1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Budget Workshop 10 Friday, August 27, 2004 11 9:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X August 27, 2004 2 PAGE 3 Budget Workshop 4 City/County 3 5 County Clerk 45 6 District Clerk 78 7 Capital Expenditures 94 Jail security system 95 8 County Clerk - records management 100 Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center 106 9 Parks 120 Road & Bridge 134 10 County Clerk - voting machines 138 11 General Discussion Crime Victims Coordinator 144 12 Elected official/department head raises 155 Pension for retirees 162 13 Sheriff's Department compensation 167 Grade 12 & 13 employee compensation 202 14 County fee schedules 218 Holiday schedule 220 15 County debt and effect on rollback rate 224 16 Adjourned 233 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Friday, August 27, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., a budget 2 workshop of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in 3 the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me call to order 8 the budget workshop of the Commissioners Court scheduled for 9 this time and date, Friday, August 27th, at 9 a.m. It's a 10 bit past that now. We've got some updated information from 11 the Auditor, who's made runs based upon instructions from 12 the Court. Based upon these numbers, it looks like we got 13 some work to do. The other thing I would mention is that -- 14 I think it was sometime after 4 o'clock Wednesday afternoon, 15 a representative of the City of Kerrville brought us some 16 financial data and information relative to some of the joint 17 projects, joint programs that we have with the City. And 18 while I did not make each of the Commissioners a copy of all 19 of the attached background data, I did provide each of you a 20 copy of the summary. Certainly, the information has been, 21 since we received it late Wednesday afternoon, available for 22 any inspection. In reviewing the -- in reviewing the 23 information, I'm a little puzzled. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's puzzling, 25 Judge? 8-27-04 wk 4 1 JUDGE TINLEY: The E.M.S. sticks out at me in 2 a rather glaring manner. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: And they are requesting -- I 5 believe it's a $196,000 -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 169. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: -- contribution for fiscal 8 year '05. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's 169. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 163,549 -- no. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, when they add the -- 12 when they add the vehicle replacement expense, it -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 196. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: They rolled it up to 196,188. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And how much is it 16 today? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 19,000. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: I -- last year we spent -- we 19 budgeted approximately 19,000. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Have you had the 21 opportunity to review the contract? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I certainly have. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'm -- what -- I 24 have thought -- and if I've thought wrong, I want to 25 apologize to the taxpaying public of Kerr County, but I 8-27-04 wk 5 1 thought that there wasn't -- that the -- that the system was 2 not subsidized by the County or City; that it was fee-run. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: That's -- I think that was 4 certainly the intention. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does our contract say 6 that we subsidize it? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: The way I read the contract -- 8 and, certainly, I defer to the County Attorney on this, but 9 my plain reading of the contract says that we're obligated 10 to pay the sum of $1,975 per month. It's an annual 11 contract, automatically renewable for successive one-year 12 terms, unless it's canceled by either party not less than 60 13 days prior to the beginning of our fiscal year, which is our 14 present one. I -- I cannot find anything in the contract 15 that says we're obligated beyond that for some sort of 16 actuarially determined subsidy amount or anything else. I 17 deem our obligation under our contract to be 1,975 per 18 month, and annualize that, and I think that's what we need 19 to plug in. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I apologize for 21 getting here late, but I assume you're talking about the 22 City? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, we are. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I was in a -- a bit 25 of shock last night when I read the -- the Daily Times. I 8-27-04 wk 6 1 don't know if y'all read that article. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the article says that 4 they're giving -- that they have prepared and have presented 5 a new E.M.S. contract, which I've never seen. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I haven't seen it. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean -- you know, 8 and I don't know -- and the quote was from Councilman 9 Wampler, and it basically -- I mean, I'm assuming the quotes 10 are right; they are reading quotations. But that was my -- 11 I was rather surprised to see that. So, based on what 12 Commissioner Baldwin's saying and you're saying, my 13 understanding was the same as -- that, evidently, they're 14 changing the contract, or they're -- that's what they're 15 planning on doing, which I find rather unusual. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The -- just 17 reinforcing what the Judge says, if they want to negotiate a 18 new contract, the window's not open. It was open 60 days 19 prior to October 1, so the next time -- window doesn't open 20 for 10 more months. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The whole premise, in 22 my mind -- the whole premise that's written in this letter 23 by the City Manager to us with respect to E.M.S., in my 24 mind, calls into question whether or not the County can 25 participate. And I'll explain what I mean. He says, "The 8-27-04 wk 7 1 E.M.S. program has been a fee-based service for many years. 2 However, due to rising costs and the ever-growing Medicare 3 disallowances," parentheses, "that portion Medicare dictates 4 is noncollectible, the simple collection of fees will no 5 longer support this program." Okay. What they do with that 6 -- about that is their business, but to me, that poses a 7 special question, and I think the County Attorney is 8 required to answer that question. What this is saying, 9 then, to the County is, you're going to have to pick up the 10 tab for runs in the county over and above that amount which 11 a -- a patient or a transportee has coming to him back to 12 reimbursable Medicare and/or any other insurances. Now, the 13 County then has to pick up the tab for the remainder on a -- 14 on a discriminatory basis. You, not you. You, not you. 15 And I call into question whether or not that's something 16 that we can do. 17 If you'd permit just one hypothetical, just 18 to throw out the illustration even further, if other 19 subscription services were available in Kerr County, which 20 they're not, but if they were, and I had a reason to be 21 transported to San Antonio for a heart transplant or 22 whatever, and I chose to take that subscription service 23 versus Kerrville E.M.S., and the bill was $10,000, and 24 Medicare paid six and my insurance paid one, that's seven; 25 that leaves an unpaid balance of three. Can I take my bill 8-27-04 wk 8 1 in to the Auditor and say, "Reimburse me"? I don't think 2 so. And that's exactly what he's asking right here. And I 3 don't think we can do that. And I want the County Attorney 4 to tell me whether or not we can do it. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think there's a 6 lot of, I mean, issues. I mean, it was a -- you know, I 7 mean, in my opinion, for some reason the City decided to 8 totally blindside us on this whole issue. Obviously, 9 they've known for months that there was a problem with the 10 E.M.S. system, and the first time I heard about it was when 11 I read the Kerrville Daily Times, and they were based on 12 quotes from Councilman Wampler and Mayor Fine. So, you 13 know, it calls, to me, in question their ability to properly 14 manage a contract. It calls into question our relationship 15 with the City at the moment when it comes to any of these 16 contracts. And I think it's -- you know, the taxpayers of 17 the city and the county should be outraged that they have a 18 city government that is -- is running the way it is. I 19 mean, to go to a partner, which the County is in many 20 entities, well, basically at the end of the budget process, 21 and change -- and try to change the contract and the budget 22 amount is just absurd. And, you know, I think we're in a -- 23 we're in a predicament, and the City, I think, knows that, 24 that we -- I think I'm very -- feel very strongly obligated 25 to provide fire service and have E.M.S. service in the 8-27-04 wk 9 1 county, and I don't think we can do anything in the next 2 three weeks to change or make major changes there. But I 3 think this calls into question basically the City managing 4 anything that they do operate with the County. And we need 5 to look at E.M.S. fire, library, airport, and everything 6 else, because that -- I mean, I will not participate with 7 the City operating like this. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Dispatch. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, dispatch. I think 10 everything that they're doing, if they're going to operate 11 like this, I don't want them managing that business, period. 12 They've acted in poor faith with this county. They have 13 given us no notice. They gave us a budget, basically -- or 14 their budget items three months after we requested them. 15 They unilaterally declined to meet in open meeting with the 16 County because it was of no value, yet they want to change 17 all the contracts. You know, I think we're in a little bit 18 of a bind this year, but I think we have a lot of 19 negotiating to do in the next 12 months. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think we're 21 in a bind with respect to this issue. That's a 1000 percent 22 increase they're asking of the County, and I, for one, am 23 not going to support it. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I -- the quotes I saw in the 25 newspaper about the new numbers that they are asking for, 8-27-04 wk 10 1 both the mayor and the mayor pro tem said those are 2 nonnegotiable. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I read, 4 too. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: It's -- I think it's correct; 6 it's not negotiable. We have a contract in place, so they 7 shouldn't be in negotiation. We pay what the contract says, 8 and we insist on their performance. Pretty simple. It's 9 not a real complicated issue to me. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the expiration 11 date of the contract, Judge? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, now it'll be October 1 13 of -- or September 30 next year, '05. They cannot be 14 renegotiated, as Commissioner Nicholson said. That window's 15 closed. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I wouldn't want 17 to negotiate either, particularly in the press, but if 18 they're looking for -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They do. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If they're looking 21 for some kind of a solution, the solution, as far as I'm 22 concerned, is that the County have a basic contract, which 23 we do, and they can tell us what the cost per-run is. And 24 we may consider how we handle on it a per-cost, per-run 25 basis, not to exceed actual cost per-run. 8-27-04 wk 11 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, we -- 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Letz 3 nailed it. It's -- it's an issue about the cost of 4 providing E.M.S. services, but it's a lot bigger issue than 5 that. It's got to do with the relationship between two 6 partners. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you know, I think we 9 live up to our end of the contract. If they don't, we sue 10 them for breach, and we move into the next forum, move down 11 the road. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go a step beyond the 13 E.M.S. contract. Library. I know Commissioner Williams has 14 had some questions about this for some time. If I'm not 15 mistaken, there's -- there's a -- a window within which we 16 can give notice that we wish to renegotiate the contract 17 that's been in existence for some period of time, and 18 there's also a window within which they provide budget data 19 for us to consider. If I'm not mistaken, and I'm sure 20 Commissioner Williams can verify this, we did give notice 21 within the appropriate time period that we did want to 22 negotiate -- renegotiate the contract. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Were you provided, as the 25 liaison with the -- in connection with the library matters, 8-27-04 wk 12 1 any budgetary -- proposed budget for the library before 2 July 1st of this year? The proposed budget? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before July 1st -- 4 no, I don't believe I did, Judge. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what I received, 7 I shared with you, and it did not show at that time any 8 ending fund balances for which the County should be given 9 its share of the credit. This letter, of course, does 10 today, but in the past it did not. So I believe, no, I did 11 not get them before July 1st. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Appears to me that we're in a 13 -- we're in an open phase, then, on the renegotiation of 14 that contract. So my characterization of that would be 15 limbo, for whatever that's worth. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think -- yeah, I 17 agree with that. Fortunately, in this particular one, the 18 bottom line number that was presented to us in this letter 19 pretty well closely corresponds with the reduced funding 20 levels that we determined we were going to do the other day. 21 So, it's pretty close to that. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We were really smart 23 about that. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, good 25 seat-of-the-pants guess. 8-27-04 wk 13 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Amazing. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the -- how they get 3 there, though, is a little different. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, it is. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: They want a larger amount, but 6 say they're going to give us -- give us -- give us a 7 significant portion back to bring it back close to the 8 number where we were. I'm -- I'm uncertain as to why we go 9 through this round-robin drill. Maybe there's a good reason 10 for it, but I -- I haven't -- I haven't understood it yet. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you can explain it 12 to me, I'd be happy to listen. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry, I'm unable to do 14 that. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The bottom line is, 16 though, that there's a -- the actual budget of the library, 17 there's a $26,000 increase. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- that's 20 where the math gets fuzzy. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My take on it is 22 that we stick with our funding budget number, and we expect 23 to get a check for our return back. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- you know, I 25 mean, a lot of it, I can't make any kind of intelligent 8-27-04 wk 14 1 decision, because I haven't seen the numbers. I know we 2 have -- the County has received a book -- yesterday? Day 3 before yesterday? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Late Wednesday. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Late Wednesday, of a lot 6 of this, of the City's proposals, but I've not had time to 7 go through it. Which I don't think any reasonable person 8 can be expected to go through an inch-thick document in a 9 day, you know. So I don't want to, you know, say the 10 library -- we're going to stick at 350. Maybe there's a 11 reason to adjust it up or down. But, you know, again, we 12 asked for this information in late May, early June, and got 13 it the end of August, which is the very end of our budget 14 process. So -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I just want to make sure 18 you're awake. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm awake, and I just 20 want to commend you gentlemen. You're doing a wonderful 21 job. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Baldwin, 23 you're the E.M.S. coordinator for the Court, are you not? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm not an E.M.S. 8-27-04 wk 15 1 coordinator. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean the liaison. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't coordinate 4 anything. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: E.M.S. liaison. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have no information. 7 All I know is the Fire Chief stood at the podium right there 8 and said there is a possibility that there -- we may have to 9 go back to subsidy in the near future. He said that just a 10 few days ago. That's the only thing I know. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this here was three 12 days later. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was -- well, two 14 days later, obviously. You got it on Wednesday? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, he was here on 17 Monday and made that statement, and that's all I know about 18 it. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: A most prophetic individual, 20 isn't he? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I guess -- where do we 23 go from here? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. It's 25 just -- I want to say, Judge, that this is a sad -- this 8-27-04 wk 16 1 saddens me. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I don't know where 5 the problem is. I don't know if we -- if we created it a 6 couple of years ago or not. I've been here long enough 7 where I've seen this several times through the years, but 8 it's never gotten this bad. You know, and I have a -- I 9 have a feeling that we're going to be unable to go over 10 there and put our arms around them and let's all hug and 11 kiss and make up and all that like we've done many, many 12 times in years past. I'm not sure that that's going to 13 happen this time. I don't know, but I -- you know, if we 14 have caused a problem -- if we have caused a problem 15 somewhere, we need to evaluate that and get it out on the 16 table and admit that we caused a problem, and ask for 17 forgiveness and all that. But if we haven't, something's 18 wrong, and it -- it doesn't -- it doesn't hurt us; it 19 doesn't hurt us individually, but it damn sure affects the 20 taxpayers of this county, and that pisses me off. And so 21 this thing's got to end somehow. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the thing that, I 23 mean, surprised me probably more than anything else, there 24 was an Airport Board meeting yesterday at which we had the 25 mayor and the City Council member, and we discussed the 8-27-04 wk 17 1 airport contract, and it was -- and the members from the 2 City expressed the -- you know, how -- what a good document 3 it is; how the City and County are working together and how, 4 for the first time, the airport's under a good contract and 5 it's fair to everybody, and how it was a sign of a good 6 relationship between the City and the County. Then I read 7 the paper last night, and I said -- is that not what the 8 mayor said yesterday afternoon? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what -- that's 10 what happened, Commissioner. But I read the paper in the 11 morning, so I was burning when I got there. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, I understand. Now I 13 understand why your comment wasn't quite as -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Glowing. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- glowing as mine was 16 towards the City. I mean, I was like, "Boy, Commissioner 17 Williams is a little irritable this afternoon." But now I 18 understand why. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd already read the 20 article. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Assumed your grumpy status. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, they assumed my 23 grumpy status. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, bottom line is, 25 contracts are contracts, and the County Attorney's in the 8-27-04 wk 18 1 room, and I think he would say a contract's a contract. 2 MR. MOTLEY: A contract is a contract. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. And -- 4 many blessings on you. Where are you, young man? There you 5 are. And these windows of renegotiating the contract and 6 all that stuff is over, so we need to plug in whatever 7 number that the contract says and go on with life. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think -- I 9 agree. And the only one on this list, you know, that we 10 have a new contract on is the airport, so we can discuss the 11 airport. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Even though we're in a 14 dilemma there, because the Airport Board has to approve the 15 budget before either the City or the County can. We 16 received it yesterday? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there will be no 19 action taken by the Airport Board until the Tuesday after 20 Labor Day, whatever day that is. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But this number -- 22 bottom line number here is very close, as we predicted it 23 would be. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To where we were in 8-27-04 wk 19 1 our last discussion. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think it's -- 3 you know, I agree. The number's not far off. It's a little 4 bit higher than I thought it was going to be, but there may 5 be justification to back up for that. I've not heard it 6 yet, because I've only had 24 hours. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: If I'm reading it correctly, 8 they're asking this year for almost $111,000. Is that -- is 9 that what you're reading? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I read it -- it says 11 they're asking for $186,000. 111,000 goes for grant matches 12 and 75,000 goes for airport operations. That's -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the -- and I think 15 the other part of this that we really need to get, and the 16 Airport Board needs to request -- well, has requested. This 17 doesn't show the revenue side, and I'd like to get a good 18 idea of the revenue projections. At least I don't -- I'm 19 not sure if it does or doesn't, to be honest. I said 75,000 20 operating amount. I'm not sure if revenues are included in 21 that, so it may or may not be a true -- if revenues are 22 included, that's a pretty big number. It's a pretty big 23 number either way, but if revenue is not included in, that 24 means there's an offset on the revenue side. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true. And, of 8-27-04 wk 20 1 course, also, with all these grants -- grant matches and 2 TexDOT reimbursement and so forth, Airport Board has to sign 3 off on each and every one of those in terms of whether or 4 not that's something we want to engage in in this coming 5 fiscal year, or whether it's something that's to be deferred 6 to next year or subsequent years. And so they haven't had 7 -- the Airport Board hasn't had the opportunity to discuss 8 each of these projects, which total nearly 130, and which 9 would call into question our 110,000 -- $110,000 grant match 10 participation by the County. So, we're still a ways away on 11 that. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How are we going to 13 deal with that between now and the end of September, when we 14 have to approve this? Are we going to -- to estimate what 15 we think the net impact will be and put that in the budget? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All of it, or the 17 airport? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Airport. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the operations 20 piece, yes. And we're -- we're there, really, on the 21 operations piece. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: On the airport 23 thing, I feel pretty good about -- about that, because we've 24 had two members of our Court, if not -- at least actively 25 involved playing a leadership role, and so whatever numbers 8-27-04 wk 21 1 they come up with, I've got confidence in. So, I was -- I 2 was hoping it would be a little less than that, but it is 3 what it is. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think on the timing 5 issue, I need to defer to the Tax Assessor/Collector. 6 What -- can you back down from the notice dates and the 7 hearings and all of that as to when we have to give you 8 final tax rate numbers so you can do the proper posting and 9 hearings? 10 MS. RECTOR: Well, it depends on what your 11 proposed rate is. If you're going to exceed the 3 percent 12 for the notice and the hearing -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, assuming -- assume 14 the tax rate does not go up. No change in the tax rate. 15 'Cause I -- 16 MS. RECTOR: I don't have any figures here. 17 Is that the -- is it over the 3 percent, though? Our 18 current rate. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The effective? 20 MS. RECTOR: No, not the effective. The 21 3 percent. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do you mean? 23 MS. RECTOR: 3 percent over the effective 24 rate will throw us into a notice and hearing process. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if we have -- we'll 8-27-04 wk 22 1 have -- I think we're going to have no tax rate increase, so 2 how do I -- what do you mean, 3 percent? 3 MS. RECTOR: Tommy's got it. I will tell 4 you. Okay, 3 percent is .3681 total. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: That's under what our rate -- 6 MS. RECTOR: That's under what our rate is, 7 so we'll be okay. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 9 MS. RECTOR: We don't have to go through a 10 notice and hearing process, so your time frame is whatever 11 you need for it to be, except giving me enough time after 12 the rates are adopted. But I think everybody's going to be 13 late this year adopting their tax rates, so that means just 14 the statements will just go out later. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the -- we have 16 until -- I mean, worst-case scenario, until the last week of 17 September? I want a worst-case scenario. 18 MS. RECTOR: Worst-case scenario, yes, until 19 the last week in September. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When do you really need 21 it by? 22 MS. RECTOR: I would need it by the middle of 23 September, if at all possible. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I wanted to 25 hear. So, you know, I think there's -- on the airport 8-27-04 wk 23 1 numbers, there's time. You know, I think we plug in the 2 best estimate we have at this point, which I think would be 3 what the City has proposed here, and it certainly won't go 4 up from there. And if it comes down a little bit, great. 5 If the Airport Board reviews it -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you talking about 7 the operations, or operations and grant match? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Both. I think we plug 9 these numbers in, and we -- I mean, I would -- I would 10 rather estimate at this point on the high side. If we can 11 cut a little bit out, we can do that by the middle of 12 September, but I think we need to get, you know, that number 13 built in so we have an idea where we are. If we're -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Kathy, would you go 15 get my calculator? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: The current number we're 17 showing on the airport at this point is 141. You're 18 suggesting that we need to -- to, at least for now, plug it 19 in as approximately 176? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 186. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me, 186. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where are you getting 24 186? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: 110,8 plus 75,2. 8-27-04 wk 24 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 75,2 over 2 where we are. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the operations portion 4 up there that I didn't include in the 110. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And when I look at the 6 project, I think there's some -- I mean, I think it's -- 7 well, I think the Airport Board needs to look at it. The 8 one number that stands out is the aviation terminal 9 furniture. I'm not sure it's going to be finished in time 10 to furnish it next budget year, because isn't it behind 11 schedule a little bit? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, yeah, we're 13 behind schedule, but -- no, it probably will be toward the 14 end of the budget year. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to look 16 at the type of furniture. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which we may have some 19 used furniture in the County that can do fine out at the 20 airport. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I come up with 186,041. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 187? Or -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: 186,041. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Those two numbers. 8-27-04 wk 25 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the maximum that I 2 can see. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, for current planning 4 purposes, that's probably -- maybe a closer ballpark than 5 the 141 that I figured on some earlier numbers, obviously. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, 75,232 is 7 only -- is 40 over about where we are now. Didn't we have 8 35 or 39 in the current budget? I know we have to crank it 9 in. I'm just thinking about where we are with it. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This year, I'm not sure. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Something like that. 12 So, 75 plus 110. Again, I'm not all that sanguine about the 13 fact that we're going to want to do all of those grants in 14 the next coming year. That's a lot -- a lot of stuff to put 15 on our plate to be accomplished in -- in the next budget 16 year, and I don't think that can all happen, so the Airport 17 Board needs to deal with that. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we also -- well, 19 Airport Board needs to look at this and then look at the 20 '05-'06 plan and make sure that -- I mean, I'd rather try to 21 stay more constant than have fluctuations up and down quite 22 a bit, if possible. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy, where will I 24 find the current airport numbers? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm just looking at 595. 8-27-04 wk 26 1 MR. TOMLINSON: It's on Page 59. 2 MS. UECKER: 59? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: 59. We have in there 4 141,022. I -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 35,8 -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the new number's 7 186 -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: 041. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 041. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 150,000 over where we 11 are this year. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: What's the E.M.S. -- do you 13 know what page that's on? I just want to confirm that 14 number. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: It's the next page. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: 60? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. Under Line Item 210. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, that should read -- 19 instead of 19,342, as I calculate it, it should read 23,700, 20 at 1,975 a month. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 19,342 goes to what, 22 Judge? 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is the health 24 officer's salary part of that contract? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is what? 8-27-04 wk 27 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That $1,200. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I think you may be right. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Salary may be part 4 of the contract. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: I think that's a separate 6 issue there. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Health officer 8 and the medical director are two different people. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And he distinguishes 10 them in his letter. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the -- the contract 12 provides to assist City with respect to Medical Director and 13 administration costs. County agrees to pay 1,975 a month. 14 Health officer is -- okay, that's separate. There's no 15 separate line item for Medical Director, then. So, tying it 16 to the contract would seem to be the appropriate thing to 17 do. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 23,700 will 19 be an increase from last year. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the number, 21 Judge? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: 23,7. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 23,700? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Okay. And the 25 library, which one is that, Mr. Tomlinson? Do you know off 8-27-04 wk 28 1 the top of your head? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: No. I can find it pretty 3 quick, though. It is on Page 82. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 82. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: You have me taking 6 Commissioner Baldwin's place this morning? (Laughter.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, he decided to bail out 8 on us here as the chief page caller, so -- 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can't anybody 10 replace Commissioner Baldwin. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- under the library 12 -- the former library contract, since we're really in a 13 limbo stage at the moment, was there a provision for the 14 revenue side? I mean, what -- what happens to the revenue 15 of the library? Let me rephrase the question. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the revenue to 17 the library -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: From the library. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- essentially 20 becomes fees and fines. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we don't -- the 23 contract says we're supposed to get an accounting of that. 24 Am I correct, Judge? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I believe that's correct. 8-27-04 wk 29 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. And -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have we received that? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've never seen it. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So the City's in breach 5 of the contract in that regard as well. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What the letter from 7 the City Manager talks about is returning to each the City 8 and the County 96 -- or $94,000 of equity. And that -- that 9 is fund balances that weren't spent. It essentially gets 10 into payroll and whatever fees and fines have accumulated 11 that we're entitled to our share of. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there an accounting of 13 that in the budget book that they sent over, of the 94,000? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, there is. And I -- let 15 me see if I can answer that question quickly, in somewhat of 16 a simple manner. If I'm understanding, oh, what this -- 17 what this does is it takes the beginning balance, figures 18 what the ending balance is, brings it down to a 5 percent 19 reserve, and the difference between the 5 percent reserve 20 and the ending fund balance is what is rebated back. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's really not 22 a -- maybe there is in the backup. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: There is a whole bunch of data 24 in here. The contract provides that all fines and fees 25 shall be credited to the City and County, and the same 8-27-04 wk 30 1 portion is actual contributions each has paid or is to pay 2 toward its obligations during the current year and next 3 succeeding year. So, without having -- without having those 4 receipt numbers, and they show operating revenues as part 5 of -- as part of the summary here, and there may be some 6 backup that shows that. The thing that I'm concerned -- one 7 of the things that I'm concerned about on that operation 8 over there, contrary to what has been reported in the media, 9 we don't own any part of that building. That's not a 10 jointly owned property over there. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: So you have a lot of -- a lot 13 of expenses that are incurred in connection with the -- the 14 maintenance and the upkeep of the building and capital 15 improvements and things of that nature that may not be items 16 which are properly chargeable to us, since we own no part of 17 the building. Now, the operational expenses, that's a 18 different -- that's a different matter. But matters in 19 connection with that building may not be appropriately 20 chargeable to us. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a very 22 good point. I mean, since the City, at the moment, seems to 23 be very much -- be very precise on who gets charged for 24 what, we probably ought to look back at the last few years. 25 We had some huge capital improvements over there, and look 8-27-04 wk 31 1 at whether or not we should get a credit on those amounts. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The library, the roof. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true. Well, a 5 lot -- some of those things were funded through E.I.C. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The roof and some 8 other things were funded through E.I.C. to about $180,000, 9 but we got hit for air-conditioners. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I remember. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got hit for the 12 elevator, 50 percent of that, and who knows what else. And 13 I -- I venture to suggest that buried in that detail there 14 is -- is the ongoing maintenance of the building. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maintenance, I don't have 16 a problem with, but I do have a problem potentially with 17 capital improvements to the building, whether they're -- you 18 know, I mean, maintenance is part of the operations, in my 19 mind, but -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could be construed 21 that way. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- but capital 23 improvements are not operating expenses. That's how I would 24 look at it. But, you know, I think a lot of these things 25 need to be looked at very closely now. 8-27-04 wk 32 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, of course, the 2 difference between capital improvement and a maintenance 3 issue in the private sector is what you can get by the tax 4 man. In the public sector, I'm not sure how they draw that 5 line. I suspect that if you have a -- have a partner for -- 6 that doesn't own any part of the -- any part of the capital 7 asset, that there may be some distinction drawn there. But 8 I know it's a never-ending moving of a line in the private 9 sector, depending upon what the tax man will allow. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think another thing on 11 the library -- maybe the backup shows this and breaks it 12 out, but I think that there are parts of that operation that 13 we don't participate in the operation of, such as the -- the 14 genealogies. Is that what that -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The History Center. 16 That's true. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't participate in 18 that. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're not a part of 20 that. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And also, they purchased 22 that piece of property down there with a -- with a travel 23 agency and restaurants that, you know, they -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're not part of 25 that. 8-27-04 wk 33 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know that. But we need 2 to make sure that those are 100 percent accounted for 3 outside of this budget, because -- and I remember we had 4 this conversation at one of our joint meetings several years 5 ago. I remember very well with -- the mayor and I were 6 discussing it, and I made the comment that -- I said we 7 don't own that, so when they start doing parking lot 8 repairs, they need to start separating out which parking lot 9 they're working on, because we have no interest in part of 10 that area over there, and we have operational interests in 11 -- in part of it. So, I mean, that was brought up and 12 discussed and requested that they keep track of it all 13 separately. Hopefully -- I have not looked at these, so I 14 don't know if they have or have not, but they need to. And, 15 of course, that comes back to the question of whether 16 parking repairs are capital improvements or not. Another 17 issue. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: I would have an easy solution 19 to that. Owning a capital asset, any -- any major 20 improvement to the capital asset would -- would fall on the 21 owner. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, that's -- I 23 mean, it appears the City wants to renegotiate all these 24 points, so this is one we need to look at as well. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, I guess my 8-27-04 wk 34 1 question to you gentlemen is, do we leave the number for 2 budgetary purposes for us now in the library at 329,103? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, we take it down 4 to 323,329. That's what he's asking for. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't hear any -- anyone 6 objecting to that, so 323 -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 329. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: -- 329. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's -- 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, that's a 11 little different number. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not what's in -- 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is -- they're 14 asking for 416,113. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And they're just 17 doing our arithmetic for us and saying you take out your 18 return to equity, it comes out to 329. I'd propose that we 19 -- that we leave it at whatever we have it at now. Three -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: 329,103. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And we get our 22 $94,001 back on top of that. If we set about to -- to 23 attempt some -- some cost consciousness on the library 24 function by reducing our contribution to the budget -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think the -- we 8-27-04 wk 35 1 have not agreed, in my mind, certainly, to an increase in 2 their budget. So, I mean, I fall somewhere probably between 3 what Commissioner Nicholson is saying and what we funded to 4 last year. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, last year was 6 387. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In our discussion 9 Tuesday, I believe the Court said it wanted to reduce that 10 by 15 percent. That took it down to 329. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But the City is 12 saying there's a $94,000 fund balance coming back, so, to 13 me, there's two issues. One's the budget, and then we get 14 the 94,001 back, period. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then we talk about 17 this year's budget. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is 323,329, and 19 next year we talk about whether it stays there or goes up. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, Commissioner 22 your 323,329 is just a net number of 416,113 minus the 23 94,001. They're really asking for a contribution from us -- 24 participation expense of 416,113. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. $26,000 increase 8-27-04 wk 36 1 over last year's budget. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- I think they're -- 3 the way that sounds to me, they're just applying the fund 4 balance to -- to the 416, and asking -- actually asking for 5 the net. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Tommy, they say that 7 the 94,001 will be returned to the County via check no later 8 than October 15, 2004. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: My -- my understanding of it 10 is they're talking about -- 416 is our share for the coming 11 year. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's right. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Adjusting the fund balance and 14 maintaining a 5 percent reserve for this current fiscal 15 year, we would have a return of 94,000, and that's what 16 they're going to remit to us by check within 15 days after 17 the beginning of the fiscal -- this next fiscal year. The 18 -- the 94 pertains to -- to the current year's operation, 19 the way I'm reading that. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: So we need to actually budget 22 the 94,000 on the revenue side. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 94,000 is revenue. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A revenue in the library 8-27-04 wk 37 1 budget. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, once you 4 separate that revenue issue, they're asking for 416,113. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- you're 6 right. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: With our current 8 budget numbers, three -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 29. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 329, you're right. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: If you want to discount the 12 416,113 by 15 percent, that would bring you down to 353,696. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That -- say that again? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: That's using your scientific 15 15 percent. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, really, what 17 needs to be -- I mean, before we can -- I don't want to just 18 throw a number out here. I think we need to look at -- 19 and -- heck, he's gone. Talk to the County Attorney, and I 20 guess he's -- he needs a place to start on the capital -- 21 whether we should be spending money on capital improvements. 22 And if we -- and if -- I think you have a very good point, 23 that we -- I mean, it's not our building. I don't know that 24 we legally could do it. I think we're starting to spend 25 money on something that we don't own, and I think it's been 8-27-04 wk 38 1 done possibly inadvertently in the past, but I think we can 2 determine -- they might need to break out -- we need to ask 3 questions. Are there any capital items in this item? 4 'Cause we question whether we can -- well, whether we need 5 to or should or legally can fund those portions. I'd leave 6 the number where it is right now, where we have it, and -- 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- come back, along with 9 the airport. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: We need to know if there's 11 some sort of lease agreement between the owner of the 12 building and the -- and the City and the County. I know 13 there's -- some leases do provide for leasehold 14 improvements. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You understand what? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, there are -- there 17 are some lease agreements that provide for leasehold 18 improvements. We -- we have one right now that's -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah, out in Ingram. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: And so, I mean, that may be 21 what -- there may be a lease. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: There is no lease on the 23 library, no. This is -- this deals with a joint operation. 24 We're not talking about leases. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause the City -- the 8-27-04 wk 39 1 library was given, as I understand it, to the City. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then the City and the 4 County decided to jointly operate it. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And decided -- and that's 7 through interlocal agreement or contract. But we -- 8 MR. TOMLINSON: I wasn't aware of the deal, 9 so I -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I think that resolves 11 that issue. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Recycling Center. Where's 14 that? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before you go there, I 16 have one more question -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we need to get to the 19 County Attorney, I think. And this goes to the library 20 potentially, you know, because of that capital issue, and 21 also to the recycling center. The County -- and the 22 recycling center, we spent money that we didn't need to 23 because we didn't catch it prior to last year, which, in my 24 mind, we are due a credit on. And on the library, if that 25 is resolved that we are not responsible for capital items, I 8-27-04 wk 40 1 think we are due a credit there. I don't know how far back 2 you go. I don't know -- my question is really for the 3 County Attorney. Are we, in fact, due a -- a credit when we 4 approve funds that were approved in error based on contract? 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a reasonable 6 question. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Yeah, 'cause I know 8 last year at the recycling center, there was a -- there was 9 a request for us to participate equally in some -- in some 10 capital improvements, and the lease clearly says that they 11 can make capital improvements if we agree to it, but the -- 12 the entirety of the cost was theirs. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: And, far as I know, they made 15 them. We didn't participate in the cost. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the prior year, I 17 believe we made -- we did share some of those costs. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Might have. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not subject to the 20 lease. And the lease is a governing body, I would think -- 21 or a governing contract. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: What page are we on, 23 Commissioner Baldwin? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 2 of 2, Contract 25 Services. 8-27-04 wk 41 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 2? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's talking about 3 the City's letter. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have anything else to 6 discuss on -- you made the point on the recycling center. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: While we're talking 8 about items to refer to the County Attorney, I want to refer 9 to him this E.M.S. item and ask the question whether or not, 10 in his opinion, we -- we have the legal authority to do what 11 they're asking us to do. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: To sub -- in essence, 14 subsidize -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Individuals. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: -- Medicare-eligible users of 17 that system. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: I mean, that -- I think that's 20 about the bottom-line question. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the 22 bottom-line question. I know we do -- we do indigent 23 health, but this doesn't fall in the category of indigent 24 health, in my -- in my view. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some of it may, but 8-27-04 wk 42 1 anyway -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It might -- some of 3 it might. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: There would have to be an 5 individual qualification, though. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think that's an 7 issue if -- I mean, I don't -- I think that, you know, we 8 need to look at the indigent health side of ambulance rates. 9 I mean, I don't know if they keep track of them or how they 10 do it. Fire contract, I see no change, which I have no -- 11 I'm happy to see. But the question I have, is that a 12 separate contract? Is that -- or is that under the E.M.S. 13 contract? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Separate. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: That is a separate contract. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I think that that 17 is something that I would -- this is not a budget issue. I 18 would like to look at that contract with the City during the 19 coming year to possibly get some -- we'll just look at the 20 contract, possibly get some additional services provided to 21 their primary area, or the primary area of the county that 22 they're responsible to. And I know that's going to cost 23 money, and that's fine. I think that it's a -- I don't have 24 a problem with that. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we having fun 8-27-04 wk 43 1 yet, Commissioner? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am. I'm having a 3 ball. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Before we go 5 further, probably any one of you can answer this question. 6 I'm looking at the budget summary that was provided since 7 our last meeting, and down at the bottom I see that the 8 estimated -- what I think I see is the current planned 9 expenditures exceed estimated revenues by a million dollars. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Slightly over that. That's 11 correct. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I just wanted 13 to make sure I knew how to read this. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what you're 15 seeing. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. That's -- and I 17 think that's a good point. I think the other side of that 18 is something I brought up the other day; that in this 19 particular year, we ended up with -- I think it was 20 1.2 million of unspent expenditures that were budgeted, 21 which -- you know. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. A lot of it 23 related to personnel, payroll. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think the same 25 thing would take place -- we can look at this year and say 8-27-04 wk 44 1 somewhere between 750 and maybe 1.2 million something, you 2 know, there's some overbudgeted item amount here again. So, 3 in those budgets, a deficit going in may not be as big a 4 deficit coming out. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, in your 6 experience, at this stage of budget preparation, you're not 7 alarmed by that deficit? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. I'm more concerned 9 about year-end numbers than I am projected numbers, because 10 that's where we -- that's the situation -- the true 11 situation in the county. I think if you look at every year, 12 how we've been budgeting and how our fund balance is going, 13 I think you can continue to go in that direction because of 14 the way we do our budgeting, which is very conservative, and 15 our revenue estimates tend to be conservative. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would be very concerned 18 about -- if I saw a $2 million deficit. Tommy probably 19 would, too. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess we all would 21 be. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I was concerned with the 23 $1 million. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Concerned, but not as 25 concerned as -- because I think that it's probably more a, 8-27-04 wk 45 1 quote, paper deficit at this point. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we're -- we're 3 not currently in a mode where we think we really got to get 4 in there and whittle? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not panic mode, no. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We may want to whittle 7 some. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Will you raise a 9 little flag when it's time for me to start panicking? 10 MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, because y'all said 11 that a lot of that deals with the personnel issues, I have 12 some information that I'd like to present to y'all. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fine. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like good news, 15 kind of. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're going to be 17 talking about personnel here pretty quick. 18 MS. PIEPER: Are you really? It just seems 19 like Kerr County is being compared to several other 20 counties. Let me give you a copy of this, if you will just 21 pass them around. And the information that y'all have 22 received, I think, is from the County Judge's office of 23 these other counties, so it's like comparing an apple to an 24 orange. So, therefore, I called these counties and I talked 25 to the County Clerk, and I got these numbers from the County 8-27-04 wk 46 1 Clerk. Now, our main comparison seems to be Hood County. 2 They do have 12 employees. However, as your court 3 administrator pointed out the other day, that when she had 4 spoke with the County Judge, they have court staff that are 5 -- that is literally in the -- the judge's office that 6 handles all the case files. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which county are we 8 talking about now? 9 MS. PIEPER: Hood County. Hood. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hood. 11 MS. PIEPER: That seems to be the one that 12 I'm basically compared to most of the time. However, my 13 deputies do all of our case load. And then, if you'll look 14 at the numbers as well, we just about double them in 15 everything. And I have it broken down into different 16 categories, as far as my birth, death, and marriage records, 17 how many we file per year. And just on the birth and death 18 certificates issued, it was a little over -- it was 19,970. 19 And then, of course, Hood County is 14,000. And just from 20 that category alone, in the last five years we've received 21 the highest state awards that they have offered for two of 22 them. Hood County's comment was they've received a couple. 23 And it's gotten now to where the state inspectors, they 24 don't just pop in on me now; they actually call me and 25 say -- make an appointment. They say there's no need to pop 8-27-04 wk 47 1 in, 'cause my records on that is kept up so well. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jannett? 3 MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You prepare -- or your 5 staff prepares 19,900 birth and death certificates? 6 MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Per year? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. That's per year, 9 right? 10 MS. PIEPER: This is based on the year 2003, 11 because that is the -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, it just 13 -- is that counted like -- if I come in there and get ten at 14 one time, does that include -- that's 10? That counts as 10 15 or one? 16 MS. PIEPER: That is counted as 10. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 18 MS. PIEPER: Because we still have to do the 19 same amount of work on the 10 as we would the one. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I understand. I 21 was just trying to figure out. 22 MS. PIEPER: Right. The only difference is 23 you would fill out one application. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I'm just -- okay. 25 I just -- that number makes more sense, then, because I 8-27-04 wk 48 1 think in the average estate, you're probably going to get, 2 you know, five to ten requests -- you know, requests for 3 one. I couldn't imagine how that number got so high when 4 the deaths and the births -- 5 MS. PIEPER: But a lot of that, during the 6 summer we've got all the summer sports and stuff. They -- 7 you know, a child has to have a birth certificate. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They all have to be 9 certified now. 10 MS. PIEPER: Right. School starting back, 11 each child has to have the birth certificate for school. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 13 MS. PIEPER: So we're hit hard in the summer 14 before school starts. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand it's a real 16 number. I was just trying to figure out how it got to be so 17 big, and you explained it. 18 MS. PIEPER: Right. And then somebody may 19 have died 10 years ago, and every year they come back for 20 more death certificates. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 22 MS. PIEPER: On Lamar County, on criminal 23 cases, they don't do any criminal; that is done all in their 24 district court. And then on Rusk County, they don't have to 25 worry about any fines or fees, because their probation 8-27-04 wk 49 1 department does all of that, and so that also lessens the 2 load on their bookkeeper. Same way with the civil cases for 3 Lamar County; their district court handles all of that. 4 Cherokee County, their juvenile cases, the district court 5 handles those as well. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I thank you for 7 this, because I -- what it does, I mean, it explains -- and 8 Paula did a similar report, and -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: It's helpful to have this 10 info. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Very helpful to us, 12 because a lot of the -- I won't say criticism, but the 13 studies we show, this gives us information that we can tell 14 our constituents, 'cause they ask us the questions. 15 MS. PIEPER: Right. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we ask you, and you 17 give us the answer. It helps, because then we can see 18 there's a big difference as to why your department or 19 Paula's -- 20 MS. PIEPER: It's hard for you to understand 21 when I have one criminal case or one mental health case or 22 whatever it may be, the different steps that we have to go 23 through from the beginning to the end of that. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, yeah, I 25 understand that. But, I mean, whatever you do in this 8-27-04 wk 50 1 county, the same type of work has to be done in the other 2 county. What's interesting and what's, I think, helpful is 3 things like how the organization in Kerr County differs from 4 Hood and Lamar and Rusk as to the County Court at Law, as to 5 what the -- 6 MS. PIEPER: Right. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Commissioners Court 8 records -- I mean, all that. And things are all done 9 differently. It helps us to understand how the other 10 counties are doing it compared to how you're doing it. 11 MS. PIEPER: See, here in Kerr County, my 12 office does it all. So whenever I asked for my employee 13 back, I need that employee back. I'm not just wanting that 14 employee back. And, you know, whenever I hired Jim 15 part-time to come in, I think he was kind of floored at the 16 amount of work we do. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if -- I mean, as 18 I -- my recollection of the -- the Court on that employee 19 back, the -- the question comes on undoing the -- the 20 step/grade changes last year, I mean, to get the employee 21 back. I mean, 'cause it's -- I mean, I don't -- I don't 22 have a problem with going back to the staffing level you 23 needed, but I have a -- a problem of -- of changing steps 24 and grades and then -- and then going back. I mean, I think 25 there needs to be adjustment, and I don't know how we do 8-27-04 wk 51 1 that. That's a real difficult thing that we probably didn't 2 think clearly through when we, you know, did it last year. 3 MS. PIEPER: I don't know. Even with a new 4 employee, the ones that did get a step increase because of 5 the extra work would still be doing it, because they're 6 going to have to oversee that new employee for at least the 7 first six months before that deputy would be sworn in or -- 8 what is the terminology? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Deputized. 10 MS. PIEPER: Deputized, thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think -- I mean, 12 the -- and this is -- this goes back to just, I think, to 13 try to -- 'cause we have a number of elected officials here. 14 The problem that I have is that Rusty came in and wanted his 15 clerks to get a -- I think he proposed a $3,000 increase. 16 Well, if we start going into any department and start 17 changing steps and grades in that department and not look at 18 all the other departments, we just start creating a mess, 19 and it undoes everything we do in trying to do our studies. 