussion? All 6 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 1.18, 11 consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County 12 budget by modifying Constable, Precinct Number 1 budget 13 account by, one, increasing Miscellaneous line item from 14 $100 to $700 or other amount to acquire radio; two, deleting 15 Fuel and Vehicle Repair line items, the existing ones; 16 three, adding new Fuel line item in the amount of $1,300 or 17 other amount; four, adding new Vehicle Repair line item in 18 the amount of $500 or other amount; five, adding new Vehicle 19 Insurance line item in the amount of $6,750 or other amount; 20 and six, adding Capital Outlay line item in the amount of 21 $7,200 or other amount to acquire and equip new vehicle 22 patrol unit. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Got a motion by Commissioner 9-2-03 83 1 Williams, but I don't recall having heard a second. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second it so we 3 can have some discussion. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion made and 5 seconded to approve 1.18. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question was, when I 7 was going through the new printout that we received, it 8 appeared that some of the constables had different amounts 9 than other constables, and I was under the impression that 10 we were -- our overall intent was to kind of equalize their 11 line items. And the only exception that I remember to that 12 is the radio that 1 and 3 didn't have. 13 MR. PICKENS: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which would be $600 15 higher for those two. And I just wasn't clear that we had 16 done that with -- when I went through this. I apologize, I 17 haven't had time to go through and compare exactly what is 18 on the agenda to what's in here, but I -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: My -- my intent in preparing 20 all of these agenda items was, in the two cases in which 21 there were radios needed, to add them, and in all of those 22 budgets -- of course, we're excluding 4, since we don't get 23 into the automobile -- anything relating with equipment 24 repair, fuel, and insurance in existing line items, that 25 those be eliminated. we establish uniform line items for 9-2-03 84 1 Fuel for $1,300, Repairs, $500, and Insurance for $650, plus 2 the Capital Outlay for each. I think that's what that says. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, it's my 4 understanding that, although we weren't buying an automobile 5 for Constable, Precinct 4, that he would be granted these 6 same benefits for fuel and repairs and insurance and those 7 things as the other three are. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way it 11 ought to be. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: On 4, I treated him 13 differently from 1, 2, and 3, where vehicles were going. 14 The only thing I did to 4 was to increase his elected 15 official's salary line item up to a full salary. Now, 16 whatever he's got in there for fuel, you know, he would 17 continue to have. Let's take a look. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Doesn't have 19 anything. What I'm saying is, with the exception of the 20 $7,200 to purchase a vehicle, Item 6, that the Precinct 4 21 constable should get the same provisions as you've got 22 there, 1 through 5 for the other three. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: The fuel, insurance, and 24 repairs? Essentially, the new line items for fuel, 25 insurance, and repairs? 9-2-03 85 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I think you're exactly right, 3 and I apologize for that omission. I missed it somehow. We 4 can correct that when we get to 1.21. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: While we never did 7 finalize the purchase of fuel, I thought the Sheriff at one 8 time indicated a willingness to enable the constables to buy 9 fuel the same way his deputies fuel their vehicles. Do I 10 remember correctly, Sheriff? 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, you do. We have -- 12 that went through RFP's and bids over here on Schreiner 13 Street, Maxey. We have an account set up where it is tax 14 deducted, and each of our units is issued a gas card, okay? 15 And the units are assigned a number, so when the monthly 16 bills come, in I see it. And what I had suggested, if they 17 wanted to, to keep that lower rate, is if you put that fuel 18 amount in our budget, then we would take care of it for the 19 constables and issue them a card to where they can get it at 20 the same place. Only thing, I'd have to just watch each 21 month and see. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the reason I 23 raised it, because to me, that makes sense. There's some 24 control on it. You get fuel at a cheaper price, correct? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 9-2-03 86 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Without paying taxes. 2 I don't know how that will work for Constable 4, whether 3 that works for him or not. It may not, but it certainly 4 works for 1, 2, and 3. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think it would 6 work for him. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: He needs to get whatever the 8 benefits 1, 2, and 3 are getting. He -- at a minimum, he 9 needs those benefits, if not more, because he's providing 10 his own vehicle. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The only problem -- is 12 he driving from Ingram into Kerrville to tank up? 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, we carpool 14 every now and then. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if we follow the 16 Sheriff's suggestion, we would be -- would be rolling that 17 $1,300, 13 times 4, into the Sheriff's fuel line item. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only thing I don't like 20 with that is, why can't we get a -- is for future tracking, 21 just so -- it's a constable expenditure, and it ought to be 22 in the constable's budget. And I wouldn't know why -- 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They could probably get 24 the same type of account out there and get their own -- own 25 card and own account. I'm just offering it for us. However 9-2-03 87 1 they want to do it. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: That's at the same terms, same 3 rates as you're paying, I feel certain. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I won't speak for that 5 company, but I wouldn't see -- us and the police department 6 get fuel from there. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think Jon's right. 8 Being able to budget, break it out and see -- at the end of 9 the year, see what's really happened here. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that idea. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the other question I 12 have was, from looking at them -- and the dollars are pretty 13 insignificant, but trying to keep things equal, Constable 1, 14 Office Supplies, $50; Telephone, $600. Two, Office 15 Supplies, $40; Telephone, $600. Three, Office Supplies, 16 $100; Telephone, $125. And I really don't -- you know, 17 don't know why there would be any difference between those 18 items. 19 MR. GARZA: I use my own cell phone. I pay 20 for my own. I've got a prepaid cell phone, and so basically 21 my money for the phone is just for my office phone, whatever 22 calls I make. Any calls I get and I use my own personal 23 cell phone, I pay out of my own pocket. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that answers that. 25 Okay. Leave them the way they are. 9-2-03 88 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, what about a 2 couple of years ago, we rolled -- a couple years ago -- last 3 year, we rolled the travel into the salary, and I see that 4 it's not rolled back out. Did we intend to do that? I 5 intended to do that. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, we probably 7 should have done that up under 1.8. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably should have, 9 but we didn't. But it's not too late. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I guess we can go back and 11 revisit 1.8, can't we? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, we can. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Would you explain 14 that to me, Commissioner Baldwin, what we're doing? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What we did? We've 16 always had a travel line, and we've always had a salary 17 line. And we started visiting about it and realized that 18 the travel money was really and truly salary, so we rolled 19 that travel into the salary line. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You did that across 21 all -- across county-wide? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did that with 24 Commissioners and -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. And now, 9-2-03 89 1 suddenly -- so we've done that, and so suddenly we come back 2 now, and some departments are wanting a travel line. And 3 we're -- and, in my mind, we're paying double here. We're 4 paying for travel, and then we're turning around and paying 5 for travel. So I think -- personally, I think that that -- 6 that travel that we had rolled into the salary needs to come 7 right back out into a travel line and be spent for what it 8 really is. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think -- and with 10 the constables, the County's now providing a car, and -- and 11 fuel under separate line items; we're providing more than 12 the travel that we rolled in originally. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was that amount 14 we rolled in originally? 15 MS. NEMEC: $1,800. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $1,800. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Was it the same for 18 all four? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 20 MS. NEMEC: I think so, yes. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I could just see us, 22 in three years -- we do this; in three years, we roll the 23 travel into the salary, and come back in three years later 24 and do the same damn thing again. I mean, that's -- 25 commissioners courts do those kinds of things. Goofy. And 9-2-03 90 1 somehow we need to get a handle on that and stop now. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see something else 3 that I'm curious about. The salary listed for Constable, 4 Precinct 1, is $26,992. The salary listed for Constable, 5 Precincts 2 and 3, is $29,492. If we back out the salary -- 6 the $1,800 from Constables 2 and 3, that would still leave 7 those two with $1,000, approximately, more than Constable 8 Number 1. My question is, why? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Tell you why. One, if you'll 10 recall, the original budget was $29,492. But what you're 11 looking at is the estimated actual because that went 12 unfilled for a while. But other than that, they should all 13 be the same. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got you. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Unexpired term. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's it, thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner 18 Baldwin, this -- this issue vis-a-vis Constable, Precinct 19 4 -- again, I'm not trying to -- to get special advantage 20 for that constable. I want -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, sure you are. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want them all to 23 be alike. Well, everything is better out there, but we need 24 to treat everybody the same. Does the fact that he owns his 25 own vehicle have anything to do with this -- with this 9-2-03 91 1 issue? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if it does for 4 him going forward, it should have for the others going back. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure I understood 6 that. But -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if we're giving 8 credit for going forward for this constable having his car, 9 we got -- do we give credit to the others for having used 10 their car all these years? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. We gave them 12 $1,800. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't remember -- 14 just to answer your question, I don't recall what we did 15 with Precinct 4. Have we -- have we always had a separate 16 line there, travel line of $1,800, rolled it into the -- did 17 we do that with him as well? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, we -- originally, 19 we did. But as to now, what we do, I don't think we ever 20 discussed it. I mean, we agreed that he would get the same 21 fuel allowance, but the fuel allowance is part of the 22 $1,800. But he is probably coming out better with the 23 $1,800 than the $1,300 in the -- no, he's coming -- what's 24 the vehicle -- well, the same; that's how we came up with 25 the $1,800, I guess. So -- 9-2-03 92 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So you see it as 2 being fair? If you take the $1,800 back, you see it as 3 being fair to take it back across the board? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because we added -- yeah. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Take $1,800 back from the 6 constables in lieu of the cars that they're provided and 7 that they're being provided? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You take it back from all 9 four. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think you could take 11 it back from Precinct 4, who's providing his own vehicle, if 12 that's the purpose for the $1,800. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we added $1,800 of 14 fuel and auto repairs. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you're giving the others 16 that also. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those are County-owned 18 vehicles. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: He's performing the same 20 service. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He chose not -- and also, 22 he chose not to get the new vehicle. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, that's kind of 24 where I'm coming from. He made that choice. He made the 25 choice. If he wanted a new County-owned car, he could 9-2-03 93 1 probably get one. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. The 3 distinction is, he's -- the $1,800 would be used for his 4 car, and the 1, 2, and 3 would be used for a County car. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If it's fair, I'm 6 fine with it. It sounds like it's fair. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: You're going to give him the 8 $1,300, the $500, and the $650, though? 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, correct. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what are we doing 12 about the travel and salary thing? Are we just going to 13 blow right past that? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can always have 16 another meeting next week. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, sure could. In fact, we 18 got one next week. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Buster, your 20 constable wants -- 21 MR. PICKENS: So, if I'm hearing this right, 22 you're saying you're going to give the constable out of 23 Precinct 4 the $1,300, $500, $650 for the personal vehicle, 24 plus he gets the pay raise as well, too, of the $29,492, and 25 we get docked on our salary? Is that what I'm 9-2-03 94 1 understanding? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe. Why? 3 MR. PICKENS: I'm just asking. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I think I hear a 5 little anger in your voice. 6 MR. PICKENS: No, I'm just trying to get 7 clarified on this. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that 9 anyone's getting docked anything to start with, but the 10 $1,800 travel allowance comes out of all four constables, 11 and then everyone gets the new line items that are -- exceed 12 the $1,800. 13 MR. PICKENS: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're treating all four 15 constables exactly the same, except three of you constables 16 get new cars the County's paying for, and the one that chose 17 not to isn't getting a new car, but the travel portions are 18 the same. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If he chooses not to 20 be constable again whenever that new election comes up, then 21 we'll -- and we get a new one, we'll have to deal with the 22 car issue. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's one reason 9-2-03 95 1 I'd like to -- personally, I'd like to leave all those lines 2 the same in there. 'Cause if we get a new constable in a 3 few years, we're going to -- this Court is going to forget 4 what happened and start all over. 5 MS. NEMEC: I'm a little confused how you're 6 going to take $1,800 from that salary when it was not added 7 in there. If y'all could -- you could pass that around, 8 that might make some sense. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A complication has 10 arisen. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doesn't shock us, 12 though. 13 (Discussion off the record.) 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't want to -- 15 MS. NEMEC: Okay, you see where the Constable 16 1, 2, and 3 are making $29,492? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 18 MS. NEMEC: In that $29,492, travel was added 19 to that amount. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 21 MS. NEMEC: But if you see Constable 4 back 22 in salary in 2000-2001, his salary was $20,322, and you see 23 that zero there for travel? There was nothing ever added to 24 his salary for travel. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, he'll be brought up to 9-2-03 96 1 that same level, or at least that's the proposal. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought that -- I mean, 3 that was a -- 4 MS. NEMEC: So you're not saying you're going 5 to take Constable 4's salary and minus $1,800 from his 6 salary, right? That's not what you're saying? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought his salary was 8 the same as the other ones. 9 MS. NEMEC: It will be now. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're going to have 11 the same salary for all of them. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: It will go up and then it will 13 come back. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wait a minute. Isn't 15 Constable 4's salary less because he volunteered to have 16 something deducted to pay for a deputy? 17 MS. NEMEC: Right. 18 MR. GARZA: Exactly. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now we're adding that 20 back; we're paying the deputy separate, and we put that 21 money back into his line. Now, what does that do? 22 MS. NEMEC: Well, if you leave them all -- I 23 mean, as long as the -- the end result is that they're all 24 the same, it will be okay. But -- but, technically, you 25 can't take his salary that he has now and take $1,800 from 9-2-03 97 1 that line like you're doing to the other constables, 'cause 2 there was never $1,800 added to his salary for that. He 3 never had a travel. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take his salary, the 5 one you're talking about, and add back the amount that he 6 deducted for a deputy. Put that back into his salary. 7 Where is he, then, in relation to the others? 8 MS. NEMEC: I think he's still, like, $4,000 9 off. It's not -- 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, he's the same in 11 the current proposal. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Add $2,400 and he's back up 13 even with them. 14 MS. NEMEC: Even? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Should be. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: $29,429. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we're going to 20 leave them all at $29,429? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Minus $1,800. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: 492, I believe. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $29,429. $1,800, 24 which -- I mean, if we take it off of one, I mean -- 25 MS. NEMEC: Okay, I see what you're doing. 9-2-03 98 1 MR. AYALA: Could I ask a question? 2 MS. NEMEC: Plus the 2 and a half percent 3 cost-of-living. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $27,629? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 6 MR. AYALA: I understand what y'all are doing 7 with the travel and don't have a problem with it. My 8 question is, how come we weren't included with the $1,000 9 across-the-board raise for elected officials? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good point. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good 12 question. 13 (Discussion off the record.) 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The reason you 15 weren't is 'cause we knew we were going to be having this 16 discussion. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we were waiting on 18 you to remind us. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sounds like an 20 option is to take that $29,429, subtract $1,800, add back 21 $1,000. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or just take off 23 $800. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's it. 25 MS. NEMEC: Okay. We're going to take -- 9-2-03 99 1 we're going to take the 29,4 -- 2 MR. PICKENS: 492. 3 MS. NEMEC: -- 492, and give a 2 and a half 4 percent cost-of-living increase to that, which makes it 5 $30,229, and then we're going to take off the $1,800, and 6 then we're going to add back $1,000? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. 8 MS. NEMEC: Okay, I've got it. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the way I 10 understand it. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It should end up 12 being $28,629. That's taking only -- taking $800 off the 13 $29,429. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: We're not at 492; I don't know 16 where all this dyslexia crept in here. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One more time? 18 MS. NEMEC: I've heard 29 instead of 92. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Minus $800. New 20 number, $28,629 salary. I would incorporate that change in 21 my original motion, Judge, before we get off on another 22 track. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: As a -- as an amendment to 24 1.8? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 9-2-03 100 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's where we are, 3 yes, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I hear 1.8? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: 1.8 has to do with the elected 6 officials' salary, that particular item. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know what it's about. 8 Okay, we're making the changes, and the final salary is 9 $28,629? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under the constables, 11 yes, it would be $28,629, with the adjustment. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And your rationale was 14 the regular salary, less $800? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. I think 16 also, Judge, after we've taken action on 1.18 -- that's 17 where we are now -- I think we ought to go back to 1.8 and 18 remove constables from that motion on 1.8, to be consistent 19 with what we've done. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Very good. Very good. Okay. 21 Do we have a motion and a second on the floor? You amended 22 your motion. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1.18. I moved it. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think Commissioner 9-2-03 101 1 Baldwin seconded. I think. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: You seconded? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God, who knows? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe it was 5 Commissioner 1. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think I did. 7 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And that amendment is 9 acceptable to you, Commissioner Baldwin? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I expect. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further discussion 12 on 1.18? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 13 your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. At 18 Commissioner Williams' suggestion, we will go back to 1.8. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move, Judge, 20 that we remove constables from that court order. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And note that it was -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was taken care of 23 under 1.18. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That applies for 1.19 and 9-2-03 102 1 1.20 as well, the constables? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, we -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: That's part of the motion, 6 then. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And one more thing, just 8 to make it a little more confusing. Since we didn't -- 9 since we don't have a later item related to Constable 4 -- 10 or we do have a later item? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it's 1.21, but we're 12 going to have to treat that differently. Item 1.19, do I 13 hear the same motion with respect to that as I heard for 14 1.18? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would amend my 16 motion to include 9. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: 19, you mean? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1.08 and 1.09. Isn't 19 that correct? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1.19. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, 19, I'm sorry. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: We have the same thing for 23 1.20. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're not there yet. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9-2-03 103 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only thing 19 and 20 2 have that 18 doesn't is the postage. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to do 4 them one at a time. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's a good idea. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. Let's just 7 do -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: 1.19, consider and discuss 9 change in proposed '03-'04 budget by modifying Constable, 10 Precinct Number 2 budget account by, one, increasing -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By one? Judge, we 12 didn't vote on 1.18, did we? 13 MS. PIEPER: No. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: We did not? 15 MS. PIEPER: No, you did not. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I stand corrected. Any 17 further question or discussion on 1.18 as amended? All in 18 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we did. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we did, too. I had 25 already had it marked, "4-0." 1.19, consider and discuss 9-2-03 104 1 changing proposed '03-'04 budget by modifying Constable, 2 Precinct Number 2 budget account by, one, increasing Postage 3 line item from $37 to $100 or other amount; two, deleting 4 existing Fuel and Vehicle Repair line items; three, adding 5 new Fuel line item in the amount of $1,300 or other amount; 6 four, adding new Vehicle Repair line item in the amount of 7 $500 or other amount; next, adding new Vehicle Insurance 8 line item in the amount of $650 or other amount; and six, 9 adding Capital Outlay line item in the amount of $7,200 or 10 other amount to acquire and equip new vehicle patrol unit. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That makes that 12 consistent with number 18? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: With the exception of the 14 Postage line item, I think. And it doesn't have the radio 15 in it. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 19 1.19 be approved. Is it your intention that this operate 20 the same as 1.18 did? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If there are some 22 differences in postage because they think they need it, I'm 23 okay with postage. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Well -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They all have 9-2-03 105 1 different requirements. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: -- what I'm speaking of, this 3 one doesn't have the $800 item in it at this point. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The $800? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: You removed the constables 6 from the -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's constables, 8 plural, so that would apply all across-the-board. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That took care of 10 $1,000. You going to do something with the other $800, or 11 leave it alone on 2? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We removed $800. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: On 1. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We removed $800 from 15 salary, right? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: On 1. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Make it -- make it 18 uniform. Applies here, too. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Just wanted to make 20 sure we got into the record what the intent was. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion. Do I have a 23 second? 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think I seconded. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any further 9-2-03 106 1 questions or discussion? All in favor of 1.19, signify by 2 raising your right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 1.20. 7 This is Constable, Precinct 3, proposed changes to the 8 budget. We're increasing Miscellaneous line item from $100 9 to $700, again, to acquire a radio; increasing the Postage 10 line item from $37 to $100, and increasing the Office Supply 11 from $50 to $100, deleting the existing Fuel, Vehicle 12 Repair, and Vehicle Insurance line items, adding new Fuel 13 line item of $1,300, adding new Vehicle Repair line item of 14 $500, adding new Vehicle Insurance line item of $650, and 15 adding Capital Outlay line item in the amount of $7,200 to 16 acquire and equip new vehicle patrol unit. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. And this is 18 with the same salary adjustment. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: The $800 salary adjustment? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 21 MR. GARZA: Question. Commissioners, will I 22 still have a Training School line item in my budget? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir. 24 MR. GARZA: Okay. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Doesn't change that. 9-2-03 107 1 MR. GARZA: Okay, just asking. Thank you. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you confused, 3 Angel? 4 MR. GARZA: Yes, sir, Commissioner, I am. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Welcome to the crowd. 6 MR. GARZA: No, I was asking, 'cause the 7 other constables are going to have more in their telephone, 8 and I was hoping to put mine into training. One further 9 question. Are we still included in the training for Thunder 10 Ranch, all three constables? I mean, is there -- was there 11 money budgeted for us to -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Whatever -- whatever was in 13 the original budget remains the same, except as we're 14 modifying it right here. Now, how you intended to expend 15 that, I don't know. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Except for them buying 17 their own ammo, I think that comes out of our budget. It 18 comes out of my training budget to pay for those ranch 19 visits. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we consider that 21 an invitation for them to attend? 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not their deputies, but 23 the constables. That was agreed to a couple years ago at 24 this Court. 25 (Discussion off the record.) 9-2-03 108 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Who made the second? 2 MS. PIEPER: There was no second. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. I'll second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 5 approve 1.20, as modified, with the $800 salary adjustment. 6 Any further questions or discussion? All in favor, signify 7 by raising your right hand. 8 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 10 (No response.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Did you vote, Commissioner 12 Baldwin? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Aye. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, motion carries. Item 15 1.21. This is Precinct 4 Constable. The only thing I've 16 got here is to elevate the salary to the initial parity of 17 $29,492 before any other adjustments, such as COLA or 18 whatever. It's my understanding that, based on the 19 discussions, we need to add to that some new line items or 20 additional line item accounts to provide for Fuel in the 21 amount of $1,300, Vehicle Repair, $500, Vehicle Insurance 22 for $650. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And subtract the 24 $800 to back out the travel allowance. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which would make it 9-2-03 109 1 $28,629 on the salary line. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same salary. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 4 MS. NEMEC: I come up with $28,692. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 629. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a motion to that 7 effect? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is it? 9 MS. NEMEC: Have I 29 -- if you take $29,492 10 and you subtract $800 from that, what do you get? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: You get 92, not 29. 12 MS. NEMEC: Right. That's what I'm saying. 13 That's what I'm coming up with. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I get $28,692 on my 15 Mickey Mouse calculator. 16 MS. NEMEC: Earlier, you were saying 29. You 17 were saying 29. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You stated it wrong. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: You made the motion? 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The motion. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: And motion's been made and 23 seconded to approve 1.21 and to adjust that item by 24 decreasing the salary, after increasing it, by $800, adding 25 the three line items -- new line items for fuel, $1,300; 9-2-03 110 1 repair, $500; insurance, $650. Any further questions or 2 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 3 your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Okay, 8 1.22, consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 budget 9 by modifying Sheriff's Department budget account by, one, 10 reducing Group Health Insurance from $370,008 to $279,696 to 11 correct the error in the original budget, increasing Uniform 12 line item from $10,000 to $12,000, increasing Crime 13 Prevention line item from $500 to $1,000, increasing 14 Training Schools from $1,800 to 25 -- $18,000 to $25,000, 15 adding Capital Outlay line item of $46,535 to acquire and 16 equip four new vehicle patrol units. The error in the 17 original budget had to do with a re -- an erroneous 18 computation of the number of people that -- that it was 19 required to purchase health insurance for, and that was an 20 error that I made. So, we -- we made some money by -- by 21 that error. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This has a positive 23 effect on our ending balance? Is that what you're saying? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. Yeah, it's going the 25 right direction for a change. 9-2-03 111 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This change was already 2 in the new printout? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, it is. It is in there. 4 But since -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: -- the proposed budget we're 7 working off of is the one that I filed, that's the reason 8 I -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: -- couched them all as I have. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So moved. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 14 approve 1.22. Any further question or discussion? All in 15 favor, signify by raising your right hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 1.23, 20 consider and discuss changing the proposed '03-'04 budget by 21 modifying Juvenile Probation budget account by, one, 22 increasing Attorney Ad Litem fees line item from $25,000 to 23 $35,000, and two, increasing Alternate Housing line item 24 from $65,103 to $100,000. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 9-2-03 112 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which -- which tab 2 are we at? Is that Juvenile Probation, 53? It is in my 3 book. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Works for me. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question, 6 and I guess you can answer it, Judge. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How are salary 9 increases set in this particular budget? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I can tell you how the budget 11 got here. The Juvenile Board approved it and sent it here. 12 And there was one salary adjustment that was necessary to be 13 made. Are there longevity increases there also? 14 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I believe there are, yeah. 16 Yeah. Other than the one adjustment that needed to be made 17 to give parity between the -- the probation officers, 18 they're basically under the same rules that everybody else 19 is playing by. But the second step to that is that that's 20 what the Juvenile Board approved and sent this way, with the 21 exception of the two changes which I'm -- which is in the 22 item. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And the 24 Juvenile Board consists of two District Judges and the 25 County Judge? 9-2-03 113 1 JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct. That's 2 correct. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want the 4 record to show -- I'm not going to vote against it. I want 5 the record to show, however, that this represents, in both 6 those cases, a percent -- I'm not sure how much of that is 7 attributed to longevity, but it is considerably more than 8 others, and I just want the record to show that. I'm not 9 going to vote it against it, however. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: There was -- in the salary 11 item, you're talking about? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, there was one adjustment 14 that was necessary, and -- and I think the Juvenile Board 15 thought it was absolutely essential. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Necessary? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I guess -- was it 20 just an increase? Or was it a -- a change? Or -- I mean, 21 was it a merit increase? Was it because somebody else was 22 making too much; there had to be an adjustment to keep the 23 position correct? Or new responsibility? What was the -- I 24 guess the category it would fall under as the reason for the 25 increase? 9-2-03 114 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Avoid E.E.O.C. Is that plain 2 enough, Commissioner? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sort of. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a pretty good 5 reason. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. 8 MS. PIEPER: Commissioner Baldwin, did you 9 just second that motion? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I did not. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't hear him second it. 12 I have a motion to approve 1.23. Do you hear a second? 13 Let's move on. Item 1.24, consider and discuss changing 14 proposed '03-'04 Kerr County budget by modifying Health and 15 Emergency Services budget account by, one, increasing 16 U.G.R.A. Contract line item from $50,000 to $64,000, and 17 two, decreasing First Responder Coordinator line item from 18 $10,831 to $9,675. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 22 approve 1.24. Any further question or discussion? All in 23 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9-2-03 115 1 Motion carries. Item 1.25, consider and discuss changing 2 proposed '03-'04 Kerr County budget by modifying the Rabies 3 and Animal Control budget by increasing Operating Expense 4 line item from $7,500 to $8,000. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 8 approve 1.25. Any further question or discussion? All in 9 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Item 1.26, 14 consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 budget by 15 modifying County-Sponsored Activity budget account by, one, 16 eliminating and reducing funding to selected agencies, as 17 may be determined by the Court; and two, increasing KCAD, 18 Kerr Central Appraisal District, contract line item from 19 $91,094 to $97,648. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I think 21 there's an error on 410 and 420. And I don't think -- I 22 think the Court's intention was not followed. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Where are you? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm on Page 64, under 25 410, which is Dietert, for its programs to the elderly. We 9-2-03 116 1 have heretofore funded them to -- to their requested amount 2 of $15,000, which was renewed again by Tina Woods here at 3 our last meeting. Our intention was to fund public 4 transportation to a larger amount, which we indicated our 5 willingness to do, and that amount is $7,883. Now, what was 6 done apparently on 410 and 420 was to take the 15 and divide 7 it in half, and give public transportation $7,883, and cut 8 Dietert to $7,117. I don't think that was our intent. Our 9 intent was to increase public transportation. I'd like to 10 see Dietert restored to the level of 15, and the funding for 11 public transportation $7,883 as well. You see what he did? 12 He took the 15 under 410 and split it in half, and $7,883 13 and $7,117 gives you 15. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Yeah, I took the 15 $7,883, which was the suggested transportation AACOG 16 allocation for Kerr County, took that off of the 15, gave 17 the balance of the 15 to -- to Dietert. And, inasmuch as 18 Dietert had been providing the transportation heretofore, I 19 eliminated the $5,000. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But even if you just 21 took the difference between the $5,000 public transportation 22 which was in there, and added the additional $2,883, that 23 would still leave Dietert more than $7,117, even if you did 24 it that way. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: No, my intention was to divvy 9-2-03 117 1 up the $15,000. That's what I did. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'd like to see 3 Dietert restored to 15, and fund public transportation as 4 well. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And your reasoning is? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They provide a lot 7 of -- a lot of services for seniors that, if they weren't 8 there to provide those services, I just feel confident 9 Commissioners Court would have to fund it somehow, to some 10 extent in excess of $15,000. So I think we really get a 11 pretty good bang for our buck by helping out Dietert Claim 12 for $15,000. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if I -- I 14 understand what you're saying, and I almost agree, but I 15 don't know that this Commissioners Court would ever feel 16 like that we have to fund that. That -- really and truly, 17 that is a function of the church, and out of the kindness of 18 the Commissioners Court, we come along with tax dollars 19 doing this, and have for many years. I mean, I've always 20 been for it and -- always been for it and always will be, 21 but I don't know that the Judge is doing the wrong thing 22 here. I mean, I don't -- I don't know. Hope y'all don't 23 make me -- make me vote on this right this moment, because I 24 will. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- I 9-2-03 118 1 mean, the -- going back to the discussion that I recall on 2 this overall item is that the -- the County feels like we 3 should get out of the business of sponsoring social 4 entities, and I think Dietert is one of those in that 5 category. Now, whether that's too drastic a cut, it may 6 well be, but I think that the -- you know, I guess -- you 7 know, I understand Dietert Claim is a great organization; 8 they do great work. But there are dozens of other 9 organizations that do just as good of work that we don't 10 give a penny to. So I think we either need to, you know, 11 help them all or help none, and I'm in favor of helping 12 none. But to get to that point, I think you need to, you 13 know, get there slowly. I mean, I would be -- if $7,000 is 14 too much of a cut, I can maybe go as high as $10,000 for 15 this year, but I don't have a problem with where it is right 16 now. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm supporting that 18 thinking, and what I see here is that we've got six of these 19 social service agencies. Two of them had been eliminated 20 earlier. We got Child Advocacy at 3,000, K'Star at 5,000 21 Crisis Council and CASA at five, Historical Commission at 22 2,500, and Dietert Claim at 1,500 (sic), a total of $35,500. 23 We started -- not started; we've been talking about it for a 24 while, but it was a point for your consideration. I'd 25 suggest we think about cutting all of those by 50 percent, 9-2-03 119 1 and -- and informing them of our thinking that -- that 2 we'll -- our strategy that we'll make further cuts in the 3 future. Don't cut them -- don't cut them completely off 4 now, but cut it in half and tell them that we'll be looking 5 at it again next year. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a problem 7 with that philosophy, but I do -- some of these are -- are 8 basically under the County, as I understand or recall, and 9 I'm not sure which ones. Commissioner Baldwin, can you 10 enlighten me some? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry, I can't 12 remember all of that. I know that the County uses -- uses 13 the services. It just seems to me we're a little bit late 14 in the game. I like exactly what you're saying, 15 Commissioner 4. I would handle it in the way that this 16 Court has -- we fund R.C.& D., and that is a grant-writing 17 operation, and that these agencies -- we need to let them 18 know that R.C.& D. is out there and the County pays them to 19 write grants, and these agencies need to go to that -- to 20 R.C.& D. and get their grants written, and you have three 21 years and we'll see 'ya, is the way I would handle it. 22 That's the way I've been trying to handle it for years here. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we have a 24 philosophical difference, which -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. 9-2-03 120 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- really wouldn't be 2 our first one. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gosh, I thought it 4 was. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think some of these 6 things truly do a -- a beneficial service to Kerr County, 7 and Crisis Council comes to mind, CASA comes to mind. And 8 we had already cut out Big Brothers and Big -- Child 9 Advocacy comes to mind, K'Star. And I think it's -- I think 10 the County Judge and maybe the County Court at Law Judge 11 could speak more informatively to that than I can, because 12 they do seem to use it, and they would know what kind of 13 services the agencies perform. I do see some obligation 14 there. I only want to make one other comment about Dietert. 15 Prior to this budget going into effect -- or prior to 16 Dietert getting out of public transportation, the County 17 funded Dietert for two purposes, to the tune of $20,000. 18 5,000 bucks is escaping someplace, and it was the public 19 transportation line of five which, in effect, has gone away. 20 If we follow the County Judge's logic in what we did, he 21 took the 15 that Dietert formerly got, split it down the 22 middle, 78 and 71, but the prior $5,000 has gone away. He's 23 nodding. He agrees with me; he's nodding. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: $5,000 is gone, no question 25 about it, from what I've got down here. 9-2-03 121 1 MS. UECKER: May I ask a question? I mean, 2 is it -- is it proper for the County to -- rather than 3 funding all of these individually, to give one amount to the 4 United Way, and let them divide it up? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I believe the answer to your 6 question is probably so. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would work 8 beautifully if all of them participated. I'm not sure they 9 do. Maybe they do. I don't know if they do participate in 10 United Way. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not a big fan of 12 United Way. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The problem with 15 that -- another problem with that is, United Way takes an 16 administrative fee right off the top. 17 MS. UECKER: Oh, okay. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I'm not in 19 favor of that part. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pretty good whack 21 right off the top. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, everybody I 23 know that deals with -- or that are involved in these 24 agencies are always yelling about government involvement. 25 You know, don't get -- don't get involved with the 9-2-03 122 1 government because they -- you know, there's no free money; 2 no free lunch, you know, and that thing of, you know, 3 they're always going to want something in return. And here 4 we are -- here we are; they're doing it right here. I just 5 don't think that -- I mean, I -- I mean, I was around when 6 some of these things were founded. My wife has served on 7 some of these boards, the founding board. And -- and I love 8 them, and I love what they do, and I know they're tremendous 9 and wonderful. But it's not a function of government. 10 These things are not a function of government. It's a 11 function of the church, and that's where -- that's where it 12 belongs. And I really -- for their own good, I think we 13 need to wean them off the government. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I concur. I have no 15 reason to believe that any of them don't do good work. In 16 fact, I -- some of them I know about, and they do really 17 good work. And I see them not too differently than I see 18 the Extension Service and the Ag Barn, that they're -- 19 they're doing good work. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Boo. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They're serving a 22 small population and all of that outside the function of 23 government, in my view. There's a lot more out there. I 24 can tell you, the Hill Country Youth Ranch needs about a 25 half a million dollars. 9-2-03 123 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And they're not in 3 here asking for funding, either. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have a motion to offer 6 on 1.26, gentlemen? 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to move to 8 reduce the funding of those five agencies, Child Advocacy -- 9 six; Child Advocacy, K'Star, Crisis Council, CASA, 10 Historical Commission, and Dietert Claim, by 50 percent of 11 the amount now in the budget, and to inform them that it's 12 our intention to get out of the business of funding them. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Those six? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, six. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about -- what 17 about Economic Development, while we're there? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we had earlier 19 indicated our willingness to continue to support it. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I know. It's one 21 of those -- I know. It's one of those things that we don't 22 address, that we never call into question. We never ask 23 them for any kind of report. We never -- I don't have a 24 clue -- I've been here 11 years; I don't have a clue who 25 they are and what they do. We just keep doing it because 9-2-03 124 1 they're nice people and they're part of the Chamber. And 2 I'm sure they are. But what's the difference between -- 3 what's different between them and all these other things? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you could 5 take a look at the whole list, starting with the Trapper 6 contract. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's cut it. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Even though we get a 9 report, you know. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's cut it. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's never trapped 12 anything in my back yard. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: In response -- in response to 14 your question, Commissioner, about the Economic Development, 15 that organization, it is technically not a part of the 16 Chamber and is now making -- it's in the transition process 17 to become totally independent. It did have some 18 interlocking -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, like the same 20 board. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah -- well, not only the 22 same board, no, no, no. But the beneficial effect derived 23 there is that their sole purpose in life is to generate 24 something that will create tax revenue for us. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And jobs for Kerr 9-2-03 125 1 County. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Jobs, growth, and tax revenue. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you know that, in 4 the 11 years I've been here, I don't recall a company coming 5 in here asking for a tax abatement? Not one. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We had one. I don't 9 think that was a true tax abatement. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We didn't vote on it. 11 They withdrew. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, I mean -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They asked for it and 14 they withdrew. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm off my soapbox, 16 but I'll be back next year. I just don't see the function. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Do I -- do I hear a second to 18 the motion as offered? 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear another motion? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let me try it. 22 I would -- I would like to move the public transportation 23 $5,000 that the Judge lost to Dietert, and I would so move. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that the totality of your 25 motion? 9-2-03 126 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There will be another 2 one if we get past this one. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do I hear a second to 4 that motion? Hearing none, motion fails for lack of a 5 second. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that we 7 -- I would move that we approve the Kerr County-Sponsored 8 Activity as presented. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 11 -- when you say "as presented," are you including the KCAD 12 change because of the -- 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You were talking about 14 this piece of paper right here, were you not? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me too. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Does that include 97 18 for the KCAD? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, okay. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unfortunately. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: As modified, with the $97,648 23 for KCAD. Any further question or discussion? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, at what point 25 can we notify these agencies that -- that things are going 9-2-03 127 1 to change? I mean, can -- can we send a letter -- can we 2 put it in the motion? That we approve this, but -- I don't 3 know. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: It's not part of the motion 5 right now, Commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, it's not. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: We might want to consider it 8 on -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not sure it's 10 proper to do it that way, but it's just -- you know, we're 11 going to drop this in again next year. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe not. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've talked about 14 this too long. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My -- the question I have 16 and the problem I have with the -- well, I've had with two 17 out of three motions that I've heard is that it seems to me 18 that some of these -- and I'm not sure which one is almost 19 under the County. And I -- going by -- I believe it was 20 Thea that brought that up, and I think it was Child 21 Advocacy -- and I don't know that. And if we -- or maybe it 22 was -- the County Attorney might have brought it up. 23 Anyway, somehow we're responsible -- it's not just an 24 organization that we provide funding to. One of them is 25 a -- a link to the County, and I don't want to vote until I 9-2-03 128 1 know which one that is, or two of them. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I believe there are two of 3 them. Child Advocacy is one, and the Historical Commission 4 is another. My understanding is they're created by statute, 5 and they are linked to county government. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And is there -- and in 8 that link, is there an obligation to fund? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I can't give you an answer to 10 that question, Commissioner. I'm lucky to be able to give 11 you the first answer. 12 MS. UECKER: What's happening with those 13 organizations, as we've already seen with the victims' crime 14 fund and the mediation, and the -- each county's Child 15 Welfare, is when the funding starts going down, what they do 16 is they get a strong lobby, they go to Austin, and they say, 17 you know, let's add 50 cents to each case filed, and then 18 this becomes a fee-based obligation from the County to that 19 organization. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second 21 that we approve the agenda item, with the KCAD change from 22 the original filed proposed budget. Any further question or 23 discussion? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait, Judge. The 25 agenda item says eliminate or reduce funding of selected 9-2-03 129 1 agencies. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, obviously, we're not 3 going to do that. It's approved as it is. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: With the one change from the 6 original budget, 91 to 97, the change for KCAD. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I apologize if -- if that 9 creates some confusion. Any further question or discussion? 10 All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. 11 (Commissioners Baldwin and Williams voted in favor of the motion.) 12 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed? 14 (Commissioners Letz and Nicholson voted against the motion.) 15 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I'll vote for the motion. 17 Consider and discuss changing '03-'04 Kerr County budget by 18 reducing or eliminating funding to the Agricultural 19 Extension Service budget account. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we just go on to 21 1.28? 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I won't make all 23 those speeches all over again. You've all heard them, and I 24 have good reason to believe that they provide a good and 25 valuable service. And they don't provide it to a whole lot 9-2-03 130 1 of people, and they cost a whole lot of money, $137,000 a 2 year. So, I don't feel that the County's getting good value 3 from funding the Extension Service at that level of cost, 4 and I would be surprised if -- if we defunded them, if they 5 didn't find funds somewhere else. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like the last part of 7 what you said about funding, but I'm not sure that that's 8 accurate. It would be great if we could find some other 9 source to fund them, but -- 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Probably not 11 accurate. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't know if 13 it -- you know -- 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Wishful thinking. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think my 16 feelings -- I've stated previously that I'm in favor of that 17 agency. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a motion in 19 connection with agenda Item 1.27? Being none, we'll move 20 on. Item 1.28, consider and discuss change in proposed 21 '03-'04 Kerr County budget by reducing or eliminating 22 funding for Books and Publications line items to various 23 departments to the extent the same can be provided with such 24 Books, Publications through the Law Library or Law Library 25 budget account. 9-2-03 131 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This one, I think 2 the total of these line items in the various departments is 3 18 and a half thousand dollars, something close to that. I 4 think I've heard Ms. Uecker say that we have moneys that are 5 available for that, and these -- these costs could be paid 6 out of the -- the Law Library fund or -- what's it called? 7 MS. UECKER: Yeah, Law Library fund. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. And so what 9 I'm proposing is that -- that money is lying there unused; 10 that we eliminate that -- that item from each individual 11 department's budget, and that they present their -- their 12 receipts for payment to the Law Library. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm in favor of it. You 14 know, I think we're doing it to a large part by, certainly, 15 District Clerk's office and County Clerk's office. 16 MS. UECKER: I would just like to add to 17 that, if you're making a motion, that that -- that is going 18 to apply to only standing subscriptions, so that somebody 19 doesn't go in there and decide they now see a whole bunch of 20 fantasy books that they want. I'll order them and send the 21 bill to the Law Library. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a risk. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not only -- Linda, I 24 don't know what your fund balance is in that, but, like, 25 Sheriff's Office, all the officers that we end up getting 9-2-03 132 1 new Penal Codes and Code of Criminal Procedures each year 2 that they carry in their car. I called Linda last week and 3 left it. It's about a cost of about $1,500. 4 MS. UECKER: Right. The balance that we 5 have -- 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Fund balance, okay. 7 MS. UECKER: Yes. The balance we have in 8 there now is between -- I'm not sure exactly. It's between 9 55 or 58 to 70 thousand dollars. We charge $35 on each case 10 filed in the County Court at Law -- is it 35, County Court 11 at Law? 12 MS. PIEPER: 35. 13 MS. UECKER: And in District Court. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only concern is how -- 15 how to do the budgeting for it. I know the intent is to 16 take a portion of each office's Books, Publications, and 17 Dues category and take it out of a separate fund, a 18 designated fund, being the Law Library fund. But how do we 19 budget for it in both the General Fund and the Law Library 20 fund? That would be my question. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm wondering if we 22 couldn't approach that same topic by agreeing with the 23 concept, and doing it to the extent -- what kind of caught 24 my eye was the providing "to the extent possible," and leave 25 everything in place and see where that takes us. And if, 9-2-03 133 1 next year, her funds are able to take care of the whole 2 thing, great. Then we don't fund anybody else for that 3 purpose. Would that work? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, still, they're 5 different funds. I mean, so we have -- we'll have to have a 6 budget amendment to get the money from the General Fund -- 7 well, I don't know that we can move money, I mean, to get -- 8 to pay for it out of the Law Library fund. 9 MS. UECKER: No, you just zero out those line 10 items in this fund, and then do nothing else. And then -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we zero out all in the 12 General Fund? We zero out all Books, Publications, and 13 Dues? 14 MS. UECKER: No, not -- you'd have to 15 separate the dues part of it. But then, at the end of the 16 year, of course, you have to -- to budget that -- the Law 17 Library account the same way that you would do Records 18 Preservation or Mediation or anything else. I would just 19 present a list of all of the -- or the elected officials 20 would need to bring me a copy of what they're going to need, 21 and we can add it all up and appropriate those funds in each 22 -- beginning of each budget year, like we do now. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would this also be 24 able to handle the County Attorney's needs as well as the 25 Sheriff and yours and everybody else? 9-2-03 134 1 MS. UECKER: Yes. I think -- did you say 2 $18,000? Did that include the County Attorney's? 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know. 4 MR. MOTLEY: We have $7,000 this year 5 requested in the budget, and I'm not sure exactly what part 6 of that breaks down to dues, but we will have some dues out 7 of there that won't be paid. And I think we're going to 8 suggest that we leave the dues, whatever that amount is, 9 $500 or $1,000, and then zero the balance -- $6,000 out, and 10 I just take her my bills and she pays them. The only 11 question I would have about it -- probably wouldn't kick in 12 this year, but next year or the next year, whenever we run 13 out of money, we're going to have -- I don't know how much 14 money goes into that fund each year, but we are eventually 15 going to be faced with a situation where we exhaust that 16 fund, I think, during the budget year, and we just need to 17 plan ahead on that. 18 MS. UECKER: Not unless you desire to buy 19 some big, huge set of books. I mean, there again, you'd 20 have to address the issue on a -- on a year-by-year basis, 21 like do you any other budget line item. 22 MR. MOTLEY: And just add general funds into 23 your books and publications, is that what you're saying? To 24 account for any possible shortfall? Is that -- 25 MS. UECKER: Well, if -- if that happens, but 9-2-03 135 1 I don't see that happening. 2 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. I just didn't know what 3 the yearly income was to the fund. 4 MS. UECKER: We're going to be all right for 5 several years. 6 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. You know, I'll -- I can 7 live with that. We'll need something in there for dues; I 8 don't know, 500, a thousand bucks. I don't know what it is. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sounds like the only 10 risk in just zeroing out Books/Publications is that -- just 11 what Ms. Uecker said, that somebody may see that as an open 12 checkbook to go in there and buy things that they don't 13 need. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it also -- I 15 mean, how cumbersome would it be to increase the -- or 16 decrease the line item in the Law Library the same amount? 17 That would be the aggregate of the total in all the other 18 accounts. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Then you got to peel out the 20 dues before do you that. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And figure out -- 22 how do you get that word back to each department head and 23 elected official as to what their budget is so they don't 24 just go buy whatever they want? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, haven't they 9-2-03 136 1 established that for us? Isn't that there right now? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's there now, but if we 3 zeroed it out, it won't be there. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's take 5 Commissioners Court as an example. We've got $1,500 in 6 there for Books, Publications, and Dues. 7 MS. UECKER: Each office? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Total for the Court. 9 JUDGE BROWN: Excuse me, I apologize. Do you 10 want me to go ahead and start the juveniles, and whenever 11 you can get through, then I'll just -- you pick up where I 12 leave off? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: That'll be fine, Judge. 14 Appreciate it. Thank you for your help. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Need some help? 16 JUDGE BROWN: Yeah, come on. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I'll be down 18 there in a minute. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if we scratched 20 that $1,500, went to zero, and whatever it is we were going 21 to get with that, we'd go to Linda and buy it through her 22 funds, I don't see that that would inconvenience -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Except there's some 24 dues in there. 25 MS. UECKER: Yeah, there's -- you can't zero 9-2-03 137 1 out the dues part. What is approximately 800 times 35 on 2 your calculator? 3 (Discussion off the record.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: 28,000. 5 MS. UECKER: Okay. That's an approximate 6 figure. It's probably a little high of what the income's 7 going to be in the Law Library account each year. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's the kind of 9 money you talked about before, Commissioner. Money we're 10 collecting, but it's settling in our bank account, not being 11 used. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As far as your 14 concern about maybe somebody orders a whole brand-new set of 15 law books that they haven't had before, couldn't we have 16 every department head/elected official who orders 17 publications, whatever they are, give the District Clerk 18 a -- a list of what they have? And that creates a 19 benchmark, and anything over and above that has to be 20 justified. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think that could 22 control -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a good way 24 to handle the control question. How do we relatively go 25 through and quickly reduce all the Books, Publications, and 9-2-03 138 1 Dues, and leave dues? 2 MR. MOTLEY: One other thing. A lot of books 3 we buy we buy every other year. There are also sets of 4 books that we buy that are only updated maybe every three or 5 four years. I can give Linda a list of what we have now, 6 but I also want to make note that there are publishing 7 companies that do come out with new publications that are 8 very valid, very useful, and never been published before. 9 So, you know, there -- there will be times when something 10 new is on the horizon there that we should be able to take 11 advantage of somehow. If there's, like Commissioner 12 Williams said, some way to validate that -- I'm not talking 13 about going out and getting just any old thing, but pretty 14 much what we're going with is something new that might be of 15 value to us on the horizon. 