20 Whether or not, I mean, everyone liked the last Nash study 21 or not, it was done, and it's, you know, the way we set up 22 the step and grades. And when we start going into changing 23 the departments, which is what was done in your department 24 to a slight degree last year, it causes -- 25 MS. PIEPER: You know what I think of that 8-27-04 wk 52 1 Nash study. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I know, but it's 3 still -- I mean, you have to have some sort of an equitable 4 basis where someone doing a set of work in your office and a 5 similar set of work in Linda's office gets paid the same 6 amount. And, you know, there's never a perfect way to do 7 that. The last time was the Nash study. Time before that 8 was some other study before I was on the Court. You know, 9 and I don't think everyone's ever happy with those studies, 10 but you have to start somewhere. And I think we have made 11 -- where there were errors in the Nash study of consequence, 12 I think this Court has tried to make those adjustments, and 13 as people change workloads and reorganize their offices, 14 we've tried to make those adjustments. But this is going 15 the other direction, which makes it -- this is a harder one 16 for us, because we started -- I mean, we don't want to -- I 17 don't want to be in a position of saying we're demoting 18 somebody, but the -- kind of the deal was that they were 19 going to do more work, at least as I understand, and the 20 Judge. Because, as I understand, the deal was you cut back 21 or didn't replace somebody and spread your workload out; 22 those people got part of that money. And, you know, it's 23 just put us in a difficult situation, is all I'm saying. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did we spread the 25 entire amount of the displaced person last year? 8-27-04 wk 53 1 MS. PIEPER: No. No, it was only maybe 2 $4,000. I think the rest of that went to Rusty's new 3 employees, or -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Went to where? 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I gave up four. 6 MS. PIEPER: -- raises or something. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rusty gets it all, 8 doesn't he? 9 MS. PIEPER: Seems like it. But what worries 10 me is, you know, I just gave you the facts and figures that 11 my office is extremely busy. We don't have court staff. 12 And what worries me is I think that when I go back and sit 13 down, that's the last y'all are ever going to think of this, 14 and I'm going to have to go through a whole 'nother year -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, -- 16 MS. PIEPER: -- having to do all of this -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see one thing I'd 18 like for you to stop doing and give it to our court 19 administrator. Reading in your county notes here, "Clerk 20 keeps up with" -- "County Judge secretary or court 21 administrator types up the agenda, and clerk keeps up with 22 getting the signatures, receiving and mailing out executed 23 copies of contracts." On my part, you can give that up; 24 give it to the court administrator so she can keep track of 25 where we are. That's one item less you have to do, as far 8-27-04 wk 54 1 as I'm concerned. 2 MS. PIEPER: Well, that's good, but you know 3 what? That's not her duty. As clerk of the court, that's 4 mine. I mean, and I -- I wouldn't mind help in it. I'll 5 tell you that I wouldn't mind help in it, but -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there's 7 discretion -- there appears to be discretion in how a County 8 Clerk operates. I mean, I know you think it's your duty, 9 but, obviously, some of these other county clerks don't 10 think everything is their duty, and if there's a way to 11 shift it, I think we should shift it. I mean, I think that 12 there's a -- you know, Kathy has set up a system for keeping 13 track of the contracts and all that, because that has become 14 an issue of trying to keep good -- you know, to look for a 15 contract and really not be able to find it, just so we know 16 when they expire and what the terms of each of the contracts 17 are. 18 MS. PIEPER: Let me tell you the process 19 on -- what I'm talking about on this. We'll use the Airport 20 Board for an example. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 22 MS. PIEPER: The first motion, I believe, was 23 to approve it, the form of the contract. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 25 MS. PIEPER: So then it came back the next 8-27-04 wk 55 1 Commissioners Court, and it still had to get some kind of 2 revisions. Well, I was able to do an order for the form, 3 but then it comes back again as -- in a contract form, and 4 the contract was approved, so we get your signatures on it. 5 And I have the contract -- a copy of the contract, because 6 the original is now sent to the City. Well, I still have to 7 have a note on that, you know, "Don't scan or don't record 8 or don't file until I get the contract from the City." So, 9 I'm still having to keep up with that. I mean, I could call 10 down to Kathy and say, "I need this contract," but I'm still 11 having to keep up with it. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just -- there's a way for 13 your office and Kathy to work out some of these, and until 14 it comes back -- you know, we're just trying to make work 15 easier. 16 MS. PIEPER: Kathy and I spoke on this 17 yesterday. That contract is -- I still have not received it 18 back. I called David Pearce. "Oh, I thought I brought that 19 down last week." So, I asked Kathy. We haven't seen it, 20 neither one of us. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- the -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you made a good 23 point. The point is, she knew. 24 MS. PIEPER: Right. I mean, she and I do 25 communicate all the time. We have to. 8-27-04 wk 56 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Coordination. That's 2 what I'm talking about. 3 MS. PIEPER: And it's not just on 4 Commissioners Court. I mean, we -- she and my probate 5 deputy and my juvenile deputy, they have to communicate all 6 the time. So, I mean, it's not that she's not doing her 7 job. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that. 9 I'm not being critical. I didn't bring it up to be 10 critical. 11 MS. PIEPER: Right, I understand. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But the way you've 13 got this down, are you talking about keeping up and getting 14 signatures, receiving and mailing out executed copies? 15 MS. PIEPER: Right. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know for a fact 17 that I've asked our court administrator on several 18 documents -- contracts with respect to the sewer project, 19 and documents fly back and forth left and right on that 20 project. "Has such-and-such been mailed out?" And we don't 21 know the answer. If that were here, we'd know the answer. 22 MS. PIEPER: Once all contracts are executed, 23 I mail them out. But, you know, there are times when I may 24 only get a copy of a contract of whatever the subject may 25 be, and y'all may keep the original. So -- 8-27-04 wk 57 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couldn't it work -- is 2 there a problem with -- I know we're getting off base a 3 little bit, but that it's Kathy's responsibility to get the 4 contract executed, and then once we have an executed copy, I 5 think the final -- original needs to be in your office, in 6 my opinion. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of where 8 I'm coming from on this. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think until it gets to 10 that point, I don't see why you have to keep up with it; why 11 Kathy can't keep up with it. But once it's finalized, I 12 think it's yours. I think that's where all the permanent 13 files -- 14 MS. PIEPER: Generally, I'm sitting back 15 there, and most of the time I have the original, and the 16 minute y'all approve it, then I give it to the Judge for 17 signature. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 19 MS. PIEPER: And then I'm sitting there with 20 my laptop and I'm typing up the order, and then when I get 21 back to my office, then I will take that -- the order -- I 22 mean the contract and send it to wherever it needs to be for 23 their signature. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just saying, and I 25 think what Bill's saying is that if there's a way that we 8-27-04 wk 58 1 can help your workload by more work being -- on these things 2 related to the Commissioners Court, if Kathy can do them, we 3 would like to see that. And that would help your staff. On 4 the issue of what was done last year versus the new 5 employee -- or not new employee; actually, filling the open 6 slot that you had last year, I'd have to defer to the 7 Treasurer and the personnel policy. How do you handle that? 8 If we gave a -- and I don't know if we gave a step or a 9 grade increase. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, let's make sure 11 that we understand what happened. You agreed to delete an 12 employee. 13 MS. PIEPER: I agreed not to fill the 14 position, yes. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's a whole 16 lot like the same thing I'm saying. 17 MS. PIEPER: Right. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we took part of 19 that salary and spread it amongst -- 20 MS. PIEPER: From my understanding, I thought 21 it was a merit increase. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Spread it -- spread it 23 amongst the other -- some other employees in there to pick 24 up that workload. If they pick up the workload of that 25 person, that line that was going away, then -- then we give 8-27-04 wk 59 1 them a little bit more money to do that, which is very 2 common throughout the business world. And now we want to 3 add that person back there, and leave that compensation 4 there as well. Is that what you're asking to do? 5 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that 7 that's fair. I don't know if that's right. Does -- what 8 about their -- they're compensated for the workload, the 9 added workload. 10 MS. PIEPER: But our workload -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you put the person 12 back in there -- 13 MS. PIEPER: Our workload continues to 14 increase. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I tried. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- the issue 17 comes in 'cause I see Ms. Uecker sitting in the audience 18 just listening. The same thing was done in her department, 19 wasn't -- didn't we not fill someone? 20 MS. UECKER: I give up a position, but there 21 was no money spread around. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought we -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't bring that stuff 24 up. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought that we -- 8-27-04 wk 60 1 JUDGE TINLEY: No, that was in consideration 2 of some -- of a new -- some new equipment and a new process 3 that she was going to be able to utilize, and also, we 4 altered another process that was going to save some 5 significant labor. That's my recollection. Isn't that 6 yours, Ms. Uecker? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Delete my comment, 8 please. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that when we talked 10 about the -- the hours, maybe a four-day -- 10-hour, 11 four-day -- 12 MS. UECKER: Well, yeah. I've got -- I've 13 got five that are working 10-hour work days, four days a 14 week, but that doesn't diminish -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Was that not part -- 16 MS. UECKER: -- the fact that their salaries 17 weren't -- I mean, and as far as the compensation on the 18 equipment, that was so that we didn't have to purchase a 19 huge, you know, microfilm camera. And, of course, the setup 20 right now hasn't decreased the load that -- you know, I'm 21 counting on the fact that it will as we get there. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: We were anticipating what we 23 saw coming as additional labor costs to be able to alleviate 24 that. 25 MS. UECKER: But the -- but the point we're 8-27-04 wk 61 1 making here is, you know, if -- if she gave up an employee 2 and that money was distributed to those that were left, that 3 did not happen in my office. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm sorry. I didn't say 5 that. 6 MS. UECKER: But it's okay. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The -- on a pure 8 comparison study, the one metric that has to be apples and 9 apples is the one where you divide the total cost of county 10 government by the number of citizens in the county. And we 11 do that, and we find that we are relatively expensive county 12 government. And, in addressing that in this budget process, 13 what we're saying is predictable. We're relatively 14 expensive, but every department we have is operating at peak 15 efficiency, and nobody is accountable for that expensive 16 government. So I don't -- I don't see any motivation or 17 desire to look at ways to do things differently and less 18 expensive, and -- and that was predictable. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for 20 Ms. Pieper on the information that she has presented to us 21 here? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- one 23 comment to add to what Dave said -- and I agree with what he 24 said, but I think the other part of that is, the goal that I 25 had, and I think he had, was to try to figure out a way 8-27-04 wk 62 1 to -- you know, to do things more efficiently, and pay 2 our -- over the long-term, start paying our employees 3 better. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because salaries is such 6 a huge part of our budget. And I think that's the goal. 7 The goal is to better our employees' salaries. Now, that 8 means whether it's a technology increase or a reshuffling of 9 the workload or -- I mean, doesn't make any difference to me 10 where the efficiency comes. But if we can figure out a way 11 to trim staff, I'm in favor of spending more on the staff 12 that's left. That's kind of where, you know, I think we 13 were trying to go. And it may not be possible. I don't 14 know. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only comment I would 16 make on that, Jonathan, and I think -- I think the thing you 17 have to go back to is the history of the Court as a whole 18 and the history of your elected officials as a whole. This 19 Court's always been very, very conservative and has always, 20 you know, thoroughly scrutinized every elected official's 21 budget and expenditures, even monthly bills, even down to $5 22 bills coming before the Court or whatever it is. This Court 23 has always acted that way. And I think all your elected 24 officials through the years, knowing that from this Court, 25 have accordingly acted that way. And, yes, we're a more 8-27-04 wk 63 1 expensive county, but I don't think there's an elected 2 official in this county that can say you got a slush fund; 3 you've got more than what you need. I think you -- you see 4 it -- what you were commenting a while ago about what's 5 turned in in unused budget at the end of each year compared 6 to what's budgeted. I think every elected official in this 7 county scrutinizes their own bills before they come -- and 8 their own expenditures, and they don't say, "Well, I'm 9 budgeted this much. Well, it's getting close to the end of 10 budget; I want to go out and spend it all real quick." You 11 don't see that here. You see it turned back in, and it goes 12 back into that. And I think you got a very efficient Court, 13 you know, elected officials, whatever, that do their own 14 scrutinizing thoroughly that keeps those costs down. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. But what I 16 think -- that's not at all in disagreement, I think, with 17 what Commissioner Nicholson brought to the Court last year 18 as kind of a philosophy, is -- is basically asking every 19 department to step back and -- yes, you're doing it 20 efficiently, or as efficiently as you can, but is there a 21 more efficient way? Can you -- as Linda -- Linda got some 22 more technology. Are there things that we can do that 23 enhance productivity? That's what I think the question was. 24 I mean, I think that every elected official, you know, does 25 a very good job, but we do just as we've done -- I mean, 8-27-04 wk 64 1 many of the elected officials in the county have been in 2 this position a long time. 3 MS. PIEPER: Let me respond to this. This is 4 not an ugly comment; I don't mean it to be. My office has 5 been in existence since 1854, and with every County Clerk 6 that comes along, we've all tried to be very effective and 7 efficient and find better ways of doing it. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And we're just 9 saying, let's make it a conscious effort to continue doing 10 that. 11 MS. PIEPER: But we're still doing it, you 12 know. I mean, it's not like we're just sitting there doing 13 nothing. 14 MS. UECKER: Just as a -- a comment to what 15 Commissioner Baldwin was saying, the 10-hour work days have 16 really increased production. They all love it. 17 MS. PIEPER: I thought about that. But, 18 like, on my -- my probate court or my juvenile court, 19 whenever I have, you know, one person in charge of that 20 court, I don't think that would be very efficient. 21 MS. UECKER: That's why I have to choose. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not asking you, 23 in my mind, to emulate the District Clerk's four-times-ten 24 formula. If it works for the District Clerk, that's great. 25 If you believe that that can't work for you, that's -- I 8-27-04 wk 65 1 understand that, and I'm -- I understand. 2 MS. PIEPER: One other -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But where I am -- 4 where I do come from in this whole issue is, I think that 5 I'd be more inclined to consider your request if you were to 6 tell this Court you're willing to rearrange your part-time 7 considerations and eliminate -- I'm not talking about where 8 you have to fill in for a vacation, but what you described 9 as full-time part-time, to me, doesn't resonate. It really 10 doesn't resonate. If you have a job there that you have 11 somebody in on a full-time part-time basis, that job's there 12 when that person's not there as well, or some portion of it 13 is. I'd be more willing to see your request granted if you 14 would figure out a way to eliminate situations like this and 15 give yourself more productivity and the availability of an 16 employee all the time which could do the things you want 17 done, whether it's in that task or some other task. 18 MS. PIEPER: Yes, I'm willing to do whatever 19 I have to do, you know. And the person that I would re -- 20 you know, that I'll -- if I could get, would do multiple 21 tasks, not just one or two. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the -- that's 23 the key to a good -- good, efficient operation. 24 MS. PIEPER: Because everybody in my office 25 has to be able to do multiple tasks, you know. If my 8-27-04 wk 66 1 probate deputy is out, then, you know, I've got to have 2 several that know how to do that, not just one or two. 3 Because one may be at a -- you know, in two different 4 courts. But the only thing I want to add is, our property 5 transactions continue to increase with the growth of the 6 county, not only from the county, but the city transactions 7 as well. Any time somebody even buys a house in the city, 8 you know, our -- our abstract companies -- we have three of 9 them. They come in every day with a whole stack of filings. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page is the 11 County Clerk on? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 3. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: 3. 3, 4, 5, 6 -- 5. If there 14 are no other questions for the clerk on the information 15 which she furnished, why don't we recess for about 15 16 minutes, and come back and move to the next -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like -- I want to 18 start on the County Clerk again. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, fine. 20 (Recess taken from 10:23 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.) 21 - - - - - - - - - - 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we come back to 23 order? We've been in recess here for a bit. Commissioner 24 Letz wanted to resume some questions on the County Clerk's 25 budget. 8-27-04 wk 67 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have some too, when 2 you finish. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I had was, I 4 want to make sure I understand it. The notes that I have on 5 my Page 5, which is the County Clerk's budget, was to add 6 the employee back, and that was -- and the only question was 7 what to do on the other thing. But -- you know, like I said 8 on the salaries of the other ones that were adjusted last 9 year, and that hasn't been resolved. But Commissioner 10 Williams brought up that he, I guess -- this is how I 11 understood it, anyway -- that you were going to reduce your 12 part-time to get that other person back. 13 MS. PIEPER: If I need to, yes, sir, that's 14 fine. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I had -- that was 16 my question, is what's the Court's -- where is everybody at 17 on their notes, and what do they have on their page? 'Cause 18 I had the -- my note said, "Add employee back," and I did 19 not change the part-time request. 20 MS. PIEPER: That part-time, the 9,500, that 21 is Betty Burney's salary. She works two days a week, and 22 she helps us index and scan our records. But if I have to 23 -- if have I to give that up to -- to get another employee, 24 I'll be more than happy to do that. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you say that one 8-27-04 wk 68 1 more time? 2 MS. PIEPER: If I have to give up -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: More than happy? 4 MS. PIEPER: -- that part-time salary line 5 item to get another person, I will do that. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've added an employee 7 back, and I changed the number to 260,885. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to ask you a 9 question. I want to go back to this -- what you prepared 10 for us. 11 MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Appreciate that very 13 much. But down here, Kerr County notes -- excuse me -- 14 MS. PIEPER: Yes? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- it talks about 16 County Court at Law coordinator sets the hearings for civil 17 and assists in County Court at Law activities. 18 MS. PIEPER: Right. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess my question 20 is -- I think I know the answer -- does your office handle 21 civil work for the County Court at Law? 22 MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir, we do. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a reason why 24 that -- to help you take some of your workload away, is 25 there any reason why that couldn't be shifted to the 8-27-04 wk 69 1 District Clerk's office? 2 MS. PIEPER: By statutory -- back in 1985, 3 that's how it was set up. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, I didn't 5 hear the answer. 6 MS. PIEPER: Back in 1985, when County Court 7 at Law was set up, I get every third civil case. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My question is, is 9 there a reason why the County Court at Law civil work 10 couldn't be moved to the District Clerk's Office, so that 11 all the courts are in the District Clerk's Office? And that 12 would relieve your operation of that responsibility. 13 MS. PIEPER: Well, statutorily, I'm 14 responsible for them. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not going to 16 debate that at this point. But you're responsible only for 17 the CCL court -- County Court at Law? You're not 18 responsible for civil work that comes out of district? 19 MS. PIEPER: No, I'm not responsible for 20 civil work out of district court. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The law -- the law 22 specifically says you have to do that? Or is that just 23 something that's been in your operation since the creation 24 of the County Court at Law? 25 MS. PIEPER: Since the creation of County 8-27-04 wk 70 1 Court at Law. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So my question is, 3 can that work be shifted to the District Clerk, relieving 4 you of the necessity to do civil court work, and combining 5 those under the District Clerk? That's my question. Is 6 there any -- is there any impediment in the law that says 7 you can't do that? 8 MS. UECKER: Well, how that -- the way the 9 County Court at Law was set up is each -- for County Courts 10 at Law, each county has a separate piece of legislation. 11 There's actually a bill that says Kerr County is set up this 12 way. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 14 MS. UECKER: And they can set them up however 15 they want to. At the time, ours was established so that 16 every third case went to -- to the County Clerk, including 17 family law cases. However, we found that -- and this was 18 before your time, I think -- that sending every third family 19 law case down was actually unworkable, because we had some 20 child support being paid there, some being paid upstairs. 21 People would come up and say, "I want to find this divorce." 22 "Well, it's not here; you might check downstairs." So, the 23 County Judge -- I mean the County Court at Law Judge and 24 District Judge -- both District Judges signed an order that 25 said all family law cases will go upstairs, to eliminate 8-27-04 wk 71 1 that problem. Now, there's two ways that you could change 2 that; to have another order signed by those three judges 3 saying those civil cases will be moved upstairs, or change 4 that piece of legislation. Or file a bill to amend that 5 statute. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Am I hearing 7 correctly, that the legislation prohibits it as it stands? 8 Which -- 9 MS. UECKER: No. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's merely a court 11 order that would -- that would prevent it from being done? 12 MS. UECKER: Yeah. It's local legislation, 13 yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, the 15 reality is, there is no legal impediment to doing it. 16 MS. UECKER: I don't think so, no. It's just 17 the way it was established back when it was set up. And 18 Judge Barton was here, and I think Judge Brown and Judge 19 Jordan. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question would 21 be, is that -- I don't know that -- I mean, is there an 22 efficiency reason to do it? I mean -- 23 MS. PIEPER: No, sir, there's not, because 24 that's not the real problem. That -- that department is 25 running fine. And during elections, and -- and the only 8-27-04 wk 72 1 person that I have that's bilingual is also in that 2 department. So -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you know what the 4 caseload is right now that your department would handle on 5 those civil cases? 6 MS. PIEPER: Civil is pretty light for County 7 Court at Law. I mean, for the court that I handle. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you have an 9 employee just dedicated for that purpose? 10 MS. PIEPER: No, I have three people -- I 11 have four people in that department, and all four of them -- 12 I have an administrator, and then I have three other ones, 13 and that department handles the criminal, civil, and 14 juvenile. However, if I have people that are out of the 15 office that work in other departments, then I can call on 16 one of them to come and assist in probate or to assist in 17 vital records or to assist in land records, wherever I may 18 need them. And then on -- on Tuesdays, we run anywhere from 19 50 to 65 people through criminal court. It takes every one 20 of them. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I guess it's 22 not an issue that we'll resolve here in this discussion, but 23 I'm just wondering whether or not some ongoing study about 24 the efficiencies that might accrue from such a move could be 25 undertaken between the two clerks, and the Court be apprised 8-27-04 wk 73 1 of what the outcome of that study is. That's what I'm 2 wondering aloud. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, to make sure my book, 4 and I guess Tommy's book, are -- or page is the same, or 5 ours -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Before you get there, I still 7 think we're lacking -- there she is; she moved on us. 8 MS. NEMEC: You found me. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: -- the answer to an issue on 10 the classification aspect, where there were either four or 11 five employees that were reclassified last year in this 12 arrangement, and I'm concerned about the net overall effect. 13 MS. PIEPER: They were not reclassified, 14 though. They kept their same titles. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: They were reclassified for 16 compensation purposes, and that's -- that's where I see the 17 potential problem relative to looking at the others in -- 18 within the system. And I think that's what Commissioner 19 Baldwin's' concern was, if I understood him correctly. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Exactly. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: And -- and I see that as some 22 -- as creating other -- other issues, other potential 23 problems. And, you know, while we may shift -- take an 24 amount off of one line item and include it in another line 25 item, I don't think it solves this -- this step/grade 8-27-04 wk 74 1 problem that -- that we have now created as a result of last 2 year. I see it as a problem right now -- 3 MS. PIEPER: Well, it was not -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: -- if we go back. 5 MS. PIEPER: Maybe I misunderstood last year, 6 but I was not really under the impression that if this did 7 not work out, that the girls would have their salary taken 8 away. I mean, it was my understanding that if it doesn't 9 work out with one less employee, come back and we'll fix it. 10 You know, maybe I misunderstood last year. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I guess -- but 12 why would we -- I presume the -- if you said the class -- 13 the classification didn't change; we just increased the -- 14 MS. PIEPER: It was just like a merit 15 increase, or -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not a merit 17 increase, though, because, I mean, that's not -- that 18 doesn't -- the policy is very clear what a merit increase 19 is. 20 MS. PIEPER: Well, step increase or 21 something. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is step the first number 23 or the second number? 24 MS. NEMEC: The step is -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Step's first, so the 8-27-04 wk 75 1 grade -- we increased the grade on these employees? Is that 2 what was done? 3 MS. NEMEC: No, the step -- the step is the 4 second number. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it was a step 6 increase. 7 MS. NEMEC: The step is Step 1, Step 2, Step 8 3. The grade is 7, 8, going up. I can address the Court on 9 what happened last year, if I may. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Please do. 11 MS. NEMEC: What the personnel policy says is 12 that you cannot give merit increases for extra workload that 13 is given to an employee, so what was given to those 14 employees was not a merit increase, although their step did 15 go up a few steps across-the-board. If this had been a 16 reclassification, then we would have needed a new job 17 description and they would have been reclassified, as far as 18 their pay group, to a larger pay group. The way I 19 understood it was, because it was on a trial basis, they 20 were just going to be moved up a couple of steps, not 21 merits, and see if it worked out. So, they weren't given a 22 merit and they weren't reclassified. They were just given 23 extra money for their workload. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, for the assumed 25 extra workload. 8-27-04 wk 76 1 MS. NEMEC: Right. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, how many are we 3 talking about and how many steps in grade? Do you know? 4 MS. PIEPER: It was just one. 5 MS. NEMEC: I don't know how many actually 6 were affected by that. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm speaking from 8 recollection, but my recollection was there were two that 9 had two step increases each. 10 MS. PIEPER: I don't remember. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: And two or three that had a 12 one-step increase. That's my recollection. I can go back. 13 MS. NEMEC: I could go back and compare the 14 position schedule from last year -- for the year before to 15 this past year and see who was moved up, and we could tell 16 by that. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a -- 18 MS. NEMEC: So, really, what was done last 19 year is not something that we would normally do. We would 20 have fixed it either with a reclassification, and we didn't. 21 And I think the reason it wasn't done that way was because 22 you were going to see how it worked. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think that we made 24 a mistake allowing that to happen that way. I don't think 25 the employee should suffer. 8-27-04 wk 77 1 MS. PIEPER: That's what I'm thinking. And 2 it was such a minute amount for each person. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not a minute amount. 4 I don't think they under -- based on what you're telling me, 5 I don't think the employees understood what was being done, 6 so I don't know -- and I will give the benefit of doubt to 7 the employees, that they didn't know. I don't want to 8 reduce their -- their paycheck, but I -- I think that we -- 9 I mean, I've learned a lesson that -- no more trials. I 10 mean, you either do it or you don't do it. But it's -- this 11 is a problem, in my mind. But what I wrote down is, under 12 Deputy Salary, 260,885. I'm not really sure where I got 13 that number. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me too. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And from what I'm 16 hearing Jannett say, part-time can be reduced. I think you 17 need some part-time, so I'd reduce it to 2,500. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 260 what? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 260,885 for Deputies' 20 Salaries. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm not sure that's -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know where that 23 number came from. We add one employee back. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Right, we just add an 25 employee. 8-27-04 wk 78 1 MS. NEMEC: At what -- what grade? 2 MS. PIEPER: 12-1. 3 MS. NEMEC: 12-1? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And part-time -- 5 MS. PIEPER: Thank you, gentlemen. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: I'll just make it to what -- 7 whatever is -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whatever it turns out to 9 be, okay. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: And you're reducing part-time 11 to 25? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 13 MS. UECKER: Can I be next? 14 MS. PIEPER: Well, I got them fired up. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thought we did you 16 already. 17 MS. UECKER: Well, you did. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: You went on vacation, didn't 19 you? 20 MS. UECKER: You didn't pay me, though. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. (Laughter.) 22 Careful, he who laughs. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I'm sitting here 24 quiet, not saying a word. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you jumping up and down 8-27-04 wk 79 1 again, Rusty? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Be careful how you're 3 laughing out there. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Linda, Linda. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page are you on, 6 madam District Clerk? 7 MS. UECKER: I don't have a page at all. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, you do. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Linda, just from the 10 radio -- I listen to the radio when I'm driving, and you're 11 wearing a very aggressive color today. 12 MS. UECKER: Am I? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just be aware of that. 14 They're not allowed to use any red pens any more in schools; 15 it's kind of an aggressive color. So, if I get aggressive, 16 you know why. 17 MS. UECKER: It's peach. It's peach. Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of 19 watermelon. 20 MS. UECKER: It's watermelon or something. 21 Just to clarify what happened last year at -- well, when I 22 agreed not to fill that position was I had -- my microfilm 23 person got a -- a one-step increase. That was it. The 24 other ones that did, those were longevity. Now, when I left 25 last -- the last budget hearing last year, I was under the 8-27-04 wk 80 1 impression that by this year, we would have a written merit 2 increase policy in place, and since that hasn't happened, in 3 my budget I did request some amount to allow for a merit 4 increase if my performance evaluations merit that. I'm 5 getting ready to do my annual performance evaluations, and 6 I've got a form here, if y'all want to kind of look and see 7 how I do that, which every department head should do annual 8 performance evaluations. That's what any human resources 9 will tell you. But before I do that, I need to know whether 10 or not the Court is going to allow me some amount, whatever 11 it is, to -- as a merit increase before I go to my staff and 12 say, you know, I'm going to do this evaluation. Doesn't 13 matter what the results are, because you're not going to get 14 rewarded for good performance anyway. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are you saying that 16 if there's no merit salary increase money available, then 17 it's not necessary to do this -- 18 MS. UECKER: Well, I do them anyway, because 19 it's a good policy and it gives the employee a good idea of 20 where they stand, and it gives us an opportunity to sit down 21 and talk about where the discrepancies or the weaknesses 22 are. I do that based on a number per each item or each 23 element on the exam itself. But what I'm seeing is, you 24 know, I've got a couple that are, you know, really pushing 25 it as far as -- I mean, they're really doing a great job and 8-27-04 wk 81 1 keeping up and trying to learn more and trying to help 2 others. I've got a few that will go to the others and say, 3 "I want to help you," you know. "I want to learn how to do 4 that; teach me how to do that. I want to know how to scan. 5 I want to know how to microfilm." And those are all 6 elements that will bring high scores on the evaluation. But 7 if they know that it doesn't mean anything anyway, then why 8 should I -- you know, I'm going to do my job and that's all. 9 I'm going to do the minimum. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 11 MS. UECKER: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- I'm not 13 sure if it's for the -- you or the Court, but I thought we 14 did a policy for merit increase last year. 15 MS. UECKER: No. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought there was money 17 budgeted, and I remember using a budget amendment to use 18 some of it. 19 MS. UECKER: You put some money somewhere. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is money, and 21 I'm looking to find it. 22 MS. PIEPER: It was a $10,000 line item that 23 y'all did, and -- 24 MS. UECKER: There was money put in a box 25 somewhere. I don't know how much it is. 8-27-04 wk 82 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is money. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know there's money. 3 MS. UECKER: But there is no policy 4 established as to how a department head or an elected 5 official may give that merit increase. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I beg to 7 disagree with you somewhat. 8 MS. UECKER: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is a policy, 10 but Commissioner Nicholson and I were attempting to rewrite 11 it, and as we speak, we didn't get it rewritten. 12 MS. UECKER: Well, that's what I'm saying; it 13 hasn't happened. So, as a result of that, I'm just asking 14 for some amount to be added to my personnel if, in fact, 15 these performance evaluations show that somebody deserves 16 a -- a merit increase. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have one more question. 18 One more question, and this is just -- truly just an 19 information request, and really, every elected official in 20 here, I'd like to hear the answer. Is it more important in 21 your mind to allow for merit increases, or to bring the 22 bottom end of the pay structure up a little bit? In other 23 words, those that -- 24 MS. PIEPER: To bring the bottom end up. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Bottom end up. 8-27-04 wk 83 1 MS. PIEPER: Because on that merit thing, if 2 you don't have a reason, you're not going to get it, 3 basically, and that's what I've heard from other elected 4 officials. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's a -- maybe 6 we can do both. I don't know, but I know that there's a -- 7 that's a -- a personnel issue overall, county-wide. I think 8 the question that I have is as to what's more important, 9 and -- 10 MS. UECKER: I would say, too, that 11 generally, you know, to benefit everyone, the answer has to 12 be the bottom end up. But at some point, we have to 13 consider those employees that go above and beyond to -- you 14 know, and I'm not -- although -- you know, and Barbara said 15 it earlier. She said the current personnel policy says that 16 you can't give a merit increase for added duties. But it's 17 been done here this year by this Court. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Reclassified, didn't we? 19 MS. PIEPER: No, it was a merit increase. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's a matter of 21 semantics at this point. The merit increase is actually a 22 one-year award; is that not correct? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It stays with them. 24 MS. NEMEC: It stays with them. The grade 25 stays with them. 8-27-04 wk 84 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Stays with them. I'm 2 not sure when the Court did that, that Ms. Uecker's 3 referring to. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: If you truly want it to be a 5 merit situation, it would seem to me that it should be a 6 one-year award, unless you're going to reclassify that 7 employee for a permanent-type increase. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's a bonus, and 9 you can't do bonuses. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand that. You call 11 it a merit increase for a period of one year. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But it stays with the 13 base. It's attached to the base and stays with the base. 14 MS. NEMEC: If someone is a 12-2 and an 15 elected official recommends them for a merit, and they 16 become a 12-3, no matter what period during this year that 17 happens, then in the -- when we're figuring for the next 18 budget year, we're figuring that employee at a 12-3, 'cause 19 that -- they're moving up the ladder. That's how they start 20 earning their -- 21 MS. UECKER: That's how they go up the -- 22 what's the last one? 23 MS. NEMEC: Twelve. We -- 24 MS. UECKER: The last -- the step. That's 25 how you go up that stepladder, is either by merit or 8-27-04 wk 85 1 longevity. 2 MS. NEMEC: Longevity. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: So, what you're telling me is 4 that, under that system, an employee who has one 5 extraordinary year doesn't have to continue to attempt to 6 excel once they achieve that next step. 7 MS. PIEPER: If they want another merit 8 increase, they'll have to continue. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's -- I don't 10 have a problem with that, because that's the same as the 11 private sector. I know -- I mean, when I was at Exxon, if I 12 had a great year, I got a bigger raise. If I was 13 evaluated -- and even though I thought I did just as good, 14 if I was evaluated to have a mediocre year, the next year my 15 raise was a lot less. I think that's just standard. I 16 don't know how you can do it any other way. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think executive 18 compensation is treated differently than -- than 19 rank-and-file compensation. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think I was 21 treated as an executive. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we're putting you 23 in the executive ranks, and you will be treated differently. 24 Some of us have been there before and have gotten bonuses, 25 and I think largely it's called a bonus in the private 8-27-04 wk 86 1 industry. But merit increases, I've always believed, to 2 the -- to your base of employees, is for work that exceeds 3 the expectations for the job. And when that has been 4 accomplished, the merit -- you give them a merit increase, 5 and it sticks with them. Now, if, the next year, they start 6 dogging it, then it's up to the supervisor to do something 7 about it. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Supervisor can do 10 something about it. 11 MS. UECKER: Exactly. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Which, of course, is much 14 easier to do in the private sector, I think we'd all agree. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One more question. 16 Barbara, what is a one-step increase? How much money is 17 that? 18 MS. NEMEC: Two and a half percent. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two and a half percent. 20 MS. NEMEC: Right. Now, with the schedule 21 that we're working on now, if we go to a 3 percent 22 cost-of-living, that schedule's going to change, so each 23 step is going to be 3 percent. Is that correct? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I, frankly, wouldn't 25 be adverse to adding a factor to each department. 8-27-04 wk 87 1 MS. NEMEC: It's just going to be 3 percent 2 the other way. 3 MS. UECKER: Several years ago that was done, 4 and I don't -- I think you were part of the Court. And -- 5 but I don't know if -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: About four years. 7 MS. UECKER: -- you were part of the Court. 8 And it worked so well, because -- and I don't need -- I 9 don't think I even used all of mine, but we were given a 10 certain percent to divide as we wanted to if we thought -- 11 and I don't think Paula used any of hers. 12 MS. RECTOR: Yeah, I did. 13 MS. UECKER: Did you? But, you know, it just 14 gives the department head the opportunity to reward someone 15 that says, you know, "Linda, I know you didn't tell me you 16 to do this, but I went ahead and did it for you, and here's 17 the result." And, you know, "It's not part of my job, but I 18 did it anyway. I knew you were going to have to do it." 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like it. I just go 20 back to my original question that I had. I think it was 21 what's more important, the merit or the bringing everyone up 22 from the bottom? 23 MS. UECKER: Well, that's an obvious answer. 24 It has to be the bottom up. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8-27-04 wk 88 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just, for example, on 2 your current deputy clerk salary base, you're at 189 -- say 3 190,000. 2 percent of that would be $3,800. Whether 4 it's -- 5 MS. UECKER: See, I would never use that. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- 1 percent or 1 and 7 a half. You know, 1 percent would be $1,800. And instead 8 of our getting involved -- and this is where we fell apart 9 on the merit issue before, getting involved and the Court 10 making those decisions. I'll say it again; I don't want any 11 part of making those decisions. I would just as soon put a 12 factor in your line item, whatever that is, as a percentage 13 of your -- of your pool -- deputy pool money, for you to 14 spread around the way you see fit. And there's no 15 compelling reason why you have to give it away if it's not 16 earned. 17 MS. UECKER: That's right. We just want to 18 be able to do it if -- if that issue comes up. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you can do it 20 through the step and grade process. 21 MS. NEMEC: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To the limit of what 23 your allocation is. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's get back to that 25 thought, Commissioner. If you plug it in for the coming 8-27-04 wk 89 1 year where Ms. Uecker, for example, has, say, 2 and a half 2 percent of her deputy salary line item for merit increases, 3 and let's say, for example, for the coming year, that she 4 determines that all of those funds should be awarded, what 5 budgetary effect does that have on the following year? 6 MS. UECKER: None. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It means when you do 8 the position schedule next year, you're analyzing all the 9 employees in their current position, and if whomever is at a 10 14-2, and she determines that she's -- her service is 11 meritorious enough to take her to a 14-3, then the following 12 year, when Barbara does the position schedule, that employee 13 is shown to us as a 14-3. 14 MS. NEMEC: Right. 15 MS. UECKER: Right. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what it does. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I guess my concern is 18 that you're rolling that into a committed cost for future 19 years. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's correct. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And there's nothing 23 that says that if that employee, in the next year, when the 24 supervisor reviews their employees, determines that person 25 doesn't deserve to continue in that role, she could take her 8-27-04 wk 90 1 back to a 14-2. 2 MS. UECKER: That's right. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But she's going to 4 take the heat, not me. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't think -- I 6 mean, I think the -- I don't -- I haven't ever seen 7 somebody -- a Commissioner or anyone go backwards. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reality of life 9 is, that's true. I agree. 10 MS. UECKER: Well, and the reality is -- is 11 any -- probably it's never happened in -- in my office, but 12 probably if someone deserves, you know, merits going 13 backwards, they probably merit being out of here. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're pretty close 15 to the door. 16 MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What I think you 18 usually see with giving discretionary funds to supervisors 19 for merit increases, and then based on -- administering that 20 based on some subjective document like this, is that if 21 you've got five employees in a shop, one of them will score 22 high this year and get the merit money, and Employee B will 23 score high the next year and get the merit money, so it 24 turns out to be nothing more than -- 25 MS. UECKER: You're not giving us very much 8-27-04 wk 91 1 credit. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I disagree. I mean, I 3 think -- 'cause I think the experience -- the -- I don't 4 know about all. Most of the elected officials have shown us 5 that they haven't used all the money when they were given 6 that discretion, and I don't know -- I think -- I don't know 7 if we did one or two years, but I don't -- 8 MS. UECKER: There's only one -- one elected 9 official that I've talked to that has told me that he'd give 10 it to everybody, and that was the County Attorney. He says, 11 "I give it to everybody." 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I've never asked for 13 one. We started to last year, and that one person was -- 14 ended up being reclassified. But it's hard to ask for in a 15 law enforcement position, 'cause you can't -- in the law 16 enforcement field, except for maybe the clerical -- and that 17 could possibly take care of why I wanted the clerical 18 raised; you know, either reclassify them or that the 19 clerical didn't get it. But an officer, it's hard to tell 20 who you're going to stop next and get after, so I don't 21 know. I don't know how you do it fairly. 22 MS. UECKER: You know, even if you said, 23 okay, we're going to take 2 and a half of the 190,000, cut 24 that amount in half -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1 percent. 8-27-04 wk 92 1 MS. UECKER: Yeah. That would allow us only 2 to give -- that way you couldn't possibly give everybody a 3 raise. That would -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only give two or 5 three of them. Maybe you can give three or whatever. 6 MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm, or one. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's 1 percent of 8 our -- of our, I guess, salary cost, excluding law 9 enforcement? Is there a -- come on, Barbara. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: I would say probably $60,000. 11 Fifty -- 50,000 to 60,000 is 1 percent. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1 percent. 13 MS. UECKER: The only problem I can see with 14 the -- the 1 percent is those -- like your office that only 15 has one employee, that would be difficult to give them a 16 merit increase with just 1 percent, 'cause it wouldn't be a 17 whole step. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And certain -- 19 and real small departments would have to be under a 20 different -- 21 MS. UECKER: There's going to have to be 22 exceptions. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 24 MS. UECKER: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 8-27-04 wk 93 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sheriff, the jail could 2 have a merit -- I mean, you could do that in the jail, could 3 you not? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Law enforcement -- with 5 clerical and office workers and that, I think you can. With 6 law enforcement as a whole, I really don't think you can, 7 'cause everything changes so much day-to-day, that just 8 'cause this officer ended up, you know, really doing 9 something outstanding, well, it just happened that that's 10 when that happened. If another officer is off duty at that 11 time, you know, he's no -- no worse or no better than the 12 one that it happened while he was on duty. So, I don't 13 think that you can in law enforcement. And this is -- I'm 14 not saying with y'all. I saw it tried to be worked under 15 former sheriffs, and unfortunately, what I saw back then, it 16 was more of a pet peeve. You know, whoever got along the 17 best did the best, were given merit raises, and they got 18 them every year, and it went up to where it was out of line. 19 When I took office, we just -- I don't give merit increases; 20 I come back to the Court for raises. 21 MS. UECKER: But just me, personally -- and I 22 don't know how the other elected officials think. Like, I 23 never consider anybody for a merit increase based on one 24 individual incident. It's the overall picture. And I think 25 he was talking about one incident. 8-27-04 wk 94 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not 2 incident-related, it's performance-related. 3 MS. UECKER: Right. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't -- why don't we 5 shift consideration to capital expenditure items? Those are 6 some pretty big-ticket items, and I think we need to 7 determine prioritization on them. I think I furnished 8 everybody a copy at some point. Whether or not I furnished 9 it too quick is another issue. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I just don't 11 have it with me; I got to go get it. You'll make me a copy? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kathy, would you make 13 me one too? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll bet she comes 15 back with five. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thought I had one with 17 red ink all over it, too, that aggressive color. Here we 18 go. Here's my aggressive one. 19 (Discussion off the record.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: What's a grumpy color? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Grumpy? Grumpy's -- I 22 don't know, probably black. Purple. But I -- I'm pretty -- 23 very clearly on the radio, you can no longer use red or 24 orange, because those are aggressive and it's going to hurt 25 your self-esteem. Supposed to use -- supposed to grade 8-27-04 wk 95 1 papers in purple. Can't use green, because it has 2 environmental considerations. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is this a -- 4 MS. UECKER: Jon, somebody needs something to 5 do, don't they? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is this a red 7 regulation or what? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just a -- 9 probably -- we probably don't need to get all this on the 10 record, but it's just -- schools have been discussing this, 11 and it's become a -- on talk radio, which I listen to when 12 I'm driving, a long discussion. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I heard some of that. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: About how teachers are 15 getting away from using red, 'cause it hurts self-esteem 16 when they grade papers. They're using purple now. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: We've got an expert we can 18 swear in here if you want to -- if you want to go there. 19 MS. LAVENDER: I never graded papers with red 20 pens. I always used different colors. 21 (Discussion off the record.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, while we're waiting, 23 let me ask you, do we have a handle on the required 24 implementation of this jail security situation? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Until after this next 8-27-04 wk 96 1 Legislature, no, I don't think we do. It is required at 2 this time for all federal and state prisons. And the five 3 million that the federal government budgeted or gave to the 4 State of Texas to take care of it, when I called them, it 5 was totally going to state prisons; nothing was going to 6 jails. The last that we had was out of the last 7 Legislature, Legislature required us to turn in to the Jail 8 Commission how many more cameras it would take to, you know, 9 fully film that and all, and all that is being compiled by 10 the Jail Commission and has to go to the Legislature when 11 they start back up. So, we don't know whether they're going 12 to offer some grant funding for it or not, or what. So, I 13 have no idea. And the three proposals we got, that's kind 14 of how we based them on -- you know, you had programmed in 15 the whole amount, but to be honest, not knowing that, my 16 main need in there, of course, is getting -- get started to 17 where we can at least see and use the video equipment we 18 have now, and using some of the same cameras. But these 19 were the three bids that we looked at. And the main one 20 would be the 39, to at least convert part of that over to 21 digital and start using some of the cameras we have. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: We've got three different 23 phases on you; we got a 39, we got an 85, and we got a 141. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: 141 is turnkey, everything. 8-27-04 wk 97 1 85 is -- 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 85 is adding some of the 3 new cameras in areas that would have to be covered, and 4 mainly replacing more of our old cameras and equipment. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The 39 -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Is a bandaid. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- is replacing just the 9 equipment we have right now. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And using our old 12 cameras. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me shift right quick to 14 the next Sheriff item of yours. The 44, that's basically a 15 nonnegotiable item, because you're already -- you're already 16 hooked up to your -- well, no, those are for four new 17 vehicles and the work truck. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We're already hooked up 20 to the work truck. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: And the vehicles are under the 23 continuing program that has been going on for several years? 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. We started out 25 getting six a year. It went down last year, I guess, to 8-27-04 wk 98 1 four when we worked constables and that, and then it stayed 2 at four, and I left it at four this year and in this year's 3 budget. It's going to put us in a bind later. We got a 4 couple of those white ones, the first set, the 2000's, that 5 have over 170,000 miles on them now, so I don't know what's 6 going to happen in the future, but I asked for four this 7 year. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me shift, if I 9 could, right quick to the next three items after those. 10 Constable 1, 2, and 3. Those can each be reduced by $3,500, 11 down -- down to $8,000 as a result of -- of getting the 12 cameras themselves off a grant, and the $5,000 portion of 13 that has been reduced to 1,500 for the upgrade kit and 14 supplies and the installation. So, each of those comes down 15 to eight. Constable Ayala, I'm correct in those figures, am 16 I not? 17 MR. AYALA: I think, according to Tommy, our 18 lease payments are more than I had -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: You said $6,500 on that. 20 MR. AYALA: That's what my paperwork says, 21 but he says it's 7,100. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: It's 7,200. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I believe it's 72. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got it. Hold on 25 just a second, if I can find them. 8-27-04 wk 99 1 JUDGE TINLEY: That may have included some -- 2 some installation and equipment costs on the front end. I 3 don't know. Let's see what it says on the lease. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Constable? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: There -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 7,153 on the lease 7 payment. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Lease payment. That's what 9 the actual payment was this time. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: 7,150? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 7,153. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Add 1,500, so that would be 13 8,653. Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 8,653? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Judge, on that jail 17 capital, you had plugged in that 141, but I think the total 18 is about -- what, 140 -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: 47. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That also covers the 21 food carts, so if you go back down to the 39 one, I would 22 appreciate still leaving in that difference in there so that 23 we can take care of those other small capital items. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: So, what about the 85? Does 25 that include just the camera portion? 8-27-04 wk 100 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The 85, you would have 2 to again take out the 141 and then add the 85 in, but take 3 out the 141. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, 6,500. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you at 85? Are you 6 with the 85,000 one? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not anywhere. I've just 8 noted the options we got. I think it's the Court's decision 9 to decide which one of those we grab hold on. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which item are you 11 on? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: For the County Jail. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: The surveillance system. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: The three different options 17 that the Sheriff gave us there. 18 MS. PIEPER: Judge? On the -- that part-time 19 salary for the records archival, I checked on that. That 20 can stay in that line item. Actually, that's mostly what 21 that's for. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: The part-time salary of 23 11,196? 24 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8-27-04 wk 101 1 MS. PIEPER: Yeah, 1,000 -- yes. Also, I 2 forgot Word Merge, the $3,700, my part of the Word Merge. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Can that also come out of 4 that? 5 MS. PIEPER: I don't know -- no, 'cause we 6 can't buy software out of that. And that's what that Word 7 Merge would be, right? 8 MS. UECKER: You need to do it out of your 9 software line. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, needs to come out 11 of the software line item. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm looking at Records 13 Management. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a -- Records 15 Management? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 17 MS. PIEPER: Do you have a question on that, 18 Commissioner Letz? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- where does that 20 go, Jannett? 21 MS. PIEPER: $3,700? Software Maintenance 22 Group. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Software Maintenance? 24 MS. PIEPER: That should be -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In Records Management? 8-27-04 wk 102 1 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 2 MS. PIEPER: No, sir, that should be 3 10-403-563. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 563. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: So that needs to go from 22,8 6 to -- what is that, 3,700 that was added? 