16 MS. UECKER: And I think that's, you know, 17 exactly what he was talking about, is if -- if you come 18 across that situation where you need -- just bring me what 19 it is, and I'll go to the Commissioners Court and we'll -- 20 they'll either approve it or not approve it. 21 MR. MOTLEY: Y'all are going to be -- I don't 22 know how much time and accounting you're going to save by 23 doing that it way. If you have to approve book orders -- 24 MS. UECKER: That's me, not them. 25 MR. MOTLEY: If you have to approve a book 9-2-03 139 1 order one at a time or whatever, that might be burdensome to 2 the Court. 3 MS. UECKER: How often is that going to be 4 that you have a new set of books? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's no different 6 than you coming in year after year, and next year, saying, 7 "Well, there's some new stuff I need," and ask for a big 8 allowance to -- it's no different. 9 MR. MOTLEY: Well, you're probably right. 10 I'm just thinking -- I'm not against the idea. I'm for the 11 idea. I just would want to be sure there's plenty of money 12 coming in to cover -- kind of in perpetuity, so to speak, 13 and that's fine. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The only thing 15 that's keeping us from getting there is, we don't know what 16 the fees are. We don't know how much of this -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is dues. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- $14,000 or 19 $15,000 or whatever it is, is dues. How can we overcome 20 that obstacle? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Elected officials 22 should know what dues they have cranked in. We know what 23 our is. We know it's dues to West Texas, for example. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what else? 9-2-03 140 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: State association. 2 But we don't -- we don't -- we never joined the national 3 organizations. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What kind of action 5 can we take today with that uncertainty? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We could include in 7 this motion to adopt this concept that the elected officials 8 and department heads, including Commissioners Court, provide 9 the District Clerk with a list of publications only, and 10 then -- and everything else stays in their line. 11 MS. UECKER: For your information, mine is 12 already out of there. It's coming out of the Law Library. 13 I think I have, like, $50 or something like that left in 14 dues. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When will you get an 16 answer? If you tell everyone -- send a memo out that we're 17 deleting that line item, it needs to come back for dues 18 only, and those that do, do, and those that don't -- 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That will work, by 20 exception. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, Judge, you can sign 22 that memo. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge can do that. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a motion on 1.28? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We haven't had one yet? 9-2-03 141 1 MS. PIEPER: There's no motion. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No motion? 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The motion is to 4 eliminate funding for books and publications by zeroing out 5 that line item, which includes books, publications, and fees 6 -- no. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Dues. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Dues. And that each 9 organization that needs a budget for dues will notify the -- 10 the Commissioners Court of what that need is. Can you clean 11 that rambling statement up a little bit? Make -- make a 12 motion out of it? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second that. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 15 each -- each elected official and/or department head provide 16 the Commissioners Court with an itemization of dues required 17 to be paid during the coming fiscal year, and that that 18 amount be deducted from that department's allocation for 19 Books, Publications, and Dues and be left remaining there, 20 and that the balance of all those accounts be transferred to 21 the County Law Library fund. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only, I guess, 23 amendment to that -- could we have it to the -- instead of 24 making them come to Commissioners Court, let them go to the 25 Auditor? 9-2-03 142 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that acceptable with 4 you gentlemen as motion and second? 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 6 MS. UECKER: I think that motion might need 7 to include to furnish me a list of current subscriptions. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I -- my thought 10 was we need to figure out the process for this at our next, 11 maybe, Commissioners Court meeting. I mean, if you could 12 write something up, Linda, as to how it's going to work best 13 with your office, then we can approve that. Then they can 14 use that procedure. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't you develop 16 that for us, and we can approve the process at the next 17 meeting? We're looking at the concept now. 18 MS. UECKER: Okay. When's the next meeting? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Monday. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Monday. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tonight. Tomorrow. 22 MS. UECKER: That's a little bit of a 23 problem. I'm going to be gone to a -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: We won't hear it Monday, 25 anyway. 9-2-03 143 1 MS. UECKER: -- a workshop Thursday-Friday. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: After the budget year 3 starts or whatever. 4 MS. UECKER: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Later on. 6 MS. UECKER: Okay. So, it's not essential 7 that we get to it Monday? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: We're worried about the 9 economics in getting it in the budget now as to where it's 10 going to be in the budget, I think. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 13 discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, 14 signify by raising your right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item, 19 consider and discuss changing '03-'04 proposed budget by 20 reducing funding to Public Library budget account by 21 15 percent or other percentage of requested amount. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This morning, I got 23 the -- the contract with the City concerning the library 24 contract, and I noted that -- that the County Judge and -- 25 and Commissioner Williams, our liaison, did notify the City 9-2-03 144 1 by letter on May 21 that this -- they were giving notice of 2 Kerr County's intention to renegotiate the terms of the 3 library contract for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 4 2003, so the window of opportunity is -- is open for doing 5 something different with that. The 15 percent number is -- 6 is a number that's sort of pulled out of the air of -- of 7 what would be a challenge. For most organizations, it would 8 be a challenge to reduce their costs by 15 percent. So, I 9 think we need to reduce our annual investment in the 10 library. And I think their -- their budget probably doesn't 11 get as much attention from the City as we would like for it 12 to, and that it's a very large cost, $397,000 to us, and we 13 need to find ways to reduce that cost. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that, 15 embodied in the letter that we sent to the City at the 16 Judge's request -- and the Judge asked me my thoughts on 17 where we should go with this -- had to do with two things. 18 My belief that we were not included to the extent that we 19 could or should be in the budget-making process, and all we 20 have been given in the past has been a number that -- we're 21 supposed to trust that number, including this year, and 22 stamp approval of it. And, secondly, that we needed to have 23 a better understanding, and even if it -- even if it meant 24 an ordinance change on the part of the City as to who and 25 how many people were appointed to that board and how that 9-2-03 145 1 process worked. 2 So, these are the two items I had in mind 3 when the Judge asked me my thoughts on the contract. I 4 agree it's a large number, and if we don't work toward 5 mitigating, it's going to continue to grow. But I think at 6 this juncture, it would be inappropriate to arbitrarily 7 reduce it by 15 percent on our part. I would rather be 8 involved -- or the Judge be involved in the decision-making 9 that goes into the budget, as opposed to doing it ex post 10 facto. So, you know, for that reason, I would -- I would 11 not want to support an arbitrary cut. But I do need -- I 12 think the City needs to be made to understand that we 13 definitely want to be involved in the budget process. We 14 want to know what goes into that and a justification for 15 increases, if any. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Williams, 17 we have said that numerous times to the City. Numerous 18 times. And I agree with you that we need to be involved in 19 the budget process. No question about it. But can you 20 imagine a better way to get that done? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, this right 23 here accomplishes what you -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the Lyndon 25 Johnson philosophy; hit them over -- hit the donkey over the 9-2-03 146 1 head with a two-by-four just to get his attention. I would 2 disagree with that. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wasn't saying they 4 were donkeys. You might say that, but I -- I wouldn't say 5 that they were donkeys by any means. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not suggesting 7 that at all. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Some of my best 9 friends are over there. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we do need to 11 tell them that we approved it, and with great reservation as 12 to the process, and fully intend to be involved in the 13 process from the get-go in the next year. That's my sense 14 of it. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we've done that 16 before. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think we 18 have -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- to that extent. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And they've said -- 22 "Why, sure. Sure." 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- nothing 24 would make me, probably, happier than cutting the funding 25 here, but I do feel we have a little bit of obligation right 9-2-03 147 1 now with the City and where we are at this point in the 2 workshops. We discussed things there, but I think it's kind 3 of -- it's difficult to go in and just arbitrarily cut 4 funding. Well, I wouldn't say it's arbitrary, but to cut 5 funding this late in the game, though I really, you know, 6 would like to go back. The letter is with the City right 7 now -- which they didn't respond to, I might add -- to 8 renegotiate the contract or relook at the contract. And I 9 think we really, from the taxpayers' standpoint, need to 10 figure out where the library's going. I mean, the costs are 11 certainly extremely high. I mean, seems like you can almost 12 build a new building for what we're funding over there, or 13 do a bond issue over 20 years and fund it for $800,000 a 14 year. So, I think we need to figure out what's going on and 15 what the long-term plan is and what the City's plan is as 16 the manager of this partnership to get -- to make the 17 library more self-funding, whether it's through grants or 18 dues or whatever their other options may be. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I want to 20 present my thinking one more time, and that is -- it's a 21 little more palatable than a 15 percent cut, and that is to 22 just freeze what we're sending over there. I think it was 23 $397,000? Did I hear that number? Almost $400,000. That 24 we would -- that we're going to freeze that number. We're 25 not going to send $397,000 and one penny over there next 9-2-03 148 1 year, until we accomplish what Commissioner Williams wants 2 to do, and the liaison from this Court is comfortable -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that approach. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- with what's going 5 on. And, I mean, we're not going to send another penny. I 6 don't know that we can commit next year's Commissioners 7 Court to that kind of thing or not; I don't have any idea, 8 but it doesn't matter. We can do it. I mean, I'm willing 9 to try. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like the approach. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just think that 12 that's what we need to do. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: For whatever purpose it might 14 serve, I had a call from Dane Tune, who's the finance 15 director of the City of Kerrville, after the joint 16 City/County workshop, but actually, I believe it was before 17 we did any of the budget workshops. It was either the 18 morning of or the day before they were having their little 19 retreat that they do where everybody goes out -- I think 20 this year they went to Lazy Hills or somewhere. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think they become 22 one with earth or something? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Well -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I believe. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: And -- 9-2-03 149 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One with a donkey. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: And the inquiry was with 3 respect to if -- if I had anything to report to them or if I 4 needed anything from them with respect to the joint 5 projects. And I told him that, you know, I could not speak 6 for the Court. There had been no final action taken by the 7 Court; that, obviously, we'd been at the workshop and there 8 were some things discussed and requests made. The final 9 thing that I left him with, however, was that he should not 10 expect that the requests which they made at that time would 11 necessarily be honored. That was my sense of it. And he 12 thanked me, and I guess went out to Lazy Hills at that 13 point. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, in the joint 15 City/County workshops, in discussing the library budget, my 16 recollection is that there was a, probably, consensus among 17 the participants that the library delivery -- book delivery 18 program was an experiment that hadn't worked, and that would 19 be disposed of, even to the extent that they talked about 20 how they could get rid of the truck that was given to them. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would have 23 expected they'd come back and -- subsequent to that meeting, 24 come back to Commissioners Court and say, "Well, we don't 25 need the $397,000 any more; that program's gone away. We're 9-2-03 150 1 going to be able to reduce one -- one position or these 2 other costs, and so here's the new number that we need." 3 But that didn't happen, so I don't have a lot of confidence 4 that they're going to be responsive to a vague suggestion 5 that we -- we're going to do better in the future, when they 6 haven't been responsive to that specific issue. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On that particular 8 item, that would have amounted to about a half a position 9 and the fuel for the vehicle. But you're right; 10 theoretically, they should have amended it downward by a 11 couple thousand bucks probably, but they didn't do that. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: That item also would have 13 included service into the county, which, of course, is I 14 think clearly going to be eliminated. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: And secondly, with respect to 17 your -- to your observation that a 15 percent cut is a 18 challenging task for a manager to deal with, a 15 percent 19 cut by this Court of its apportioned part of this would only 20 result in a 7 and a half percent cut to the budget as a 21 whole. For whatever that's worth to you. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I went out and got a 23 drink of water a minute ago, and I missed part of what you 24 said, but I thought where you were going was that the van 25 and all that, and that program being done, there should be 9-2-03 151 1 some savings. And why don't we reduce the amount we're 2 sending over there by the amount of that savings? I mean, 3 that was in this $397,000, so we ought to back it out, since 4 we clearly aren't doing that part of the program. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can do that. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, we can do that. 7 Let me see if I can take a crack at it, Judge, make some 8 sense of what we're talking about, 'cause I'd like to add a 9 couple of admonishments. That we reduce the library funding 10 in the amount of -- of $397,000 requested by our share of 11 the amount of the costs to fund the outside county book 12 service, which we understand is a half a position and truck 13 expenses, and that we indicate to the City that the level of 14 funding will be frozen, and that we -- the Court is -- wants 15 to be a part of the budget process next year. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about that 17 reduction? What about the reduction? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was the first 19 thing I said. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I thought you 21 said remain -- it remained the same. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, no, no. Less 23 that amount -- half of that amount, whatever that is. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll second that. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 9-2-03 152 1 the Court approve the request for Public Library funding in 2 the amount of $397,000 and change, less half -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The amount -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: -- the cost for the bookmobile 5 or rural book -- or remote book delivery system that's being 6 phased out, and with the further admonition that the City be 7 put on notice that we want to be further involved in -- in 8 the economics of the library operation budgeting expenses, 9 et cetera, in the future. Did that include putting them on 10 notice that we're inclined to want to make further cuts in 11 the future? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think it's 13 implied, if we're going to be part of the process, that 14 everything's up for grabs. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the least you leave to 16 be interpreted, the better off you are. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm open for 18 suggestions. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Would that sort of an 20 add-on be acceptable to you? 21 (Commissioner Nicholson nodded.) 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only thing I would like 23 to see is that we reduce -- in our budget, reduce the 24 funding amount by $10,000, which should be -- you know, half 25 of a van and position is clearly worth more than $10,000, so 9-2-03 153 1 $387,000, put in our budget. And that way, it also makes 2 sure that we remember that we did this. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, what if 4 we said $10,000 or the amount required? 'Cause we don't 5 know what that amount is. $10,000 or the amount required to 6 fund that half a position and our share of the -- of van 7 expenses. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think your motion is 9 just as you had it originally. I just think we need to 10 change our budget by $10,000. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, I got you. 12 Okay. Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We -- and this is the 14 whole point. We don't know what that number is, because the 15 City hasn't told us. That's the whole point of this 16 conversation. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: They have the pencil. Any 18 further questions about the motion? All in favor of the 19 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, you want to 25 bring this back in the morning? Or do you think we can get 9-2-03 154 1 through this? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I think we can get 3 through it. How are you holding out, Ms. Kathy? 4 (Discussion off the record.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we're going to take 6 about 10 minutes here. 7 (Recess taken from 3:18 p.m. to 3:33 p.m.) 8 - - - - - - - - - - 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to 10 order. It's just a bit after 3:30 in the afternoon. We 11 took a short recess about 15 minutes ago. Let me go back to 12 Item 1.23, if I might. That one has not had any action on 13 it. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe we skipped 15 that. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We didn't skip that; we 17 just didn't have a motion. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Kinda, sorta. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah, there's a 20 question about that. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 25 approve Agenda Item Number 1.23. Any questions or -- or 9-2-03 155 1 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 2 your right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Number 7 1.30, consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr 8 County budget by modifying Fire Protection budget account 9 by, one, increasing all Kerr County Volunteer Fire 10 Department line items from $11,000 to $13,000, adding Divide 11 Volunteer Fire Department line item of $13,000, increasing 12 City Fire Contract line item from $100,000 to $125,000. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. And 15 discussion. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 18 approve 1.30. Any questions or discussion? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I remember -- 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: First, we need to 21 add the out-of-county fire departments that we're under 22 contract with, that being Tierra Linda, Junction, and Castle 23 Lake. We agreed for $1,000 to each of those. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: They're in the existing 25 proposed budget, Commissioner, so we won't need to add them. 9-2-03 156 1 They're already there. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we're not -- but 3 they're not to be funded at $13,000. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: No. "Kerr County fire 5 departments" is what the agenda item says, from 11 to 13. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Those are all three 8 out-of-county fire departments. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So's Comfort. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, point well-made. Point 11 well-made. I think it would be covered on the increase from 12 11 to 13, since they're already at 11. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Comfort? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. They cover a good 17 part of Kerr County. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So long as that's 20 clear, that we're also voting on that piece of it. The 21 second one is -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Comfort is included, 23 considered a Kerr County VFD for the purposes of that 24 motion. And the three other out-of-county -- Tierra Linda, 25 Junction, Castle Lake -- are already in at $1,000 each. 9-2-03 157 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I look again and I'm 2 not proposing anything different on this, but this 3 25 percent increase on the City fire contract is still a 4 difficult item for me. I'm just looking at the -- the joint 5 programs budget, City/County, and I think that's a really 6 good way for governments to cooperate like that. I think 7 you can find some efficiencies and eliminate redundancies. 8 I also see that it's an enormous part of our budget, 9 $3.3 million or something like that, and I just -- I'm 10 carrying on our discussion earlier about the library. I 11 just think that we need to be more involved and we need to 12 have more info on the budgeting process, all the things that 13 we participate in. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, I think -- 15 and I potentially agree. I think one of the things we need 16 to do is have a -- or develop a game plan to go to the City 17 with, and a proposed way to get more involved. I think one 18 of the problems is that City Council relies on City staff. 19 We -- and they look at -- we look at City Council as the 20 people we generally tend to communicate with, and they look 21 to us. But the problem is that we're missing, because we 22 are the staff, for the most part, for the County on these 23 issues. We are. So, I think that the -- the approach may 24 be that each of us have to take on, I mean, the area that 25 we're liaisons with, and make it clear to the City that we 9-2-03 158 1 work, you know, in those areas, you know, one-on-one 2 or two-on-whatever. But some kind of approach -- I just 3 think we need to have -- not just say we're unhappy, we want 4 to be involved. We need to say how we want to be involved. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good point. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I think your point's well 7 made, Commissioner. I think we need to generally put them 8 on notice that we want to be infinitely involved in the 9 entire process on any of these projects, and that they 10 should not expect to approve any budget without having our 11 prior review and approval of it generally. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's where I think 13 the process has kind of gotten skewed. They put their 14 numbers together, they meet with us in a joint meeting, they 15 give us the numbers, they're happy with the numbers, and 16 they expect us to do that. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And to give them the 18 benefit, they look at the same to us. I mean, you know, 19 Animal Control -- you know, the thing is that they operate 20 more into these jointly -- the joint operations items than 21 we do, but we need to figure out a way to correct the 22 problems. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, 25 signify by raising your right hand. 9-2-03 159 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Next item, 5 consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County 6 budget by modifying Road and Bridge budget account by, one, 7 adding Engineer's Salary line item of $23,868, increasing 8 Group Health Insurance line item from $16,452 to $21,937, 9 deleting Contract Engineer Services line item of $25,000, 10 increasing Employee Medical line item from $2,000 to $3,200, 11 and increasing Right-of-Way Survey and Engineering line item 12 from $4,000 to $10,000. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 16 approve budget -- or agenda Item Number 1.31. Any question 17 or discussion? 18 MS. NEMEC: Judge? $23,868 plus 2 and a half 19 percent? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's the base salary 21 line item. 22 MS. NEMEC: And that -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: That was the line item in the 24 original budget. It doesn't include any add-ons or -- or, 25 stated another way, it excludes any add-ons. 9-2-03 160 1 MS. NEMEC: So I don't add the 2 and a half 2 percent to the salary? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: No, the $23,868 is the base 4 amount. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's the current 6 amount. 7 MS. NEMEC: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The question would 9 be, is it our intention that it, too, be adjusted by the 10 COLA? 11 MS. NEMEC: That's my question. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be the 13 question. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Of course. Any further 16 question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify 17 by raising your right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item, 22 consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County 23 budget by modifying Records Management Preservation budget 24 account by, one, increasing Old Records Preservation line 25 item from $4,559 to $9,559 to allow $5,000 for allocation to 9-2-03 161 1 District Clerk, and adding -- two, adding the Capital Outlay 2 line item of $16,000 to acquire imaging license and 3 equipment for the District Clerk. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 7 approve Agenda Item 1.32. Any question or discussion? All 8 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Next item, 13 consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 budget by 14 modifying Parks budget account by adding to Flat Rock Lake 15 Park line item the sum of $21,700 for restrooms under 16 L.C.R.A. grant, $15,100; and footbridge, FEMA funds, $6,600. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I have a 18 couple comments here. I want to deal with -- first, I want 19 to deal with both parks, Flat Rock and Lions. Lions, I had 20 not requested $15,000, as I told the Court earlier. I had 21 requested the $1,500, which is a continuation of my 22 improving that park little by little, year by year, and I 23 would ask that that $1,500 be reinstated. Secondly, the 24 agenda item talks about Flat Rock Lake Park, 21,7, which is 25 the remainder of the L.C.R.A. grant and the FEMA money of 9-2-03 162 1 $6,600, and we said it's for restrooms. I think we have 2 determined that we're not going to build a restroom for 3 $21,000; that we could use those dollars -- and L.C.R.A. has 4 given tacit approval for other improvements in the park, but 5 not the restroom. I don't think we're going to be able to 6 get it done for that, so I'd like us not to designate it as 7 such and tie our hands for some use that we can't possibly 8 fund with that kind of money. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, will you 10 bring in a proposed -- kind of a -- what we can do with that 11 money? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I will, yes. If we 13 undesignate it here for restrooms, yes. But I would like to 14 restore $1,500 for Lions so I could continue the 15 improvements there, and I would move the budget item with 16 that adjustment. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What page are you on? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: 98. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 98 in the printout. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, basically -- no, 21 not basically. In reality, we just added $1,500 to our 22 budget? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Which is 24 what we had this year. I guess we have two this year. It's 25 coming down from two to 1,500. 9-2-03 163 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, I apologize for 3 that error in putting $15,000 instead of $1,500. Of course, 4 the other side of that is, if it had gotten approved, you'd 5 really be in fat city. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, we'd have gone 7 hog wild. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- what needs to 9 be done? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to improve the 11 entrance area and get some gravel, do some site work, and 12 possibly have room for one more table under the big tree. 13 But that's basically -- I want to do some site work, and I 14 don't know if Road and Bridge can help me out on that or 15 not. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's kind of a new thing 17 for to us fund parks at all. I mean, I know we've done it a 18 couple years now, and I think -- I mean, the improvements 19 you made are nice, but it's just a matter -- I mean, I don't 20 know that we need to improve it every year. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if you get to 22 the level it ought to be, you don't have to. The same would 23 apply to Flat Rock Lake. If we get it to a level that we'd 24 like to have it, we wouldn't have to do it; just maintain 25 it. 9-2-03 164 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would probably rather 2 have it a lesser amount. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll settle for 4 $1,000, which is half of what it is this budget year. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that your motion? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion made and 9 seconded that -- that Agenda Item 1.33 be approved, with 10 the -- and the exception that the restrooms be deleted, and 11 that an additional $1,000 be allocated for Lions Park. Any 12 further questions or discussion? All in favor of the 13 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item, 18 consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County 19 budget by modifying Nondepartmental budget account by, one, 20 deleting Information System Maintenance Contract Services 21 line item in the sum of $45,000, increasing Mainframe 22 Maintenance line item from $5,000 to $8,400, and increasing 23 Capital Outlay item from $5,000 to $9,200 for acquisition of 24 additional hard drive capacity. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that to handle the 9-2-03 165 1 imaging? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 7 Agenda Item 1.34 be approved. Any question or discussion? 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For my information, 9 how were we able to delete the Information System 10 Maintenance Contract? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Because we went back and 12 recreated the Information Technology Department -- 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: -- at an earlier agenda item, 15 under number -- 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, I got you. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 18 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 19 your right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Number 1.35, 24 consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County 25 budget by modifying County Court budget account by, one, 9-2-03 166 1 adding new judicial supplement line item in the amount of 2 $4,000, and increasing the Mental Health line item from 3 $6,000 to $16,000, providing that both such line items shall 4 be totally funded from court costs collected from counties 5 for which mental health cases are heard. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, two questions on 7 this one. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the first part, the 10 $4,000 supplement. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know you reduced it, or 13 Tommy -- someone reduced it to elected officials' salary in 14 the new printout, but it wasn't noted here, and maybe we 15 should have taken it up under the other item. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: That should go under 1.8, in 17 all probability. That's where all of those were addressed. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The other item, I 19 don't recall increasing the Mental Health line item $16,000. 20 I thought we left that at $6,000. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: There was a discussion both 22 ways. And, you know, that's what's before the Court now. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Refresh my memory. 24 What would that be for, Judge? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: For the preliminary mental 9-2-03 167 1 health hearings. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The J.P.'s get that, and 3 it's been $2,000. You know -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They get six. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Right now, Kerr County's 6 paying six. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: If you approve the item, I 9 think the net cost for funding both of those items is going 10 to cost $4,000. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say that again, Judge. I 12 think I'm missing something. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Kerr County is presently 14 paying, from Kerr County funds, the sum of $6,000 under that 15 Mental Health line item. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: The approval of 1.35, both 18 components, the $4,000 and the $16,000, or a total of 19 $20,000, would come at a net cost to Kerr County of $4,000. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where does the -- okay, I 21 understand the $4,000. I mean, I understand the judicial 22 supplement portion of this. I don't see -- that's -- and 23 I'm happy with the resolution that was in the proposal, on 24 the $6,000. I see the $6,000 here, which was included as a 25 Mental Health line item, 104. Where's the 16 come in? I 9-2-03 168 1 mean, I think -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: The 16 would only come in if 3 this Court authorized it. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is it true that the 16 5 is actually derived from fees that the other counties pay, 6 where the current six is paid out of the County General Fund 7 itself, so you're replacing that six with the 16 from the 8 fees? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what it amounts 11 to. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know that. Why do we 13 have to increase the -- why are we increasing the 14 expenditure to 16? I mean, that line item right now, 104, 15 is paying $2,000 to three of -- each of the J.P.'s. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: You don't have to, 17 Commissioner. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm saying why would -- I 19 mean, so we're basically -- this is increasing the J.P.'s 20 salary by $5,333 a piece for three of them, 'cause three of 21 them participate in that. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: The judges that hear those 23 cases will be fee-based for hearing those cases, but it will 24 be being paid by the counties for whom the cases are being 25 heard. 9-2-03 169 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Partly. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, 80 percent of it. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 80 percent. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I say 80 -- I can't guarantee 5 that will remain that. The current stats show that it's 6 about 80/20. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the same logic that I 8 used that I have -- I think it's a good idea to do that, but 9 I think you adjust the elected official's salary by a like 10 amount. I think it should apply to the J.P.'s, 'cause it 11 applied to you. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: That's a whole 'nother issue. 13 Just do with it what you like. I think it's good business 14 to use somebody else's money to satisfy your obligations. 15 I've said that since day one. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't know why we 17 can't use the $6,000 out of that fund. Why can't we just 18 take the six -- I mean, why do we have to -- why is the 19 $6,000 coming out of the general revenue, or 16 come out of 20 the other -- why can't we say the $6,000 is coming out of 21 the designated fee fund? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I suppose you could, but it -- 23 it seems rather silly when -- when you can use three times 24 that amount of somebody else's money not to. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you're just -- I 9-2-03 170 1 mean, you're just -- but what you're saying, though, you're 2 just -- you're paying three times -- almost three times the 3 amount for the same service currently being provided. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are the J.P.'s -- do 5 they get that $2,000 notwithstanding the number of cases 6 they hear? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: If they never hit a lick, they 8 get $2,000. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. If they don't 11 do a one, they get -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: That's right. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Except for J.P. 1. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Under the current procedure. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Except for J.P. 1, 16 who opted out of the equation. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, correct. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So this would change 19 to it a fee-based? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they could get as 22 many -- as much over $2,000 in terms of cases they hear? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: It would be based on the 24 number of cases the particular judge hears. That would 25 determine the judge's compensation. 9-2-03 171 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What if we 2 established the J.P.'s at the $2,000, and anything they 3 heard above that, they could get? I'm not in favor of 4 cutting the J.P.'s pay, to be perfectly honest about it. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: You're not in favor of cutting 6 the J.P.'s pay? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The County Judge is 10 another matter. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I was waiting for that shoe to 14 drop. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I knew that was 16 coming. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think the County 18 is cutting their pay. Their net take-home is not changing, 19 as your net take-home is not changing. And you get the net 20 -- under the proposal, you know, for the County Judge's -- 21 you know, not counting COLA's and all that other stuff, is 22 the same as it was for the County Judge last year. I think 23 we should treat the J.P.'s the same way. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't actually -- 25 Commissioner, let me correct you slightly, if I might. 9-2-03 172 1 Taking maximum advantage of the item that -- that you 2 understand, the judicial supplement, taking maximum 3 advantage of that, I would be entitled to receive $4,000. 4 That's if I heard 400 or more cases. What I would not 5 receive is the applicable COLA on the amount that was 6 deducted from the salary line item. So, under your 7 rationale, I would be suffering a penalty by bringing this 8 matter to the Court in an attempt to use other counties' 9 funds to pay Kerr County's obligations. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only you didn't reduce 11 your salary, though. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Correct. Net cost to Kerr 13 County for that was $800. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we should make up 15 the difference. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: That's your -- your call, 17 Commissioner. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: My whole -- my whole point 20 here in putting this item on the agenda is to attempt to use 21 other counties' funds to take care of these obligations to 22 the extent those funds are available to us. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, I think -- I 24 mean, I agree with your logic, and I've said that. But 25 we're getting more and more into a situation where 9-2-03 173 1 designated fees are funding certain parts of our budget, 2 whether we like it or not. That doesn't mean that we're 3 going -- because the Law Library fund has $20,000 extra in 4 it, we're going to go spend $20,000 because it's 5 fee-generated; it's not general funds. That's the logic 6 you're using, and I don't think -- I don't agree with that. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: No, that -- that's not the 8 logic I'm using. What I'm trying to do is calculate the 9 number of cases that will be heard and a reasonable 10 compensation per case, and I think the amount I've put in 11 there is a -- is a reasonable amount. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'm saying that I 13 think that you and the J.P.'s and other people that are 14 doing -- you know, hearing those cases should get paid the 15 same amount, as best we can figure, as you did last year. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, unfortunately, if you 17 want to take advantage of somebody else's money and save 18 Kerr County taxpayers some money, you're going to have to go 19 with the fee-based. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me ask a 21 question. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the bottom line. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we raise the 24 Mental Health line item from $6,000 to $16,000, what's going 25 to be the impact on compensation on J.P.'s? 9-2-03 174 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They get $5,333 each 2 more -- or $3,333 more, 'cause they're already getting 3 $2,000. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't want to do 5 that. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't either, not for 7 doing the same amount of work. I don't know why we cannot 8 pay them $2,000, as we currently are, out of that line item, 9 which is coming from out-of-county taxpayers. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't understand 11 that either. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, you -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: You -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You make it say that we 15 have to pay all $16,000, or it has to come out of Kerr 16 County. Why? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir, that's not what I 18 said. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, then, I'm in favor 20 of what Commissioner Nicholson says. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So we can raise it 22 to $16,000, keep giving those three J.P.'s $2,000, and put 23 the rest of it in the bank. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: No, no, no, no, no. If it's 25 generated as a fee, they receive the fee. 9-2-03 175 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's different 2 than the -- the judicial supplement of $4,000. We've been 3 collecting those fees and we've been putting that $4,000 in 4 our bank account. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Unlawfully, I think. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have an opinion on 7 that, that that's unlawful? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Attorney's out 9 there. 10 MR. MOTLEY: Well, we've addressed that 11 issue, and I believe that the moneys that are collected for 12 that, $10 per case, is -- it says it is for salary 13 supplement for the judge hearing those particular types of 14 cases. So, it says that -- in black and white, that's what 15 that money is intended to be spent for, on that issue. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly what 17 we've done. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thinking about that in 19 the same way, like Sheriff fees on serving warrants. You 20 know, service of that warrant, that fee to serve that 21 warrant is actually to cover the mileage and the cost of 22 what it takes to go out and serve that warrant. That money 23 still goes to the General Fund. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we could -- 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Does the law in that case say 9-2-03 176 1 that the Sheriff who actually serves the warrant -- if 2 there's a fee set for it by Kerr County, it shall be paid to 3 the person serving that warrant? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know what it 5 says to the person, but it says it's to cover the cost, 6 being mileage and all that, to go serve that warrant. And 7 it's a flat fee. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think that's the 9 difference. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We don't -- we don't -- 11 MS. UECKER: That all applies to all court 12 costs. That isn't saying anything. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, that's any fees. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we apply the same 15 principle of the -- that we've applied to the judicial 16 supplement, the Mental Health line item, we could choose to 17 collect the $16,000, and then reduce the base compensation 18 of the Justice of the Peace by an amount that's equal to the 19 difference between $2,000 and what they'd collect under the 20 $16,000. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So we can have our 23 cake and eat it, too. We can take the $16,000 and not 24 increase the gross compensation of the J.P.'s. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct, the difference 9-2-03 177 1 being the COLA and some of the benefit side of it. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Then what are you going 3 to do with J.P. 1? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: J.P. 1 doesn't 5 participate. Up until this year, we've paid constables 6 different salaries. We pay J.P.'s different salaries. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know why we 8 can't continue to pay J.P.'s, from those dollars, the 9 amounts that they're currently receiving. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we can. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So do I. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: The -- what is currently has 13 been budgeted in past years? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $2,000. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure, you can do that. 16 Mm-hmm. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Out of the fees. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Why not? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All it means is you're 20 going to keep a reserve fund in those fees. And if we get a 21 reserve built up -- it doesn't say you have to pay them out 22 each year; it says have you to pay them out. I don't see 23 there's any difference in the Law Library. 24 MS. UECKER: Yeah. I get a big raise, don't 25 I? $70,000? I'll take it. 9-2-03 178 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hey, what a windfall. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if you have a 3 balance in there, then you can -- you know, you can 4 determine -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Determine what you're 6 going to do with it later. I'd like to see the J.P.'s keep 7 the same, fund it out of those funds from other counties. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As a matter of fact, 10 I thought that's what we've been doing all along. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- I agree. We 12 discussed that. We gave them the supplement at the same 13 time we're collecting the fees. I thought it was a wash. 14 But -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So did I. 16 MS. UECKER: You can reduce the amount 17 charged on cases if you run into too much supplement. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I'd like to 19 collect all the money we can, the $16,000 and $4,000, and 20 not -- not increase the gross compensation. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not increase it above 22 the level that it currently is? 23 (Commissioner Nicholson nodded.) 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. Which 25 includes $2,000 for mental health hearings, one or a 9-2-03 179 1 hundred? 2 (Commissioner Nicholson nodded.) 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine with me. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that a motion? 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: What's the motion? 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That we collect the 9 judicial supplement line item in the amount of $4,000, and 10 the Mental Health line item in the amount of $16,000, but 11 not increase the gross compensation to those who are 12 eligible to participate. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's already 14 seconded. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: You seconded? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And I think -- I 17 mean, waiting on discussion. How I interpret that is how it 18 was reflected in the current budget for the County Judge, 19 and that the -- and also as included in the current budget 20 of August 29th under Mental Health line item, that $2,000 to 21 J.P.'s 2, 3, and 4 -- or a total of $6,000 divided equally 22 amongst J.P.'s 2, 3, and 4 needs to be funded out of the fee 23 collected for mental health hearings, or whatever the fees 24 come from. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Is the intention of the motion 9-2-03 180 1 not to increase the gross compensation? Is it also the 2 intention of the motion not to decrease the gross 3 compensation? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Status-quo. Except 5 charge it against other counties. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: That's going to be -- that's 7 going to be hard to hit. Okay. Motion made and seconded. 8 Any further question or discussion? All in favor, signify 9 by raising your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item, 14 1.36, consider and discuss '03-'04 holiday schedule for Kerr 15 County employees. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have two different 17 pages here. Which one we working off of? The one with the 18 pretty yellow line at the bottom? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: The first one you saw was the 20 one that was first pitched out. The second one is the one I 21 believe that Ms. Nemec decided to offer up as an 22 alternative. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What does that mean, 24 December 26 instead of this holiday? 25 MS. NEMEC: Instead of July the 5th. 'Cause 9-2-03 181 1 July 4th falls on a Sunday, and we usually -- whenever it 2 falls on a Sunday, we get July -- we get the Monday off, or 3 if it falls on a Saturday, we get the Friday off. And since 4 it falls on a Sunday, I think more employees would rather 5 have July -- I mean December 26th off than have that Monday 6 off. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't we have a 8 general policy that says if a holiday falls on a Sunday, 9 it's automatically the next day? 10 MS. UECKER: That's what she said. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For all of them, no 12 matter which holiday? 13 MS. UECKER: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- I mean, I see the 15 reason for it, and I think -- actually, I have no problem 16 with it, except that it leaves the courthouse closed for 17 three days at the end of the year. 18 MS. NEMEC: Two and a half. The 24th, I was 19 just proposing to work half a day. Have our party that we 20 normally have, and -- 21 MS. UECKER: Which is basically what happens 22 anyway. Even if the courthouse is open, the offices shut 23 down early. I'm usually the only one here, you know, after 24 noon. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm the only one that 9-2-03 182 1 works, but the rest of y'all all leave. 2 MS. UECKER: And just -- just for your 3 information, I questioned my staff earlier to ask them what 4 they would rather have. Would they be willing to give up 5 the 4th of July if they could get the 26th after Christmas 6 day, and they unanimously said yes. They love that option. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm in total 8 agreement. 9 MS. NEMEC: And in the past, when -- when 10 Christmas has fallen on a Thursday, we've done this before, 11 the two and a half days. But this way, I was just offering 12 a day to give up for that. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's -- this 14 is something new. And I'm going to give my same little 15 speech as I give every year, is that on Christmas, granny's 16 traveling to little Billy Bob's place up in Fort Worth, and 17 she needs that extra day to travel. 18 MS. NEMEC: Travel. 19 MS. UECKER: Travel back. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we don't -- let's 21 see. We do not have Texas Independence Day recommended. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see Texas 23 Independence Day is not on here. 24 MS. NEMEC: It's not the -- it's just not a 25 federal holiday, and -- and it was not -- 9-2-03 183 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't care what the 2 federal people are doing. 3 MS. NEMEC: We can always add it. Hey, that 4 will be 12 and a half days, no problem. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In place of Martin 6 Luther King. 7 MS. NEMEC: Martin Luther King, I put no for 8 us. I'm not counting that in the 11 and a half days. I 9 just showed it on there because it's a federal holiday. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it could be in place 11 of Columbus. 12 MS. UECKER: We used to always get 13 days 13 every year, as I recall. 14 MS. NEMEC: We used to. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When is Texas 16 Independence? September the 16th or something like that? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: April 21st. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it April 21? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, looks like 21 following K.I.S.D. would be -- would be beneficial to the 22 employees that have children. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would agree with that. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we adopt the 9-2-03 184 1 holiday schedule as presented by the County Treasurer. 2 (Discussion off the record.) 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 5 the holiday schedule as proposed by the County 6 Treasurer-slash-personnel officer be adopted and approved. 7 Any further questions or discussion? All in favor of the 8 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. 13 MS. UECKER: Judge? Can I -- can I ask you 14 to go back to 1.28, which is the Law Library fund? In order 15 to save the County that money, it's going to increase some 16 of my responsibilities, so is it also your intention to 17 leave that supplement the same? Is it going to increase 18 some of my -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, no. 20 MS. UECKER: -- salary? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: The policy adopted by the 22 Court is, if you get a supplement, it comes off the salary, 23 isn't it? 24 MS. UECKER: Sounds like it. 25 (Discussion off the record.) 9-2-03 185 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Huh? 2 MS. UECKER: It's -- it's a salary? It's not 3 a supplement? 4 MS. NEMEC: It's a salary. 5 MS. UECKER: Salary. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, it's a salary? 7 MS. UECKER: Right now, its $2,100. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: You're in good shape. You 9 want to go back to it? 10 (Ms. Uecker nodded.) 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes or no? 12 MS. UECKER: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes? 14 MS. UECKER: Yeah. 15 MS. NEMEC: $2,218, with a cost-of-living. 16 MS. UECKER: 2,218. 'Cause that's usually 17 evenings and weekends. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: You forget who I am? 19 MS. UECKER: Yes -- no, I'm not forgetting. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. 21 MS. UECKER: You can ask some of these other 22 gentlemen that have seen me up here on Saturday morning 23 moving books around. I haven't in a while, but I do work at 24 it in the evenings. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: What's your question on 1.28? 9-2-03 186 1 MS. UECKER: I guess to put some type of a 2 token increase on the salary for added responsibilities. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This comes out of the 4 fund? 5 MS. UECKER: Comes out of the same fund. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How's $3,000 sound? 7 MS. UECKER: Fine. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move it. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 11 the Law Librarian's stipend or compensation be increased by 12 $3,000 -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, no, no. Up to 14 $3,000. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 16 MS. UECKER: Not "by." 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Up to $3,000. It's 18 $2,218 right now, right? 19 MS. UECKER: Yeah. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me. That her current 21 compensation be increased up to $3,000. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good try, Judge. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what it sounded like to 24 me. You said, "How does $3,000 sound?" She said she wanted 25 an increase; you said $3,000. That sounded like an increase 9-2-03 187 1 to me. Do I clearly have the motion, gentlemen? All in 2 favor of the motion, signify by -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, wait, wait. 4 Discussion? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That seems like a little 7 bit of a steep increase, in my mind. 8 MS. UECKER: $800? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $782. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: What's the net cost to Kerr 12 County? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Zero. 14 MS. UECKER: I'm sorry. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Net cost to Kerr 16 County is zero. 17 MS. UECKER: Zero. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $782 is what it is. 19 Percentage-wise, it's just like the Sheriff got, or 20 thereabouts. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have a question or 22 comment, Commissioner Letz? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's too much. 24 That's my comment. 25 MS. UECKER: This -- you know, this was 9-2-03 188 1 before we went to the computers; it was Saturday mornings, 2 moving books. And then we went to the computers; it's 3 loading disks and making sure the computers are all working, 4 emptying the trash off of them. Yeah, I heard you. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Equates to $15 a 6 week, is what it amounts to. 7 MS. UECKER: Yeah, and helping customers look 8 up the law that come in there and don't know. I mean, 9 that's really the biggest time-consumer right there. 10 (Commissioner Letz left the courtroom.) 11 MS. UECKER: Some of them, I ask to come back 12 at 5:00 and I help them. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or 14 comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 15 your right hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 20 MS. NEMEC: Judge? Before you go to the last 21 line item, may I ask a question, please? The direct -- the 22 amount that it's going -- that it was going to take to do 23 direct deposit for employees, was that added in anywhere in 24 the budget? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't believe so. 9-2-03 189 1 MS. NEMEC: Or did we just decide not this 2 year? Or -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't -- to my knowledge, it 4 wasn't. It wasn't in the items that the Auditor and I went 5 over at our last meeting in preparation for this latest run 6 that was done. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought we had 8 intentions of doing it, though. 9 MS. NEMEC: I thought that. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember thinking 11 that, anyway. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I think I can give you 13 reasonable assurance that we didn't even talk about it. 14 But, you know, that's certainly -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I remember Barbara 16 bringing it up. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Direct deposit? I had 18 the conversation. 19 MS. NEMEC: I just don't -- I just don't 20 know. 21 (Commissioner Letz returned to courtroom.) 22 MS. NEMEC: I don't think the numbers were 23 put anywhere. I don't think that $3,000 was ever put 24 anywhere. And I do want to let the Court know that the -- 25 if you do decide to go with that, it will probably be 9-2-03 190 1 January before I can even look at them coming out here and 2 -- and doing everything. We are kind of behind right now. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Does that work like the 4 school's does, where it actually goes in about two days 5 earlier than what it -- 6 MS. NEMEC: No. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- normally would? 8 MS. NEMEC: No. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's where you always 10 hear everybody wanting to pick up their paycheck early. But 11 I know the schools, direct deposit goes in a couple days 12 earlier than if you get -- if you wait and pick up a 13 paycheck. 14 MS. NEMEC: The way we pay, there's no way 15 that could happen, because on the 15th, we pay for them 16 working through the 15th at 5 o'clock, and the only way that 17 could happen is if we bring our cutoff schedule two days 18 earlier, so that we can complete everything two days before 19 payday. But, I mean, that's not when we pay. I don't see 20 why we would want to do that. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. No, it's just a 22 question. 23 MS. NEMEC: That would mean them getting 24 their paycheck deposited on the 13th and having to work two 25 days. They may not show up those two days, and they're 9-2-03 191 1 already receiving their pay for it. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: What's the Court's pleasure on 3 the direct deposit? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I like the 5 program, but why does it cost us $3,000 again? Tell me. 6 MS. NEMEC: It would cost -- $3,000 is for 7 the software that we're going to need from our bank 8 depository and from our Software Group. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where would that go? 10 What -- what budget? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Nondepartmental. 12 MS. NEMEC: I would put Nondepartmental. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nondepartmental. 14 MS. NEMEC: Don't increase my budget any 15 more. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to say no. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody have a motion to offer 18 in that respect? Okay. Item 1.37, consider and discuss 19 adoption of general provisions, '03-'04 Kerr County budget. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is a document 21 that is in our budget every year that I don't know that 22 anybody ever reads, but it's -- to me, it's an important 23 document. As an example, Section 2, where just recently we 24 talked about budget amendments and how, if there's going to 25 be a budget amendment, the department head or elected 9-2-03 192 1 official needs to come to Commissioners Court prior to 2 making the purchase. Just one of those things that's in 3 here. Judge, I move that we adopt the general provisions 4 for 2003-'04 Kerr County budget. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: You're speaking of the one 7 as -- as -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: -- usually provided, which is 10 a three-and-a-half-page item containing six Roman numeral 11 sections? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I don't 13 think it's a full three and a half pages, though. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Would you go for three and 15 four-tenths? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Four-tenths, yes, sir. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're getting picky 19 here at the end of the day. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Should we mark it as an 21 exhibit so we can clearly identify it? 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did that have a 23 second? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not yet. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second. 9-2-03 193 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I did. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, Commissioner Letz did? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I did. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I heard Letz do it. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: You're out. Want back in? 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. I'm ready to 7 vote. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 9 discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, 10 signify by raising your right hand. 11 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 13 (No response.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This certainly has 16 been an emotional day. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nice way to put it. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, is the agenda -- I 19 mean the budget on Monday's agenda? Or -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I did a budget agenda request 21 item. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: You're free to check and see. 24 I think it's been approved, or I -- I've asked that it be 25 put on. 9-2-03 194 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, considering you put 2 it on and you're the one that approves it, I would think it 3 would be approved. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: On the other hand -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: No, I don't -- you can put a 6 budget item -- an agenda request in and approve an agenda 7 item. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, so can you. And 9 you did it, so -- consider it done. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further business? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, did we have 12 a -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have an Executive 14 Session called? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I put that on there in case 16 any members of the Court felt a need to. Is there a need 17 felt by any member of the Court that we need to go into 18 Executive Session for either of the items listed below? 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just so -- just so 20 nothing's forgotten, on 1.27, y'all never did address that; 21 you skipped over it. No motion, I believe, is what I have 22 on my record. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct, there was no 24 action taken on that item. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. 9-2-03 195 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1.27? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Extension Office. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we intended not 4 to. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I didn't know. I 6 just -- y'all took action on all the rest. I didn't want 7 that one to slip through the cracks. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any desire by any 9 member of the Court to go into closed or executive session 10 for -- for the items listed? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not me. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I gather there is none. We'll 14 stand adjourned. 15 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 4:20 p.m.) 16 - - - - - - - - - - 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9-2-03 196 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 8th day of September, 8 2003. 9 10 11 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 12 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 13 Certified Shorthand Reporter 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9-2-03