7 MS. PIEPER: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I hate to say this, 9 but Commissioner Baldwin and I are lost in this discussion. 10 Where did we leave off? We were on the jail, and all of a 11 sudden we're back in Records Management. (Laughter.) 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I just got the 13 expenditure line item. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to put my 15 helicopter back in Commissioners Court. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: You got it. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioners Court. 18 But I want to change colors; I want it pink so it don't 19 offend anybody. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On the jail capital -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here we go with jail. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, just quickly, what 23 I would recommend the Court do, because we don't know -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Page 6. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- what the State's 8-27-04 wk 103 1 going to do, is let's plug in -- there is the 141. Drop 2 that by 102,000, and let's wait and see if the State's going 3 to help fund these systems. That would replace the 4 essential stuff. That's the 39,000 that we -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're at 55,5 for the 6 Sheriff. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So you're dropping 10 102,000, and let's see what the State's going to do. I 11 think they need to pick it up if they're going to mandate 12 it. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean 45. 45,5, I'm 14 sorry. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But it takes care of our 16 immediate problems. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, that was the 18 smartest thing said today. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So you don't want 20 141,2. You want what? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: 45,5. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 45,5. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that. Keep 24 cutting. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 8-27-04 wk 104 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If they want you -- if 2 they require you to have it, they should pay for it. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They should help -- at 4 least help. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 6 (Discussion off the record.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Looks like Page 6, County 8 Clerk, in order to incorporate Word Merge, 563, Software 9 Maintenance, add 27, which will bring it to 26,5. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's this part-time 11 salary of 11,196? What's that all about? 12 MS. PIEPER: That comes out of that new fund 13 that was just set up the last legislative session for any 14 old records from 1990 back. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So the money's coming 16 from the State, and it goes into which -- into your Records 17 Management budget? Is that where it goes? 18 MS. PIEPER: It's -- I have three Records 19 Management budgets, one of which y'all kind of have control 20 over, and then two of them which you don't, but I still have 21 to inform you of. And, basically, that's what that one is. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one is this? 23 The one we have control over, or -- 24 MS. PIEPER: No, sir, the one you don't have 25 control over. 8-27-04 wk 105 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why are we even 2 talking about it? 3 MS. PIEPER: Because I still need to let you 4 be aware of it. And that fee for every document that is 5 filed, there is $5 that's going into that particular line 6 item for those particular documents, and we will only be 7 able to use that until September 2008, I believe. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the 11,196 comes off 9 the capital expenditure worksheet, correct? 10 MS. PIEPER: No, sir, I checked on that -- 11 oh, well, I don't -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Doesn't really make any 13 difference, because it's a segregated fund that -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, the 15 needs to come 16 off, 'cause she's done that out of this year's budget. 17 MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, then, that 19 whole 26,196 comes out. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the 11,196 is charged to 21 that Records Management budget. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but it's not a 23 capital item. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: This year. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not a capital 8-27-04 wk 106 1 item. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we delete that whole 3 line; it's somewhere else. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably so, yeah. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: I've already fixed that in 6 the -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Everything comes out. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: We sure wish you'd have spoken 10 sooner. You want to talk about the roof, Buster? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can. We can talk 12 about it. I like roofs. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I still see the number 15 there of 50 to 60. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I couldn't 18 remember what we decided the other day. I thought the 19 Maintenance Supervisor was going to find out. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think he's had time to 21 get that, very frankly. I think he's working on it based 22 upon -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I have 25 some information on that. I was talking to one of my 8-27-04 wk 107 1 neighbors about another subject, and he's -- he's a 2 contractor, and -- steel buildings, and he had heard about 3 this, and he was telling me that in all -- he confirmed what 4 your concerns were. The flat roof is not good. There's an 5 alternative to a gabled roof that's less expensive, and 6 that's just a roof that -- that's pitched a little bit -- a 7 standing-seam steel roof that won't leak for -- last 8 forever. And it's a one-quarter to one-half on 12-pitch; 9 just a little bit of a pitch so water runs off of them. I 10 called Glenn to get information from him about the size of 11 the building. Turns out we need about 15,000 square feet of 12 roof. Oh, and when I called Glenn, he had come onto that 13 same idea, and he was going to Fredericksburg to look at a 14 building that had been retrofitted that way. And then one 15 other piece of information I have -- oh, in connection with 16 that, I also learned that probably it'll help solve the 17 air-conditioning problem, 'cause you couldn't leave those 18 air-conditioners on this new pitched roof. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge? 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This same contractor 21 tells me that he's doing this at Mooney. You know the 22 problems they've got with their leaking roofs over there. 23 This is the solution that he's going to be doing over there. 24 I don't have -- I don't have good numbers, but it sounds 25 like it can be done for something in the range of 55,000 to 8-27-04 wk 108 1 60,000. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To me -- 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's real rough, 4 not worth putting in the budget. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To me, this falls -- 6 I know that if we do it, it comes under a capital -- or 7 comes under the maintenance schedule. This calls into 8 question the whole philosophical discussion about the future 9 of this facility. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It does. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not just the roof. 12 And for the last three years, we have spent a lot of 13 money -- a lot of money keeping that operation open. Not 14 just the fact that the roof leaks, but keeping it open, and 15 expenses and salaries and so forth and so on. Year-to-date 16 expenses this year for that operation are $174,000. We 17 haven't booked anything near $174,000. Now, I appreciate we 18 have an obligation to the stock show, and I want us to 19 continue that obligation, but I think we have to take a 20 whole serious look at where we are with this facility. I 21 can tell you right here and right now, I, for one, would 22 like to see the Court seriously entertain the formation of a 23 facilities -- capital facilities corporation, and we get 24 this thing away from us at arm's length and let somebody 25 else take a look at how they're going to get that facility 8-27-04 wk 109 1 up to speed so that it is a good facility, one that the 2 county can be proud of, and that it takes care of our 3 agricultural requirements and needs and obligations, and 4 takes care of our things that go to economic development in 5 this county. And that's where I am on this. Not spending 6 $60,000. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you want to do that 8 today? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. Are we 11 going to put a roof on it or not? 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would like to 13 comment on that and say that I think the Commissioner's on 14 the right track conceptually. What I'd like to do is to 15 give it away to a not-for-profit, whether it's a 16 corporation -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You want to do that 18 today? 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we going to put a 21 roof on it or not? 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And what I'd like to 23 do is take that $175,000 a year and use that as seed money 24 that that new organization could use to -- to rehabilitate 25 it, and taper -- taper that money off over about three 8-27-04 wk 110 1 years, so three years from now we would be out of the -- the 2 facilities management business. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I don't 4 disagree with what Commissioners 2 and 4 have said, but I'm 5 kind of with Commissioner Baldwin. Are we doing a roof now? 6 Because I don't think either of those precluded us having to 7 fix that building, or tearing it down. Tearing it down, I 8 don't see is an option. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to do both. 10 I'd like to put a roof on it and pursue a longer-term 11 solution. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the problem with 13 putting the money for a roof is that I really think that the 14 first thing -- before you can -- I think we need to plan for 15 the roof. I think the roof comes next year, though. I 16 think this year you have to look at the office space in 17 between, because as soon as you take the roof off, you 18 collapse the two -- everything in between the two buildings. 19 I would rather us budget everything to tear out that middle 20 section where all the office space is right now, eliminate 21 that, which is just a bunch of lean-to mess, and then go 22 back behind the exhibit hall area there where some storage 23 area is and put some -- the office space that we have to 24 have out there. Put office space into that storage area, 25 and then next year, put the roof on. I'm not opposed to 8-27-04 wk 111 1 putting a roof on this year; I just think we don't have the 2 money to do both of those things. You can't do the roof -- 3 or maybe you do the roof and the tear-out -- well, you would 4 have to air-condition the roof at the same time. I mean, 5 you can't -- it's not just the roof; it's the roof/ 6 air-conditioner tear-out. That's one item to fix that, and 7 I don't know what the cost is, but it's well over 60,000. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a cost -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to do 10 that, period, over the next two years, or one year if we can 11 afford it. And I think we need to pursue the other options 12 as well, but I think that -- that building can be 13 rehabilitated. It may not be the greatest building, but 14 that building -- you put a new roof on, put new 15 air-conditioning in it, tear out that stuff in the middle, 16 it is an exhibit hall. It's not the fanciest thing around, 17 but it can be used, and it's the most economic short-term 18 way to fix something out there, in my mind. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, again, it's a 20 bandaid approach. It doesn't solve the long-term -- the 21 long-term problem. I think that gets us back -- we need a 22 really in-depth philosophical discussion on the whole issue. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What if -- what if 24 you -- what if our goal -- our vision would change to get 25 out of this rental thing totally, completely? Just have 8-27-04 wk 112 1 this thing sit there for stock show only. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that idea. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can't do it today. 4 We're talking about putting a roof on it. But -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But I like that idea. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I do too. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And 4-H. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you know, those 9 youth/ag-related issues that the place was built for. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Agriculture-related, 11 let them use it. Anything else, go find another venue. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know about the 13 thing falling down because you don't use it enough. I don't 14 know anything about that, but I like that idea. You know, 15 you don't worry about bookings and rentals and chairs and -- 16 I never did get real excited about that. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me ask you, if 18 we went to agricultural use only, which would seriously 19 limit the amount of days in use, would that cut our 20 operating costs? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It should. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It should. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's still going to -- 25 it's still going to cost. 8-27-04 wk 113 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, but we could 2 cut people and electricity and supplies and -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We cut -- we would find 4 out what it costs. I mean, at least in my mind, the minimum 5 amount the County can spend, which would be a subsidy if we 6 are able to spin this thing off on some other corporation. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would go that 8 route, Commissioner, in a heartbeat, from the get-go right 9 now, which gives us an opportunity then to study what needs 10 to be done with the whole facility and form a facilities 11 corp., turn it over to them, figure out how we're going to 12 make that happen, and cut our knot right now. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you mean, form 14 a corporation and turn it over to them? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we've done it. 16 We've done that before. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Out there? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We did that with the 19 Juvenile Detention Center. I mean, that's not a foreign 20 concept. We can do that. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a foreign -- 22 that is a foreign concept with the Ag Barn, though. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that -- you're 25 saying that we -- I'm saying that we keep total control of 8-27-04 wk 114 1 it, keep it for the agricultural youth of the county, and 2 don't turn it over to any corporation, to Sudie or the City 3 or anybody else. We hold on to it and run it ourselves. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The City, no. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Sudie is -- 6 Sudie is not an arm of the City? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, no, no, I'm 8 not -- I'm not getting any of that. I'm talking about -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just, you know -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Those are things 11 we'll really need to talk about. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can't do both. 13 You can't keep it and run it for the ag people and turn it 14 over to somebody else. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not at one fell 16 swoop, you're right. But in an orderly progression, we 17 could do that. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We probably won't, 19 though, Bill. I mean, I'll put you on notice; it's probably 20 not going to happen. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Both of those ideas 22 have merit, and we can -- we could evaluate and pick the 23 best one. And not -- not this month, probably, but we -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not today. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- we can do it 8-27-04 wk 115 1 pretty easily. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, are we going to go 3 with a one- or a two-year plan on fixing the roof and the 4 air-conditioners and tearing out the shed? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the office space 6 and the concession stand. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much does a few 8 buckets of tar cost? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Glenn said he could 10 repair it for 60 grand. Isn't that what he said the other 11 day? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's shift gears, if we 14 might, here. I don't think we're getting anywhere, folks. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Have we got any -- have we got 17 any serious dissension to the Sheriff replacing four 18 vehicles? And work truck's already in there; we got the 19 lease at the same time, so we're already hitched up to that. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm cool with that. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm there. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's okay? Okay. On 23 the four J.P.'s, those aggregate -- 14,286. Do we have that 24 much in the technology fund? I think we're going to have 25 that, aren't we? 8-27-04 wk 116 1 MR. TOMLINSON: 14,000? Yes, we will. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cool with that. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: So, we can do all of those out 4 of the tech fund. Nondepartmental, unspecified emergency, I 5 think that's something that's done pretty much as a matter 6 of form, is it not? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's computer -- that's 8 our -- that computer line item that -- yes. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Something breaks, we got a way 10 to fix it. What would -- nobody's got a serious problem 11 with that, I don't suppose. I think heretofore, that's been 12 running more than that, so nobody's got a problem with that 13 one. Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Treasurer, Tax Assessor 15 computers. Not down there; you're up at the top. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Treasurer and Tax Assessor. 17 Anybody got a problem with those two computer -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: -- systems? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Plat cabinet? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that comes out of a 24 different fund. She's going to get that. That's not a 25 problem. 8-27-04 wk 117 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's talk about those voting 3 machines. Where -- where'd she go? 4 MR. ALFORD: I'll go get her. Do you want me 5 to? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: No, that's okay. We'll come 7 back to it. We got plenty. We can jump around on here. 8 District Clerk needs another computer and two replacement 9 printers up there, 2,100. Anybody got any serious beef with 10 that? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Road and Bridge 13 floodplain, Road and Bridge unit system. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Floodplain, I think we 15 need to hold that. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I say hold floodplain. 18 Computer hardware. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Road and Bridge unit. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That probably will go. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: My recollection is there was 22 some -- some suggestion about moving one computer somewhere 23 else, but I don't think that the end point was Road and 24 Bridge Administration. I think they were a start point, not 25 an end point. So -- 8-27-04 wk 118 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's that? I don't 2 understand. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there was a suggestion 4 that we place some hand-me-downs on some computer stuff, but 5 I don't recall that Road and Bridge Administration was going 6 to be the recipient of a hand-me-down. Therefore -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: -- we would need to maybe 9 consider deferring on their request for a new one. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Does anybody else have any 12 recollection that's more specific than mine? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's accurate. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, is Road and Bridge 15 admin -- is that okay? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Information Tech. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Skipped over that next 19 one. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: No, we're going to come back 21 to the -- to the hard battles. Information Tech, 22 county-wide, and software, 10,000? And then I've got a plus 23 or minus 6,000 for replacing of network equipment. Is that 24 a contingency, or is that a requirement? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: I think the 6,000 we 8-27-04 wk 119 1 absolutely need, and I think we absolutely have to do the 2 10. I don't remember exactly what -- what the issue is 3 on -- on the software. I'd have to refresh my memory on 4 that. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think it's a 6 good thing to have. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: We have it now. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: But we -- we don't have 10 enough licenses. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: To -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: We have 50 licenses. We have 14 it installed on more than 120 computers. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oops. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I misread that, obviously. 17 That is incorrect. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank heavens. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: That is incorrect. I misread 20 that. I'm -- I'm very much confused here. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank heavens. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We'll all be there 23 someday, Judge. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, it comes with age. It 25 comes with age. 8-27-04 wk 120 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you hear us all 2 right? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Sometimes. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we just move on 5 and say we need those two items? 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Are these necessities, do you 8 feel like? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: I think they are. Yes, I 10 think both of them are. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cut to the chase. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I tell you, old age has a 14 terrible effect on you. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before you do the 16 parks, let me go get something real quick. Do something 17 else; I'll be right back. 18 (Commissioner Williams left the courtroom.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Extension Service is out. Now 20 we can take up Flat Rock Lake Park. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Delete. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's -- I had 50 23 and it went up. One got put in front of it from the last 24 time we discussed this thing. 25 (Commissioner Williams returned.) 8-27-04 wk 121 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We deleted the Flat Rock, 2 so -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They already did it. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That figured. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: There's a lot of numbers that 7 come into play there that -- as indicated, restrooms, doing 8 that bridge, and -- and -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bridge. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: The bridge. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does dredging include 12 getting our trash out of the river? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Those pipes. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, the work 16 that -- the work that I got a quote on for in the water 17 work, it has to do with removal of those two huge pipes out 18 of there, which are county pipes, and it has to do with 19 eliminating as many hidden obstacles and other obstacles 20 that fall off and create problems and taking out logs that 21 come downstream. So, it's the two things together. I'm 22 looking for a number, and I got it. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: While they're getting rid 24 of pipes, there's also, for interest, another one of those 25 pipes on Little League's property -- or on county property 8-27-04 wk 122 1 that Little League leases. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be a 3 little easier to move. There is -- I know you're right; 4 that would be a lot easier to move than the two, but the 5 quote that I got from the gentleman is for -- for all of 6 that, to take care of all the submerged problems and the 7 limbs that break off and the removal of all the trees that 8 come downstream. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait. Limbs? I'm 10 confused. Limbs that break off? I mean, are we cleaning 11 out what's in the river, or are we clipping what may go in 12 the river? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Both. Both. Removal 14 of logs and removal of the pipes. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And don't forget the 16 day that the bass fisherman guy was in here. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They have gotten 19 together and built -- tied brush together and -- for fish 20 beds or fish -- whatever you call it. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Habitat. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Habitat for nesting 24 and so forth and so on. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you going to take 8-27-04 wk 123 1 that out, too? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. We -- we toured 3 the facility with him. Toured the lake with him, after the 4 Judge and I made the initial run when the man came up from 5 Alvin, Texas to -- to take a look at it, and we would 6 protect his habitat things. By taking out those logs that 7 are lying in there submerged, the stumps are submerged and 8 the logs that are about to fall off the big, dead cypress 9 trees, and essentially removing of the pipes, I think it 10 was -- I can't find it, but I think it was $68,000 for that. 11 Now, you know, it might be a possibility -- and I just raise 12 it for what it's worth, and I don't know. There's a 13 possibility that there might be some Texas Parks and 14 Wildlife money available, and there's also a possibility 15 that to get that, we might want to work with the City and 16 file for a grant to do that particular work. I don't know 17 the answer, but there's a possibility. Regarding -- and 18 it's listed as dredging, but it is all of the things that I 19 said. The bridge, Mr. Odom gave us a quote on, and it's 20 somewhere in the vicinity of 40-some-odd thousand dollars. 21 After we get the -- after we get the rail cars back from 22 Hermann Sons, whatever -- whenever they're released, we can 23 transport them back. I've asked a builder to give me some 24 estimate of cost for a restroom facility. Been thinking 25 about having one on top on the Riverside Drive level. That 8-27-04 wk 124 1 may not be the best place to position it. May need to be 2 positioned in the park, and while we have some funds 3 available -- how much we got left in that Parks and Wildlife 4 grant, or that L.C.R.A. grant? 20,000? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: About 15, I believe. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 15,000. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 15,8 or something. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Reality is, a 9 restroom -- it's going to cost us somewhere between $40,000 10 and $50,000 to do it right, so that's why I put 50 in there. 11 And those are the items. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My suggestion would be to 13 delete the bridge, because I think the reality is that it -- 14 and put it off till next year's discussion. Best case, 15 Hermann Sons is going to start construction first of the 16 year. It's a, best case, six-month likelihood to get it 17 built. That's the bridge. Then you got to take out the old 18 bridge and move the cars, so we're talking about -- those 19 cars aren't going to be available to do anything with until 20 July or August, and at that point, why not push it into the 21 following year? Because I don't think we want to do 22 construction on creeks during the high flood season. So -- 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That makes sense. I 24 think that's a -- that's a reasonable approach to it. So 25 that would remove -- essentially, that would remove -- 8-27-04 wk 125 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 40-plus. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, yeah, close to 3 50, right, out of this year. Then we'd still be funding -- 4 Kathy, would you go back in there in that auxiliary stand 5 where I keep all my budget stuff over there on the left? 6 I'm missing the thing on the -- on the dredging. I thought 7 I had it. 8 MS. MITCHELL: From the Alvin -- from the guy 9 from Alvin? Is that the guy? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm, the guy from 11 Alvin. So that would leave, then, the restroom and cleaning 12 up the lake. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the other thing, I 14 would -- I would suggest, unless we are flush with money 15 this year, which I don't think is going to happen, that we 16 go to L.C.R.A., see if they will allow us to apply the 17 14,000 to the dredging. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The lake cleanup? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The lake cleanup. And 20 then go out for additional grants for the restroom as a 21 single package, that we can put maybe 10,000 towards that 22 and try to get a grant, you know, seed money to try to get a 23 grant for the balance. Which -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you saying apply 25 the existing money that we have -- residue that we have from 8-27-04 wk 126 1 the old grant to the -- to the lake cleanup? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And ask them for the 4 rest of it? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I think we apply the 6 -- we apply the -- whatever's left on the L.C.R.A. grant, 7 put it towards the dredging, and let's clean the stuff up 8 that needs to be done in the lake. And I suspect they will 9 be -- they just want to get this thing closed out as much as 10 we do. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we don't have -- 13 there's not enough money to do the restroom. Then we can 14 budget 10,000 as seed money for the restroom, and maybe we 15 can go to Parks and Wildlife or local foundations and see if 16 they will fund the remaining part of that, and use that 17 as -- or we could, you know, talk with Maintenance and see, 18 you know, how far we can go if they build it. Not 19 Maintenance -- well, Maintenance in the jail. See how much 20 we can get built and, you know, maybe do a grant and -- 21 community service and 10,000 bucks, get it done. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm cool with that 23 plan. I'm cool with that. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: So, you're talking about 25 allocating approximately 15,000 of the existing funds that 8-27-04 wk 127 1 we've got, if they're used -- can be used for that purpose, 2 and adding another 10 to 15 to it, running it up to about 3 $30,000 in the Parks budget? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On top of the cost of 5 dredging the lake or cleaning up the lake. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I'd say 10,000 as 7 seed money for a restroom, and see if we can get that going. 8 And then we reduce the dredging -- well, the dredging would, 9 I guess, stay at 68,000. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 68, I believe it is. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we may want to look 12 at paring that down. But on the revenue side of that 13 68,000, approximately 15 is going to come from L.C.R.A., so 14 we don't have to budget the full amount, but there's a 15 revenue that's going offset part of that in the general 16 budget. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good plan. 18 I'm cool with that, because I think we can undertake only so 19 much in one year. Removing the bridge out till the 20 following fiscal year, that's okay. That really makes 21 sense. And if it would give us time to try to find the 22 money for restrooms, that's fine, and get the -- get the 23 lake cleanup underway. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And also, I would 25 recommend that we talk to Upper Guadalupe River Authority 8-27-04 wk 128 1 and Parks and Wildlife, and see if they'll help us knock 2 down that 68,000, or help participate in that. I mean, 3 U.G.R.A. is very big on cleaning up the river night now. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have talked to 5 them, Commissioner. I've talked to Greg about it, and he 6 was with -- he was with us on the second boat trip up and 7 down the lake, so he knows exactly where we are and what's 8 out there. He knows about that. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And he's excited. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He said he would 11 participate. He didn't say that they would participate in 12 an equal share, but they would participate. Probably in a 13 small way, but whatever it is is good, whatever portion it 14 pays. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: So, help me with this number, 16 gentlemen. The -- the dredging is one figure. Then we want 17 to add to the dredging 10,000? Is that what we're talking 18 about doing? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, yes. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: As seed money for the -- for 21 the restroom facilities, and then see if maybe we can get 22 maintenance and community service-slash-inmates? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, we take 25 out 46. Leonard indicated that the bridge would be 46,2. 8-27-04 wk 129 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we work backwards. 2 What's the dredging figure? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 68,150. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 68. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: So, if we add 10 to that, it's 6 78,150. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 78,150. But I also -- I 8 really think we need to put -- you know, tell U.G.R.A. and 9 Parks and Wildlife that we'll put up two-thirds of that. 10 And if they don't budget it -- that's all we're putting up, 11 is two-thirds of it, and then if they refuse, you can come 12 back for a budget amendment. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we set it 14 up -- whatever we get, it means that we're not spending on 15 it. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. I mean, I 17 think it needs to be done. That lake is an asset. It's, I 18 guess, our responsibility. I'm not sure -- some of the big 19 tubes are certainly our responsibility. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we'd find out 21 real quick if somebody got injured out there in that lake 22 because of those pipes or stumps or whatever. District 23 Judge would be telling us that. So, I -- I really 24 appreciate the consideration to do that, clean it up. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: So, for the dredging operation 8-27-04 wk 130 1 and seed money for the restrooms, we're going to plug in 2 78,150? Is that what I'm hearing? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. Does 4 that include the 15 that's left? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the 15 is -- that's 6 on -- that doesn't plug -- we don't net it out here. It 7 just gets applied from the revenue. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're talking 9 about 78 in new expenditures, 68 plus 10. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it's 78 in commitment of 11 revenue, and hopefully we can take 15 approximately that we 12 have available on the table from -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got you. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: And apply it on this 68. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: That's where we're going. And 17 so the number we need to plug in is the 78, correct? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anybody got any serious 20 disagreement with that 78,150? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just don't tell anyone we 22 budgeted that much. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just don't tell them we 25 budgeted that much. 8-27-04 wk 131 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll keep your 2 secrets. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: You're fixing to have a senile 4 moment as I did a while ago, right? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Kathy, for 7 finding my file. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Animal Control -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No problem. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: -- asked for a computer. No 11 problem. Environmental Health asked for a computer and 12 ArcView. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe -- did we buy 14 new computers, or did we bring old computers over? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: We bought new ones. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: When you geared up last fall, 17 you -- you had new computers? 18 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 20 MR. ARREOLA: That is an extra computer for 21 the Solid Waste Department. We didn't have one for them. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: And the ArcView? 24 MR. ARREOLA: It's for O.S.S.F. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8-27-04 wk 132 1 MR. ARREOLA: It will help in the whole 2 department, but it's more just O.S.S.F. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We took care of 4 Extension, didn't we? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, we took care of 6 that, so we're pared down to -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The finish-out 8 downstairs, I think, is in that 7,500 on the first page. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're down to a roof, 11 a voting machine, and some bulldozers. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Lots of bulldozers. And 13 Floodplain. Okay. Well, we pared it down pretty good 14 pretty quick. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We deleted Floodplain. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, we deleted Floodplain? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I didn't have it 19 deleted; I just had it as open. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I had it as we're 21 going to hold on and take a look at it a little bit later. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do too. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: That's where it was. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nanny-nanny-boo-boo. 8-27-04 wk 133 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's still open. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Tell you what, guys. Why 3 don't we come back at around 1:30? How's that sound? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1:30 works. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll stand in recess till 6 1:30. 7 (Recess taken from 11:56 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 8 - - - - - - - - - - 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to order at 10 the budget hearing. We recessed shortly before noon. The 11 last items we were working on are capital expenditure items. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's do voting machines. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's what I was 14 thinking about, the voting machines. Except we don't have 15 the clerk available to us. Do you know anything about these 16 voting machines, Mr. Tomlinson? 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Would you like me to go 18 down there and see? 19 MS. MITCHELL: I'll call. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, she'll give her a call. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: I just saw her about five 22 minutes ago; I know she's there. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can do Road and 25 Bridge. 8-27-04 wk 134 1 MR. TOMLINSON: I've heard -- I've heard that 2 -- I think they were talking about that in Bandera 3 yesterday. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Same topic. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, we sat with your 8 judge in Austin the other day. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Road and Bridge. The Road and 10 Bridge Administrator gave us a list of specific capital 11 items -- Capital Outlay items that added up to 190,600, and 12 then the chip spreader and the -- and distributor, he wanted 13 to pick up on a three-year lease, I think, and that's how we 14 got those items. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- do you have the 16 list of exactly what that equipment covers? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sure that one's up here 18 somewhere. 19 (Discussion off the record.) 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are we doing, 21 Road and Bridge? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looking for Road and 23 Bridge list. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Their wish list. I've got it 25 here somewhere. There it is. There it is. 8-27-04 wk 135 1 MS. MITCHELL: Jannett was on the phone, but 2 I left a message. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You all have been 4 through the thing many times, I know, about lease versus 5 purchase, and you've decided that lease is the most 6 economical way to go on equipment like that? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The maintainers, it is. 8 But on, I mean, skid steers, dump trucks, those things we 9 tend to buy. But the maintainer and big loaders, I think 10 lease is -- they're so darn expensive. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the leases are -- 13 tend to be around 1,500 a month. And that machine -- those 14 machines cost about 200,000. And the reason they do it is 15 because they turn around and sell them for -- you know, they 16 hardly depreciate. Do you need a copy of the front page? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Here you go. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You already had yours. 19 So -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All of those that are listed 21 there, of course, add up to 190,600. And then the -- I 22 pulled the information on the -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Shredder? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: -- chip spreader and 25 distributor, and that's one of three payments that's loaded 8-27-04 wk 136 1 in there at 84. And that's how I came up with what I got. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think my view on this 3 would be -- because a few of the things I think I could make 4 a good decision on. I would rather, though, send it back to 5 Road and Bridge and tell them they need to cut some stuff 6 out of this list. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, just ask them to 8 prioritize. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or prioritize the list, 10 yeah. Because, I mean, I don't see that we can do this. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can't. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can not. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: At least not everything. 15 I mean, not -- it comes up -- 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to see it 17 prioritized also. I've got -- I've got an impression, and I 18 think it's pretty accurate, that machinery lately has 19 allowed them to do a whole lot more work with the same 20 amount of people, so to the extent they're doing that, it 21 might -- some of these things are probably cost-effective. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think some of them are, 23 but whether they could defer some of this, like the dump 24 truck, for a year -- the water truck, I think we need. I 25 believe we can do a new water truck; that was in pretty bad 8-27-04 wk 137 1 shape out there. I know we had one relatively new dump 2 truck. I thought we had two pretty new ones, and "pretty 3 new" is relative at Road and Bridge. But I just think, as 4 Commissioner Baldwin said, let's get our priorities, have 5 them put 1 to whatever on the list, and see what they want. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which I think that's 7 the only way to go, really. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "1" being the least -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Highest priority. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Highest priority, 11 okay. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, I think the 13 chainsaws and that stuff, that 1,192, that doesn't need to 14 be on the priority list if they need it, and the computer is 15 3,300. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've already taken 17 care of that. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Already taken care of 19 that. That's already in line. So, it's just the -- the 570 20 items. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Yeah, I would 22 think the 569 items can be built into the basic operating 23 budget, can't they? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, yes, 25 probably. 8-27-04 wk 138 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, do you want to 2 -- want to run this one by right quick? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's that one? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's the crime victim 5 issue. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Why don't we get 7 through with -- make sure we're -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, I thought we did. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: -- through. I'm not sure 10 we're through. If we are, fine. If not -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought we were. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's get the capital out of 13 the way. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would your 15 prioritization on 570 by Road and Bridge people include the 16 wish list of that -- the shredders? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know why you wouldn't. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd include everything on 19 there, including the chip spreader. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 570 and everything 22 below. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Uh-huh. What else do we have 24 on capital that we need to talk about? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Voting machines. 8-27-04 wk 139 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Voting machines. Well, we -- 2 I'm not sure everybody's on the same page on the Road and 3 Bridge Floodplain, that computer system. Commissioner Letz 4 had a line drawn through it. We had a question mark by it. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question mark's fine. I 6 think -- well, question mark's fine till we decide what 7 we're doing with that department. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My note says "hold." 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think the voting 12 machines is -- you know, it's -- whatever the cost is, I 13 think it needs to be in the budget. But I think that you 14 don't authorize expenditure of those funds until we hear 15 more from -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, when we were in 17 Austin, we heard a presentation on the voting machine thing, 18 and one guy from the federal government gets up and says one 19 thing, and then a state guy gets up and says something 20 totally opposite. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: That's what I hear. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're not -- I mean, 23 I left and went straight to the bar. Had no idea -- and I 24 don't even drink. (Laughter.) That's how bad it was. I'm 25 not real, real sure what I heard. But it's -- basically, 8-27-04 wk 140 1 it's what Jon's saying; we need to put the money in the 2 budget, but don't spend it until they figure out what we're 3 doing. And which -- which will happen pretty soon. It 4 doesn't go into effect till January 1, '06. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Oh, there's 6 the clerk. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Almost got it done. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Check your pulse 9 there for a second. If we're not required by law to do 10 something different about our voting machines, we wouldn't 11 do anything different. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. Well, there 13 maybe something done; I don't know that. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think she 15 needs a new optical scanner, if nothing else; isn't that 16 correct? 17 MS. PIEPER: I would like one new optical 18 scanner, because we've got two. One doesn't work properly. 19 Never has. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the cost of that 21 optical scanner? 22 MS. PIEPER: About $65,000. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 65? That's not on 24 the list here, is it? 25 MS. PIEPER: Excuse me? 8-27-04 wk 141 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that on your list? 2 MS. PIEPER: No, sir, it's not. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: You say it's never worked 4 correctly? 5 MS. PIEPER: We have yearly maintenance done 6 on it, and it works fine the minute the -- the maintenance 7 man comes in to work on it, but when it rolls around for the 8 election, it's -- it doesn't work right. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've heard this same 10 story -- 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Try scheduling maintenance 12 immediately prior to the election. 13 MS. PIEPER: We do. Immediately prior -- 14 before the election, we -- we schedule maintenance. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Can we plug in the schedule 16 that he comes to do his maintenance the afternoon of the 17 election? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What is the effect 19 of it not working properly? 20 MS. PIEPER: It just slows us down. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does it mean votes 22 don't get counted? 23 MS. PIEPER: No, all the votes does get 24 counted. It just counts them slowly, and at times it gets 25 to a point to where we literally have to feed one ballot in 8-27-04 wk 142 1 at a time. It's real picky on the stack of ballots that it 2 wants, and we have to figure that out. And some -- it's -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The cost on the -- the 4 other voting machines, the two numbers listed on our capital 5 budget sheet, one is a voting machine, 68,108, and then 6 anticipated amount through grants, 51,000, so the total cost 7 of those two numbers added together? 8 MS. PIEPER: The 68 is the machines 9 themselves, and the remainder of that is training. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: $51,000 worth of 11 training? 12 MS. PIEPER: Right. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I can clarify. 14 There are two different machines that are probably available 15 to do what the feds are going to require. The higher-end 16 cost machine is about 108,000; the machine that we need 17 would be about $108,000, according to the information 18 Ms. Pieper furnished to me. The other machines are 19 approximately $2,000 less per machine, which would bring 20 that cost down to the 68. In addition -- correction, it may 21 be 58. Would that be closer? 22 MS. PIEPER: I think you're right. I think 23 58. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $3,500 times 20, 25 right? 8-27-04 wk 143 1 MS. PIEPER: Right. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 70,000 bucks. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 68 is probably right. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: On top of that, there's 5 training, and I think we plugged into her training budget -- 6 yes we did. We moved that up to her training, and increased 7 her training budget for election expense to $11,000. She 8 tells me that, according to the best information she's got 9 available, the grant funds to assist you in purchasing 10 whatever you do purchase is going to run about $51,000. 11 MS. PIEPER: That is correct. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Now you got as much 13 information as we do. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would say we budget 15 70,000, and don't spend it until we find out if the 16 deadline's going to be delayed, which is I think probably 17 the most likely to have happen, is it's going to be pushed 18 off a year. And -- and maybe get some additional funding as 19 well. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Seems reasonable to 21 me. 22 MS. PIEPER: The machines may come down in 23 price. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I think we 25 have to budget -- if nothing happens, we got to buy them, 8-27-04 wk 144 1 the way the law is right now, as I understand it. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 70? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sounds good to me. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What else do we have in 6 Capital Outlay that we need to -- that we can legitimately 7 take a look at today? I don't see anything else. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to come back to 9 the roof, and we need to come back to Road and Bridge, 10 right? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I guess so, yeah. Okay. 12 Commissioner Baldwin, you had something? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Take one 14 down, pass it around. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: You were close, right. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. This is a 17 new modified budget request from David Motley, attorney at 18 law. And this is basically the budget, and it's for nine 19 months. If you look down at the bottom, the -- the total 20 for the program is 17,418 for nine months. And the County 21 Attorney seems to think that he can contribute 5,000, so 22 that would leave the total for the County at 12,418. Now, 23 that's through -- I don't remember what month, but that's 24 for nine months, and hopefully the grants will be in at that 25 time to pick the tab up from that point on, as I understand 8-27-04 wk 145 1 it. That -- they can use a cell phone temporarily. The 2 216th D.A.'s offered office space, and surely we have a desk 3 and chairs and things like that in storage here in the 4 county somewhere. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: This is kind of just a 6 phase-in to that Crime Victims Coordinator, what you're 7 talking about? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, it is. It's 9 a phase-in. This is his latest request. And I'm going to 10 say it again; what bothers me about the whole thing, if -- 11 if this -- and, to me, it is important. This is an 12 important issue, but why isn't it that important to the 13 D.A.'s? I just don't -- I can't get my brain wrapped around 14 that. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I tend to agree with 16 that. And I'd also like to -- I mean, if the D.A.'s want 17 it, I'd like to also talk to them about helping fund it. I 18 don't know if they have funds available through some of 19 their seizure accounts and things of that nature or not, but 20 I suspect they may. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think the 22 198th -- somebody said in here the other day the 216th did 23 not have any money, but I -- Tommy knows, but he's not going 24 to tell. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. I 8-27-04 wk 146 1 think we need to do it -- figure out how to do it. I'm a 2 little fuzzy on the County Attorney's math here. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Doesn't add up. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's got -- he's 5 got -- for one year, he's got benefits totaling 66 percent 6 of the salary. That doesn't compute. And then for 7 part-time, he's got benefits totaling about 7.6 percent, 8 which is more realistic. Somewhere between 66 and 7.6 is 9 the real answer, isn't it? 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, Commissioner, 11 it's even worse than that. That column doesn't add up to 12 48,000; it's a lot less than that. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me take it back to 14 the benefits. He has a handwritten note out here on mine 15 that -- that is just FICA on the nine-month. That is just 16 FICA. There's no -- obviously no retirement or insurance in 17 that number. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, but I 19 really think that I'd like to hear from the D.A.'s; I mean, 20 the two D.A.'s and the County Attorney to come up with a 21 plan that they all agree to and they all have their names 22 on, because it's -- I mean, I'd just hate to have one 23 department setting up something for another department that 24 the other department hasn't said they want. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My sense of it is, 8-27-04 wk 147 1 the way it's working now -- and it's not wonderful, but it's 2 cranking along, and we sort of got a solution looking for a 3 problem. If you want to spend some money, here's a way that 4 we can put some icing on the cake and make it work a little 5 bit better. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the one-year 7 totals, as you point out, are not 48,5; they're 31,5. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We were hoping someone at 9 that end of the table could do that for you. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I knew if we waited 11 long enough, he'd add it up. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure the 10,5 ought to 13 be there anyway. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it shouldn't be 15 66 percent of salary. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: If you're adding an insurance 17 benefit there and -- and retirement, I still don't think it 18 would come up to that, would it? Shouldn't. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 35 percent. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: In response to your 21 speculation that it may be a solution for a problem that 22 doesn't exist, maybe -- I think we're mandated to do it 23 under the law. But I think, essentially, while we've got 24 probably in each of the prosecutors' offices a designated 25 individual named, I think, because of the requirements of 8-27-04 wk 148 1 just doing the prosecution work and the operation of that 2 office, it's effectively probably not really getting done. 3 Or if it is, it's in a pretty minimal, haphazard manner. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we reversed the 5 process and we had one of these victims' rights 6 coordinators, and we would try to find ways to cut costs and 7 save money, we'd probably be saying, "Why don't we abolish 8 this job and spread that work out among other people?" 9 JUDGE TINLEY: You might be right. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't feel real 11 strong about it. If we need it, we ought to get one. 12 But -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I definitely think that 14 we need to have all the prosecutors brought into it, because 15 that's the whole purpose, is to do it in one place and not 16 three places, like it's supposedly occurring right now. 17 Right now, each of those offices has a designated crime 18 victims' coordinator, because the law requires them to do 19 that. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Like I say, I'm not sure any 22 of them really do an effective job at it. Tommy? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: I think one of the issues 24 with the D.A.'s may be that they have more than one county 25 involved in -- in their scope of their work. 'Cause if you 8-27-04 wk 149 1 have -- if you had a coordinator here, you still wouldn't 2 have one in Mason County or Menard County or Kendall County. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you think maybe the other 4 counties are hoping that the -- the D.A.'s will handle it 5 for the felony cases, maybe outside of their county budget, 6 and then what little they've got to do out of the County 7 Attorney's office, they'll do it out of their county budget? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Could be. I know that -- I 9 mean, I know there's not one in Bandera. I think there is 10 one in Kendall County, but I -- I think they have a hard 11 time finding enough to do. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Have what? 13 MR. TOMLINSON: My impression is that they -- 14 that person in Kendall County has a hard time finding a full 15 day's work. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And they have a 17 full-blown program like what we're trying to move toward 18 here? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, they do. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe we can enter into 21 an interlocal agreement with Kendall County, and let them do 22 ours, or vice-versa; do what we do with a lot of the 216th 23 and 198th, have one for the districts. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's kind of 25 our thinking, is trying to get it -- this is a start-up 8-27-04 wk 150 1 here, and keep it in the county until we can find the men's 2 room and the ladies' room and the desk and everything gets 3 situated properly, and then maybe start moving out into the 4 district, and those other counties pick up their pro rata 5 share. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we do -- a pro 7 rata share is a good key. If we take a look at the County 8 Attorney's Column 1 there for one year, the real number 9 realistically is about $26,000, and if we were all to split 10 that -- the two D.A.'s, the County Attorney, and 11 Commissioners Court -- we're looking at about $6,500 apiece. 12 That's realistic if you -- if the other three go along. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Only problem with that -- 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think Commissioner 15 Letz' idea -- 16 MR. TOMLINSON: -- you also have to deal 17 with -- you also have to deal with county courts and 18 those -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that makes it 20 split even more ways. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If the D.A.'s are 22 not excited about this, then there's no reason to do it. We 23 need to hear from them. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll take that word 25 back to the County Attorney and go from there. 8-27-04 wk 151 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Another one 2 dispatched. Man, we're just mowing them down. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Judge? I thought -- I 4 thought of an item at lunch. Doesn't have anything to do 5 with lunch, but -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Is this good news or bad news? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: -- but we -- maybe we need 8 some money in the budget for health insurance. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What, Tommy? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Health insurance consultants. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah. We talked 12 about that. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be under 14 Professional Services. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: But that would be this year. 16 But you're talking about for next year? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Professional 19 Services. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: We -- I think we'll expend 21 something this year. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I hope we will. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: I was thinking about next 24 year. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Next year -- next year, we -- 8-27-04 wk 152 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: -- we may have that same need. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When would we be 4 spending it? October-November? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: They may be spending some 6 sooner than that. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: May be spending some in 9 September. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The committee sent out 11 what, four letters? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: So far we've sent out four. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Four. 14 (Discussion off the record.) 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We currently have $10,000 16 budgeted for Professional Services. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know what the current 18 balance is. I think we're in pretty good shape on it. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $10,000 for next year. 20 We -- as of the current-year budget, we probably have around 21 $6,000, I'm guessing, based on what's in here and what we 22 probably have spent since then. But I have no idea what the 23 -- what the range of costs for this health insurance 24 consultant may be. Do you have any feel for that, Tommy? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: I remember -- if -- the last 8-27-04 wk 153 1 time we did anything similar to this, wasn't -- it wasn't 2 for health insurance; it was for property casualty and -- 3 and liability, and all they did was they sent out -- they 4 sent out the RFP's. They did the RFP's. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: And then -- and then they 7 came back with -- with recommendations after receiving 8 those. It was around, I would say, short of $7,000. I 9 don't -- I don't know how that relates to health insurance. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would suspect that it 11 might be a good idea to increase Professional Services next 12 year to, like, 15 or 14. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have any idea 14 what the number's going to be, but I suspect that I can have 15 a pretty close number in here by Tuesday. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm supposed to get a 18 number in here by Tuesday. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, we can wait. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: As of 1st of July, we show 21 about $8,350 remaining out of 12,5, which is a pretty 22 healthy balance. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, you do your 24 contract -- two-year contract -- we can't do that. I was 25 going to say two-year contract, but we can't. 8-27-04 wk 154 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hey, y'all get back on 2 the City. That was a lot more fun. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We made enough 4 headlines for one day. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Things are going 6 pretty well in Ingram. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Everybody out there seemed to 8 be happy yesterday. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. We had some 10 food and cold drinks there at the dam complex. Judge was 11 there. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Golly. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Had some good 14 country music. I won the jackpot prize again. That's three 15 out of five times; that's pretty good. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it rigged? 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Of course it is. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Why do you think he goes? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three out of five is 22 pretty good odds. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I guess we're about 24 down to the Sheriff's Department? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's come back in 8-27-04 wk 155 1 Monday and do that. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Which Monday? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: After next. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Juvember the 43rd? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: October 7th will 6 work. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, that's what I was 8 afraid of. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On a full stomach. 10 Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The capital items are not 12 in here -- or are they in here? 13 MR. TOMLINSON: They're in there. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The full amount? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: Full amount. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good, we pared that 19 bugger down a little bit. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: There's some -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We cut some stuff. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: There's some reduction based 23 upon where we were. This latest -- the 25 August print, 24 does that include any elected official compensation 25 adjustments other than COLA? 8-27-04 wk 156 1 MR. TOMLINSON: No, it includes the -- the 2 fuel and the $1,000. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It includes what? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Fuel adjustment and the 6 $1,000. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: While we're on the 8 fuel adjustment -- 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- I know we took 11 care of that the other day, but our -- our allowance is 12 about -- what is it, a percent and a half behind the federal 13 allowance right now? 14 MS. MITCHELL: Should be 36.5. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. I hadn't -- I 16 don't know what it is, but -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We haven't talked 18 about it. We hadn't talked about it. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: On the elected officials' 21 situation, the flat sum, in my mind, is not as equitable as 22 a percentage amount. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again, 24 Judge? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: The flat-dollar amount -- same 8-27-04 wk 157 1 flat-dollar amount per elected official -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $1,000? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: -- is not as equitable as 4 doing a percentage across the board, up and down. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In other words, 6 percentage-wise, low -- low-paid folks get a bigger 7 percentage than high-paid folks. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're right. So, 9 what percentage did you have in mind? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have a percentage in 11 mind. I'm just saying that I think the appropriate way to 12 do it on an equitable basis would be, if there's going to be 13 an increase, that it be a percentage amount; that it's more 14 equitable that way. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: More equitable for 16 the highest paid ones, less equitable for the lowest paid. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we're applying the same 18 number across the board. Percentage-wise, that can be more 19 than double on the low one. 20 MS. NEMEC: I think there was a small study 21 done a couple of years ago on elected official raises, 22 whether the Court should grant them a straight flat rate or 23 the percentage rate, and the discussion was, for example, 24 the County Attorney's office is at 50-some thousand. And I 25 think the Court at that time shied away from the percentage, 8-27-04 wk 158 1 because the -- the person that's getting the 50-some 2 thousand is getting the large increase. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 4 MS. NEMEC: And so I guess you can look at 5 that two ways, but at that time, that's why they went to the 6 flat. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also, in some instances, 8 like the County Attorney, there's a big state supplement 9 that goes in there as well. Now, that doesn't mean that you 10 should or shouldn't give him a higher percentage. I mean, I 11 guess it's deemed that he should be paid more. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Barbara, yours and 13 others is what -- 42-what? 14 MS. NEMEC: 42,249. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $1,000 on that salary 16 equates to 2.3 percent. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, whether it's a 18 flat amount -- flat rate or a percent of base, I don't have 19 a lot of preference, because I don't think we ought to be 20 giving elected officials anything other than a COLA. I look 21 back to the 2000-2001 salaries, and then I extrapolate this 22 year what $1,000 plus $300 plus 3 percent would be, and it 23 looks like some -- some of the classifications are getting 24 increases on the order of 20 percent over 3 years. It seems 25 like a lot. 8-27-04 wk 159 1 MS. PIEPER: What is that $300 you quoted 2 for? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What? 4 MS. PIEPER: The $300. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 300 -- every elected 6 official that does not have a County vehicle gets a $300 gas 7 addition to their salary, because we all -- or pretty much 8 all use personal vehicles in the county. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, if you 10 look at it that way, the way you just looked at it, I think 11 then you have to give weight to the aggregate cost-of-living 12 over that same period of time, because that's the reason we 13 give COLA's, because their salary, at whatever stated level, 14 has been diminished by the cost-of-living increases. So, I 15 don't think you can look at it that way and say they got 16 20 percent. They didn't get 20 percent. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- and I 18 don't know; I haven't gone back and figured it, but the -- 19 since I've been a Commissioner, overall, I don't think 20 elected officials -- they haven't kept much, if at all, 21 above cost-of-living. If you look -- I mean, because the 22 true cost-of-living -- the employees, we've tried to take a 23 little bit better care of and have done some, you know, 24 salary studies and adjustments and things of that nature. 25 But -- you know, and I think we should look after the 8-27-04 wk 160 1 employees more than we look after ourselves as elected 2 officials, but I -- I think if you look back at the 3 inflation rate over the course of history for the last 10 4 years, I doubt that any elected officials are gaining much 5 on inflation rate. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, one of the 7 oldest arguments -- I think Noah's Ark maybe is where it 8 began -- is that a member of this Court should not give 9 themselves a salary increase. Well if you don't, how do you 10 ever do it? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't buy that 12 theory. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, I mean, 14 just -- there's no -- Tommy can't just give us a raise. 15 We've got to vote ourselves a raise. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, and you can't make 17 it effective the next year because you don't have any 18 authority over the next year. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take care of it now. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That argument is 22 officially over? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's over. I mean, I'm 24 happy with $1,000 across the board. That's fine, or -- it 25 doesn't make that much difference one way or the other. 8-27-04 wk 161 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you favor a 2 percentage, Judge? I raised the issue. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I just think it's more 4 equitable if you're going to do it on a pro rata basis, 5 obviously. Just -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You mean like lower -- 7 lower salaried folks get a larger percentage? Is that what 8 you're saying? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are you saying? 11 Tell me what you're saying. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: If you're saying that -- that 13 an increase -- an equal increase for everybody, it ought to 14 be on a pro rata basis, on a percentage basis. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whereas -- like, for 16 example, a -- say we're going to do a 3 percent increase. 17 Constables would probably get about $900. County Clerk 18 would get about $1,200. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, a flat percentage. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: A flat percentage. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see what you're 22 saying. Okay. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. That's basically what 24 our step and grade is. It's based upon a 2 and a half of 25 what we're coming from. 8-27-04 wk 162 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Well, I -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: And it's a percentage -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember the 4 argument -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: -- on scale. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember the 7 argument the Treasurer was -- brought up a while ago. Guys 8 like David and you and the Sheriff gets these gigantic 9 raises because they're making so much already. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, of course, old 12 Clay's right there with him nipping him on the tail. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the old "The 14 rich get richer and the poor get poorer" theory. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And us get poorer and 16 poorer. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: But it's, you know, you guys' 18 call. Have at it. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think $1,000 works. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $1,000. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we deal 22 with the pension issue while we're here? We got the 23 Treasurer here. Pension and the funding for retirees. Can 24 we deal with that issue? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in here. 8-27-04 wk 163 1 MS. NEMEC: I believe the Auditor included it 2 in the figures. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: 7.90 is in that. 4 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, 7.9 is in there. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 6.9. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: 7. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: With the 50 percent -- that 8 would be the 50 percent of COLA. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 6.9? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Seven point -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: 7.9. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 7.9. That new rate, 15 including the retirees, is going to be what, 5.6? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, 7.9. 17 MS. NEMEC: 7.61 without the retirees, and I 18 believe it comes out to 7.9 with the retirees. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There goes one of our 21 ambulances. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: At lunch I saw two in my 23 precinct, so I guess I need to cough up more money than 24 everybody else. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 8-27-04 wk 164 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One of the things 3 I'm worried about is if you get these Commissioners' pay up 4 so high that some of those City Councilmembers will come 5 over here and be running for office. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't have to worry 7 about them winning right now. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is the newspaper 9 when we need them? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Write that down. You can hand 11 it to her later, Buster. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, what is the 14 dollar impact on this year's budget of doing that retiree 15 increase thing? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- I don't know. I 17 didn't calculate that. It's -- I just -- actually, it's 18 less -- it's less -- the gross cost of premium -- or 19 contribution is less than it was last year. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You all have 21 probably studied this before. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: $14,500, approximately. 23 $15,000, based on a $5 million payroll. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think government 25 entities -- federal, state, local, military -- tend to 8-27-04 wk 165 1 increase pensions over time. I think private enterprise, 2 whatever you go out with is probably what you're stuck with 3 for the rest of -- rest of your life. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm really not aware how 5 the -- that's the first I've even heard one way or the 6 other. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I -- I don't have 8 any problem with using some of our precious dollars to 9 increase the retirees' benefits. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You don't have a 11 problem? 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have a 13 problem with it. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either. I'd 15 like to see it happen. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Pretty good way to 17 spend money. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you're saying that 19 the private sector doesn't do that very often? 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They don't have any 21 obligation to do it, and seldom do it. In fact, these days 22 most people are -- cash out when they leave. They don't get 23 pensions; they get -- get cash. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Unless the pension benefit 25 yearly fund has enough dough in it nearly to take care of 8-27-04 wk 166 1 them, and it's -- they have an insured pension. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Many of them have 3 options, and they always opt for the cash instead of 4 pension. They put the cash to work. And they know pension 5 won't -- a lot of them don't trust their employer to be 6 around 10 years from now. But, anyhow, I think in 7 government it is common to periodically give retirees a 8 boost in annuity. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just never could 10 land on a -- get that real clear in my mind. I look at it 11 like things like sick leave, having the ability to loan 12 somebody else or give someone else some of your sick leave. 13 See, I really can't get my mind around that deal. And -- 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do we do that? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A lot of people do. I 16 don't -- we don't do that. 17 MS. PIEPER: We don't do that. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it's been talked 19 about. It's been talked about. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: City of Kerrville does. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, City does it. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the pool 23 concept. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, pool concept. 25 And, to me, it's not the same thing, you know. The -- but 8-27-04 wk 167 1 it's kind of the same thing. I -- I just -- in my mind, 2 when a person retires, they're no longer employed. You know 3 what I'm saying? So it just doesn't -- I mean, I'm not 4 opposed to it. I just don't completely -- can't get my mind 5 around the 100 percent middle of that one, of giving a COLA 6 to a person that's already left the employment. I don't 7 know. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, did you have any 9 questions about what we're doing up here? 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm just waiting to get 11 to the Sheriff's one that you said you had salaries. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, can you -- can 13 someone, or can -- Tommy, can you tell me what is in here 14 for the Sheriff's Department, what all we added in? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: It was a $2,000 increase. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $2,000 for jailers? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: $1,500 for each Sheriff's 18 deputy and dispatcher. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 15? 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The dispatchers is 21 $2,000. That's along with the jail; that's the same status. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Deputies are $1,500. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How much for the 25 Sheriff? 8-27-04 wk 168 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Tell me again. $1,500 per 2 deputy, $2,000 per dispatcher -- 3 MR. TOMLINSON: And jailers. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: $3,000 per jailer? 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, $2,000 for jailers 6 and $2,000, dispatchers. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They're classified the 9 same in the scale. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And $1,500 for deputies. 12 That's what's in there. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How much for the 16 Sheriff? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $1,000. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: 3 percent plus $1,000, same 19 as all other elected officials. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Treated like an elected 21 official, okay. And -- well, now, wasn't that the primary 22 difference between the run-up you did between 8 -- 8/23 and 23 8/25? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: I just -- 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there are going to be 8-27-04 wk 169 1 some additional changes. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: I just recalculated. I think 3 the first go-round we just had what -- we used the numbers 4 that -- that we had discussed about -- the retirement, for 5 one thing, was higher. My run-up calculations were higher 6 the first time. I had anticipated a larger increase than 7 what actually you have. It's more noticeable with that -- 8 with that large a dollar amount. And then also, the -- I 9 don't know what the Sheriff used for health insurance, but I 10 think the number that I used is slightly larger than what he 11 used per employee. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know about the 13 differences in the changes we made between 8/20 and 8/24, 14 but both of them include the COLA, 7.9 retirement, but the 15 8/24 -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't -- we don't 17 have an 8 -- 18 JUDGE TINLEY: -- had the jail and Sheriff's 19 Office salaries presented by Sheriff, and I think it 20 probably also includes $1,000 per -- per elected official, 21 does it not? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it does. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: This most recent run-up? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Mm-hmm. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: But the increase in 8-27-04 wk 170 1 expenditures over anticipated revenue more than doubled. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm showing $507,000 on the 4 first one, and $1,023,000 on the second one. That's more 5 than doubled. I think I've calculated them correctly. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have the -- I just 7 have the last one I did. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I got both. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, our big sheet's 10 on 18. I guess we've got this one that's undated. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The one that says as of 12 8/23 and the one -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: That's my notation up there. 14 And then this one, the latest one I showed as of 8/25, 15 'cause that's when I got it. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is your bottom rate 17 5.641? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, that's the 19 latest. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the latest. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Uh-huh. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's yesterday's. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Uh-huh. And that's one that 25 you indicated it was over a million, at 1,023,191. The -- 8-27-04 wk 171 1 MR. TOMLINSON: I show it to the -- the total 2 expenditures between the two dates is right at 500,000. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, about 516, as a 4 matter of fact. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, more than double. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Double the deficit. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. It went from -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or double the 10 expenditures. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Went from 7,000 to 1,023,000. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it appears that the 13 majority -- that almost all of that is in the Sheriff's 14 Department. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: It would have to be. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- there's no 17 other big changes needed. There's another probably 50,000 18 elsewhere, but -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I don't know what the 20 $1,000 per elected official increase and roll-up -- and 21 there may have been some other minor changes made between 22 8/20 and 8/24. I'm sure there were some. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Now, part -- the first one I 24 have did not include a -- a 3 percent for any of the elected 25 officials. 8-27-04 wk 172 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: So that accounts for -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it says it includes 4 COLA. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, but I -- I didn't -- 6 the first one, the previous one, I did not include the COLA 7 for the elected officials. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only for employees. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: It is included in the second 11 -- in the last one. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That certainly accounts 13 for some of it. But -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, you know, I have 15 no problem with trying to increase jailers' and deputies' 16 and dispatchers' salaries. The problem I have with it is 17 that, is it fair or equitable to do it to that department 18 and not everywhere else too? And I just don't know how I 19 get my -- to use Buster's phrase, I don't know how I get my 20 brain all around that as to, you know, where you need the 21 adjustments the most. I do think there is an issue with the 22 deputies that -- and I'm not sure how it's accounted for in 23 some of Dave's research, but the value of the car that they 24 get helps them quite a bit, in my mind. I mean, it would 25 take -- and in the average family, you know, you're 8-27-04 wk 173 1 basically enabling them to -- to have -- instead of two 2 cars, have one car and then one County vehicle, even though 3 they don't use it for personal use. I think the reality is 4 that you can get by with one car in those families, so I 5 think there's a pretty good value. So, that -- I'm not sure 6 how much it is. You know, it's somewhere, in my mind, from, 7 you know, $3,000 to $5,000 a year, because you figure that's 8 what a car costs. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's about -- I can 10 tell you what my little fleet costs. That's kind of close 11 to it. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think that needs to 13 be included. That doesn't mean the deputies shouldn't get 14 any kind of an increase, but I'm just saying that needs to 15 go in the mix as well. Jailers and deputies, I believe -- 16 I'm not sure about dispatch, but deputies, I believe we gave 17 an adjustment last year, did we not, Rusty? 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. What that was last 19 year is, if you'll recall, they gave them about half under 20 Commissioner Nicholson's deal to try and get to parity and 21 everything, get a little bit closer. To give you a little 22 bit more information on what you're talking about, the 23 difference -- the -- if you went with the $1,500 for the 24 deputies, talking about them right now, that would put the 25 deputy's pay -- starting pay right at exactly $1,000 less 8-27-04 wk 174 1 than what the Kerrville Police Department starting pay is 2 for an officer, which is what my big deal is. And that's 3 why I said I think we would be doing real well at that 4 point, because of the cars. And in trying to sit there a 5 while ago and figure, especially with the step and grade 6 scale and these flat ones that y'all were talking about, if 7 you were to take -- and what I looked at, to be honest, on 8 the deputies, and under their current step and grade, which 9 may make it easier for Barbara, and you took the starting 10 salary up two steps, which would be from a 19-1 to a 19-2, 11 the salary increase per deputy then would be right at 12 1,300-something, would be what the raise would be, which 13 would put them up closer and leave it about 1,500 -- 1,200 14 difference due to cars and that. And I think that would 15 be -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Barbara, the deputies 17 are not on the same scale or program as the rest of us are. 18 MS. NEMEC: They're on a step and grade 19 schedule, but they're on a different step and grade schedule 20 than what clerical are. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are the things that 22 he's talking about, these 1,500's and 1,000's and all that, 23 it's in that program? 24 MS. NEMEC: I think the way we would do it is 25 we would just add the 1,000 to the beginning salary, and it 8-27-04 wk 175 1 would adjust it all the way across, so we could stay within 2 the same grade -- step and grade. Is that what you're 3 talking about, Sheriff, just to add to the base salary? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's the way it was 5 done last year. What I'm suggesting -- and it would not be 6 quite as much, and, like, we knock the hundred thousand out 7 of ours on the Capital Outlay. But on the deputy's deal, I 8 know a 19-1, which is what the deputies are, starting salary 9 now is 28,151. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: 28,151. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If we bump that up. 13 Kerrville police officer's starting salary is 31,325. Okay? 14 If we were to -- to turn a 19-3 -- from 19-1 to a 19-3, that 15 would be -- 29,500 would be a starting deputy's salary. It 16 would be 1,200-something. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Just shift the -- shift it 18 back two steps. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Turn a 19 -- what 20 currently is a 19-3 to a 19-1, okay? And at that point, 21 you're at about a $1,349 increase with the deputies, put 22 them at 29,500 starting salary. Okay? This is before COLA. 23 This is on the current grade. And then that would still be 24 a little over 1,200 short of what the -- the City officers 25 make. And I think you do have to look at responsibilities 8-27-04 wk 176 1 on the two, because the deputy -- you know, four officers 2 work in 1,100 square miles; it's very, very realistic that 3 their backup's going to be 30, 40, 50 miles away. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have any other 5 reasons besides this parity thing? I really don't like the 6 parity. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just what I was just 8 starting to say -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- about the 11 responsibility. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Amount of miles and -- 13 and response time. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The responsibility, the 15 dangerousness to those officers, okay, I think is a lot 16 greater. I think you have a lot of importance, so don't we 17 kind of add that? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But all you've talked 19 about is parity. And the reason we're doing these 20 particular numbers is 'cause it puts us within a certain 21 range of the city -- City of Kerrville, which is -- I 22 just -- I've told you a hundred times, I hate that. I just 23 don't think that that is the right way to do it. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But, you know -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't mind doing it. 8-27-04 wk 177 1 I don't think you ought to tie it to that. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My job field and my job 3 field that I have to draw from, okay, to keep officers, not 4 keep rehiring and retraining and all those, is a whole lot 5 better if the departments are making similar wages. That is 6 a very important part on parity and on keeping the officers 7 of the same caliber. I don't want officers that went to the 8 Kerrville Police Department first to get hired and weren't 9 good enough for them and didn't get hired, so where are they 10 going to go work? The County Sheriff's Department. I think 11 we've got very professional officers. The other thing is -- 12 is the dangerousness that the officers have. All right? I 13 have officers leaving my department now -- the last one that 14 left and went to the Kerrville Police Department went 15 because he says I don't feel comfortable without backup 16 within a few blocks from me any more. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That has nothing to 18 do with salary. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It has a lot to do with 20 the compensation and the job that these officers are 21 performing for this county. I think they should be 22 compensated. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's look at it 24 from a cost control standpoint. I think with a little bit 25 of effort, we can show that the increases we gave to the 8-27-04 wk 178 1 jailers last year saved us money; that we got all of it back 2 and more in turnover reduction. I don't think that problem 3 has completely gone away. Those are still relatively 4 low-paying jobs, but I look at -- I do think that the parity 5 thing is important. But I look at this as a -- as an 6 investment. That we have -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to -- 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's other things, 9 Commissioner Williams, that you have to look at, is number 10 one, the Kerrville Police Department furnishes their 11 officers with all their equipment, okay? And that's -- you 12 know, they've gone to the Kimber weapons and that. 13 Regardless of whether that's what I'd carry or not, that's 14 an $800 service weapon. It's all the Sam Brownes, all the 15 leather gear, more uniforms, everything. We never have 16 furnished our officers with weapons or leather gear or 17 anything else, and we don't. We don't furnish our 18 investigators with -- with clothing allowances. Well, they 19 do. They get about a hundred a month, pretty close. Those 20 are -- those do add up to a great disparity -- or parity 21 between the two, and that's what we have to try and battle 22 and take care of. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, I appreciate 24 your valiant effort in this regard. I really do. But I 25 come at it just about the same way as my colleague to the 8-27-04 wk 179 1 right comes at it in terms of parity. I don't support the 2 parity concept with the City of Kerrville. I'm going to 3 show you why. Would you give the Sheriff one of these? If 4 there is any parity or equalization in terms of where the 5 Sheriff and his deputies ought to be, in my view, it ought 6 to be with respect to other sheriffs and deputies in other 7 counties. We're talking about a sheriff's department, law 8 enforcement county-to-county. I asked you at break time if 9 you had any bullets in that gun. You said it was loaded, 10 and I expect you're going to empty it on me before it's all 11 finished here, but I just don't buy into this city parity 12 business. I believe we need to be the best of the counties, 13 wherever they are. Best among ourselves. As I look at this 14 comparison, which we put together yesterday afternoon, 15 Bandera, Medina, Kendall, Gillespie, Comal, Hays, Kerr 16 County, we're not in too bad of shape. In fact, we're in 17 pretty darn good shape. I threw in two large counties, 18 Comal and Hays, whose population is considerably larger than 19 ours, one of them double ours, and our -- our patrol folks 20 are not too far off. I believe -- I believe we need to make 21 some improvement. We made improvement last year. But I'd 22 like for -- I'd like for us to disabuse ourselves of this 23 notion of parity with the city. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, in reality, I 25 don't think you can if you -- 8-27-04 wk 180 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not too sure 2 where you stood on that. Could you say all that again? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ask the clerk to read 4 it back. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Number one, Bandera, 6 Medina, Comal, Gillespie, the counties you have there, to 7 give you an idea, last year, Gillespie County felony cases, 8 if you want to get into that type of stuff, is about 9 one-tenth of ours. Their arrests are about one-tenth. 10 Their jail population is about one-tenth. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Of course, their 12 population is less. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There is no comparison 14 at all with those type of counties. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it is -- 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can compare with the 17 City of Kerrville. We're all working the same crimes; we're 18 all working the same area. I think our comparison was a lot 19 closer, okay? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Calm down, Sheriff. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're going to break 23 a blood vessel. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not yet. But I may get 25 there. 8-27-04 wk 181 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's -- 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because I do not think 3 you can compare counties with a jail population of 20 to a 4 county with a jail population of 150 to 192 and say that 5 that's an equal comparison, okay? 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's talk about 7 jails. All right, hold on. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: When you get into these 9 other counties like Hood, Lamar, and all the rest of those, 10 the one thing y'all didn't look at in a lot of these things 11 I saw was, all the small police departments in those 12 counties that take care of a whole lot of that that -- that 13 the County doesn't have to worry about. We don't have -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We didn't get the 15 caseloads. I'm not going to get into caseload with you, 16 because I don't know any numbers. And it's obvious that the 17 caseload here is heavier, 'cause our population is double, 18 or more the size of Gillespie, and -- and it's considerably 19 greater than Kendall. It's -- Medina is only slightly less 20 than us, but Hood County is right there with us in terms of 21 population, and I would suggest to you that the -- that the 22 count -- the case count is probably just about commensurate 23 with you. I only threw Hood in there because that's the one 24 Commissioner Nicholson -- one of the ones Commissioner 25 Nicholson used in his comparison. My -- if you want to be 8-27-04 wk 182 1 proactive about it, that's fine, but let's keep it -- 2 sheriffs parity with sheriffs, and deputy sheriffs with 3 deputy sheriffs. Not city police. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, let me 5 try to convince you otherwise. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who -- who hires the 8 Juvenile Detention Administrator? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Judge and two 10 of his colleagues. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Juvenile Board. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does that job take 13 more skill and know-how than the Jail Administrator at the 14 Sheriff's Department? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll defer to the 16 County Judge. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you've raised children, 18 Commissioner. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What I see is that, 20 essentially, the same -- the same or similar group is hiring 21 that person at $65,000 a year, and that's $15,000 -- $14,000 22 more than we pay our top law enforcement administrator. And 23 I see that job with -- with juveniles and smaller 24 populations being a job that doesn't require as much 25 training, skill, and know-how as the -- as the administrator 8-27-04 wk 183 1 of the Kerr County Jail. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, I mean -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: There are more regulatory 4 requirements on the detention facility than he has in his 5 jail, I can tell you that. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can't compare it. I 7 mean, that's -- I think sheriffs across the state are paid a 8 lot less than prison heads, probably, and less than police 9 department chiefs, because they're hired; they're not 10 elected, and that's just part of the deal. So, I mean, yes, 11 it's not right. And I agree with you, I think that the 12 person that's hired out there, compared to salary levels in 13 the county, is too high. But I didn't have to make that 14 decision to hire them. And I also think that I hear elected 15 officials saying that we pay our Road Administrator too 16 much, but, I mean, the market bears that out. And you -- 17 when you -- you know, the County Attorney is one that gets 18 a -- and the judges get a lot higher salary, but that's 19 dictated by the Legislature. I mean, you just can't look 20 just at the salaries. I mean, Rusty knows that he could 21 make more money working in the private sector with his 22 background than he's making here, but he doesn't want to do 23 that. He wants to be a sheriff, and I commend him for doing 24 that. I also commend him for trying to -- for fighting for 25 his staff. 8-27-04 wk 184 1 I think we need to get -- to me, get more 2 focus back on -- you know, on the jailer side of it, and 3 deputy side. The turnover cut-back from our last increase 4 is something that is pretty measurable, and I think it's 5 something that we saw -- "we" being the County and 6 taxpayers -- saw a big benefit by increasing jailers' 7 salaries last year. We don't have the turnover. And I'm in 8 favor of, you know, giving them an increase. I'm not sure 9 if I can get up to $2,000 this year, but I'm in favor of an 10 increase. Deputies, you know, I don't mind leading other 11 counties that are somewhat comparable to us in that area. I 12 think that is a very difficult job, and I think it's a -- I 13 mean, it's hard to even understand putting your life on the 14 line every day like they do, but other deputies do it too, 15 and they do -- some do it in neighboring counties that are 16 smaller for a lot less money. That doesn't mean we 17 shouldn't give them some sort of an increase too. It's just 18 I don't think we need to try to focus on that. 19 I think I agree with what they're saying. 20 Parity with the City, it's never going to happen. If we 21 raise it, they're going to raise it. We go back and forth. 22 The City does things differently than we do. We know that. 23 I think, yes, the Sheriff has to be aware of that, of what 24 they're paying, and he needs to offer something, you know, 25 to combat that. I think he does. We have cars, you know, a 8-27-04 wk 185 1 different work environment, you know, things of that nature, 2 and that's the issue. We just need to try to keep focused 3 on that. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: What was your turnover -- 5 percentage decrease on turnover this past year? On jailers? 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 85 percent less, 7 probably. It did -- you know, what this Court did last year 8 did save -- even though jail budget went up, you gave -- it 9 saved this County -- I couldn't even tell you how much money 10 in retraining -- or training. Training jailers is a, you 11 know, 12-week in-house program, 12- to 16-week, and then you 12 got another 80 hours of Jail Commission required training. 13 It saved us a lot in uniforms, turnover rate, knowledge, 14 probably lawsuits, things we can't even really compare -- 15 you know, I can't. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: What you're saying is it 17 reduced your turnover rate by 85 percent? 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Probably so, yes. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Well -- 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It was a -- a drastic 21 improvement in our department. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: What about your deputies? 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My deputies, it -- it 24 reduced that. We haven't -- I've lost about three or four 25 this year, somewhere around there. I lost two to the City. 8-27-04 wk 186 1 It's not -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And hasn't that 3 declined -- that number declined since you came in office? 4 You're getting less and less and less -- 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's declined a whole 6 lot. We -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: It was declining before -- 8 before that, and it further declined because of the increase 9 last year, you think? 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. Yes, it did. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Have you got a ballpark, 12 about, percentage-wise since the increase went into effect 13 last year? 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That one, it's a little 15 bit harder, 'cause your actual loss is not as great, but 16 since I took office, probably at least 50, 60 percent less, 17 you know, than what it was before I took office. Now, y'all 18 have worked at it, you know, for four years. We -- the main 19 thing -- one of the big things we did was take care of the 20 car issue. Deputies wouldn't get in the cars; they were 21 scared they'd go somewhere else. That helped. I still do 22 hear about weapons and, you know, Sam Brownes and salaries. 23 I hear that all the time. I've lost -- the one I lost this 24 year to the City is a master certified peace officer. You 25 know, but he could go -- because also their -- their 8-27-04 wk 187 1 certification difference is a little bit more than ours, so 2 they get a little bit more for that. They get the leather 3 gear; they get this, but it's -- we're almost there. And 4 what I'm asking this Court to do, I think -- I seriously 5 think that if you did this last step, which is what we're 6 trying to get, I think you would find that you would have a 7 lot of people and a lot of officers that would end up being 8 15-, 20-, 25-year officers with this county, and if you do 9 that, your solving of crimes is going to jump drastically, 10 because they're going to know the criminal element. They're 11 going to have dealt with their parents, the kids, the 12 grandkids. We know them, know the modus operandi. There's 13 no way it's a bad investment to treat these officers -- you 14 know, and if you do the two-step, that's $1,349 on an 15 officer to get an investment back and a return back that is 16 unreal. Every time I hire an officer, I always have to 17 worry. I can do the basic backgrounds; they can come out 18 the best, but you don't know what's going to happen in all 19 the high-stress situations and training situations. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was the increase we 21 gave jailers last year? Do you remember? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $2,000, wasn't it? 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It was two or three. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Three, I think. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It was either two or 8-27-04 wk 188 1 three on the jail last year. It may have been three. 2 Commissioner Williams, I think it's three. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff -- I'm sorry, 4 go ahead. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What were deputies given 6 last year? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Deputies, 1,500. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your parity analysis, 9 where you'd like to jump, is predicated on the existing City 10 of Kerrville salary? 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that correct? 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So -- 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're not trying to 16 get up to it -- equal to it. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He's not trying to 19 get equal to it; he's trying to get closer to it. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the point I'm 21 going to make is, he's not, 'cause there's going to be a -- 22 there's going to be another increase in their budget too. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The question is, how 25 much? 8-27-04 wk 189 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. But where we 2 started -- the County started getting so far behind since I 3 was with the County was those years that, one, deputies 4 didn't get anything; two, cost-of-livings got excluded out. 5 It wasn't just in -- in the more recent years that the 6 County -- the City got good raises for their officers. Now, 7 you know, they have their chiefs, but what cost Kerr County 8 in all those prior years is where we really split up. Now, 9 this Court has been giving cost-of-livings, okay. We just 10 had never gotten our base back up to where we were close. 11 Years ago we were right with them, and we had no problems 12 with manpower or anything else. Of course, both departments 13 were smaller. But then, when it got to where the County 14 officers weren't getting anything, the base got so far apart 15 that even -- and then each year, both departments get 16 cost-of-living. If you saw last year's, the City got, what, 17 a 2-point-something cost-of-living. Now y'all are 18 considering a 3 cost-of-living. I heard the City's 19 considering a 3. I honestly believe, you know, we're at the 20 point that can be -- or we can be at the point where you're 21 going to be going just by cost-of-living differences. And 22 also, you're going to narrow a whole lot down because the 23 Court started, in 2000, giving the longevity and the 24 educational, which had never ever been done, and had always 25 been done over there. So, that starts keeping us back up 8-27-04 wk 190 1 there to where we truly have an equal department, and we 2 will have people retire from the Kerr County Sheriff's 3 Department. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is -- I would 5 recommend this year 1,500 for the jailers/dispatchers, 1,000 6 for deputies. And the reason I don't want to go the full 7 amount is that these are long-term decisions when it comes 8 to budget, and we have some long-term uncertainty because of 9 the tax freeze that we have implemented, and we're not real 10 sure how it's going to be. And I really -- I get pretty 11 nervous about having too big of a deficit, because I think 12 we're okay this year to next year, but I'm concerned about 13 two to three years down -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are you 15 recommending? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1,500 for the jailers and 17 dispatchers, and 1,000 for the deputies, in addition to the 18 COLA. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: The COLA goes top-to-bottom 20 anyway. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 15 for jailers and 23 1,000 for deputies? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And everybody gets COLA? 8-27-04 wk 191 1 JUDGE TINLEY: 1,500, jailers and 2 dispatchers. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why is a dispatcher 6 lumped in with a jailer and not a deputy? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They have -- well, until 8 we just changed the actual line item on the budget, 9 dispatcher pay for all the 20 years prior always came out of 10 the jailers' budget, and they were always classified as the 11 same. The only thing I did -- and Tommy did when I took 12 office is, we moved -- in fact, they were in with the jailer 13 line item back then. We separated them out and moved them 14 over to the Sheriff's Office budget, okay? Instead of 15 leaving it in the jail budget, 'cause they don't have 16 anything to do with jail. But they've always been 17 classified -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll add on something 19 to what you've talked about. We haven't dealt with the 20 Sheriff, but I believe, at the very least -- at the very 21 least, wherever the chief deputy is, the Sheriff should be 22 at least $5,000 above. At the very least. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. If I can give you 24 just a quick little figure, and y'all figure it out, without 25 the 1,000 -- with the 1,000, okay? And even with -- with 8-27-04 wk 192 1 the 1,000 for the deputies, which he falls under, and with 2 the 3 percent COLA for the deputies, which he would fall 3 under, plus he has a 2.5 longevity starting October 1st, all 4 right? And the 1,000 for the elected officials, and the 5 COLA that y'all had figured in, at -- with the 1,000 for me, 6 he's going to be making a little over $300 a year more than 7 I am. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not if you follow my 9 plan. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not if we follow yours, 11 but that's where you would be at if everything is exactly 12 like it's going in now. The 1,000 for the elected 13 officials, 1,000 for the deputies, and the cost-of-living, 14 he's going to be at about $300 more. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think your salary 16 should be established at $5,000 above the chief deputy, no 17 matter where the chief deputy ends up. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I appreciate that. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not agreeing with 20 that. I agree with the concept. I don't know that I agree 21 with the amount, because I don't know how you can make that 22 statement with the chief deputy in this department and not 23 the chief deputy in every department. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not dealing with 25 the chief deputy; I'm dealing with the Sheriff. 8-27-04 wk 193 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- I know, but you're 2 basing the Sheriff's salary on the chief deputy's, 3 basically, and I think that's a -- I don't like that 4 precedent, because I can see -- you know, she's not here. I 5 see the County Clerk coming in saying, "My chief deputy 6 makes this; I want $5,000 more." 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know what the 8 salary difference is between the chief deputy and the heads 9 of the other departments. I have a feeling it's very close 10 to that right now, 5,000. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: She could probably tell you 12 here pretty quick. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think, probably -- 14 MS. MITCHELL: No. 15 MS. NEMEC: There's one that's at 12,000, one 16 that's at 14,000 -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 18 MS. NEMEC: -- more. I don't think there's 19 anyone that's lower than 5,000. 20 (Discussion off the record.) 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: All your department 22 heads are way up. It's -- the Nash study messed with it. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not giving you that 24 much; 5,000 is plenty. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, y'all help me 8-27-04 wk 194 1 understand this. You make 51,735. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Clay makes 49,705. 4 Basically, $2,000 more. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we're going to 7 give him a $1,500 raise and give you a $1,000 raise. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, you're giving him 9 1,000 and me 1,000, 'cause you went to the deputies at 10 1,000. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, 1,000. That's 12 correct, 1,000 and 1,000. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So the difference 15 there hasn't changed. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not yet. Keep going. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not yet. And what -- 18 the 3 percent COLA is what -- what bumps him ahead of you? 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. Then the 20 2.5 percent longevity that starts October 1st for him, is 21 what bumps him ahead of me. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Longevity, okay. 23 You're going to have to quit for a couple years, buddy. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He's only getting his 25 one-year longevity. 8-27-04 wk 195 1 JUDGE TINLEY: 30 minutes would be long 2 enough, wouldn't it? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. That kind of 4 money. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Then back on board. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. Don't 7 you feel like that you have to participate in this in any 8 way? I mean, give up something for the community and your 9 boss? No, I didn't think so. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Have you ever thought about 11 splitting your longevity with him? (Laughter.) 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Better off not saying 13 anything. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. You're ahead 15 of the game, Clay. Just keep quiet. 16 MR. BARTON: I remember the old days. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My friend Clay 18 deserves more than what he gets. Okay. So, we -- well, we 19 need to agree on how many hundreds of thousands the Sheriff 20 gets, and to keep him -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's do it quick so Kathy can 22 take a break, okay? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You said 5,000 -- you 24 said 5,000 is too much? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll go with 5,000. 8-27-04 wk 196 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want 10. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ten. And I'll bring 3 it back down to three. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Uh-oh, you're going 5 south, Sheriff. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll go with five. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So it's just an 8 automatic -- what -- you know, if we decided that Clay needs 9 to have the moon, then the Sheriff's $5,000 more. Is that 10 what we're saying? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Automatic for this year. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can't plan it for 13 next year. We'll be back. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, for more. More 15 is the way it works. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, 'cause he won't have 17 another longevity for four years, so you may have it made. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff, don't let 19 me forget the Sam Brownes and the weapons. We'll work on 20 that next year. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Next year. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever a Sam Browne 23 is. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the guy that 25 has that belt that goes across. 8-27-04 wk 197 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Holsters. 2 (Discussion off the record.) 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I'm at five. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's two fives. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Four fives. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The proposal that 7 apparently is a consensus, 1,000 on deputies, 1,500 jailers 8 and dispatchers, and Sheriff is 500 over. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 500? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me, 5,000. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nice try, Judge. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: That may have been a Freudian 13 slip. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Now, how much 15 -- how much is that? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's up to 60,000. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is he? 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, by the time you 20 add the COLA. By the time you put the COLA in -- 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 50-something. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, that's not 23 the 1,000 we talked about before. That's five, period. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't get one plus 25 five. 8-27-04 wk 198 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, if you're going to 2 be five above him, it's going to be one plus five, 'cause 3 otherwise you'd only be 200 above him. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You figured it out. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Already figured that one 6 out. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm telling you, him 8 and Bill Stacy been around the block. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's going to be six 10 plus the COLA. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Figured it out. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can still reduce it. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's the problem. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it should be four 16 above the chief deputy. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My three sounds good, 18 doesn't it? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: COLA, 51, 52 -- 57, 20 58 -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Bear in mind, gentlemen, this 22 is a workshop. We're discussing ideas. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Things can still change. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I know that. 8-27-04 wk 199 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 58, 59, somewhere in 2 there. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Are we at the end of this 4 particular segment? Let's take a break for 15, 20 minutes 5 here. 6 (Recess taken from 2:55 p.m. to 3:20 p.m.) 7 - - - - - - - - - - 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Why don't we go ahead 9 and come back to order. Commissioner Baldwin will be here 10 with us momentarily. Are we through with the -- with the 11 Sheriff's Office issues? 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not unless you just want 13 to hear from me. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I am. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: For now, yes. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you through with 18 the Sheriff's Department? Or -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Am I through with the 20 Sheriff's Department? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. You want to 22 throw a little more fuel on the fire? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hmm-mm. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Where do we go next, 25 gentlemen? 8-27-04 wk 200 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't forget -- I don't 3 think that we ever really completed the County Engineer 4 issue. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have not. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: You're correct, we did not 7 complete that. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have some 10 Commissioners Court items too. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have we gotten any closer 12 to getting an opinion from the County Attorney on that 13 issue? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: When I last talked with the 15 County Attorney, I was advised that he was working on it 16 just extremely diligently, and it should be forthcoming 17 pretty quick. And when I -- when I say "pretty quick," I 18 was speaking within a matter of a week or so when I talked 19 to him, which was -- I'm not sure whether it was the tail 20 end of last week or the first part of this week. So, I -- 21 I'm hopeful of having it in order for us to make the 22 appropriate decision at solving that issue here this 23 go-around. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- the way I see 25 it, I think we have a discussion on the County Engineer to 8-27-04 wk 201 1 have still. We have a discussion on the Ag Barn roof still, 2 exactly how we're going to proceed with that, and we're 3 waiting on numbers on one and the County Attorney on the 4 other. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're waiting on 6 numbers on the insurance guru. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We've got -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Not sure we will know those 9 numbers by this budget, unfortunately. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Possibly not. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Because we're talking about 12 something that's going to take effect January 1. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're just talking 14 about a consultant, aren't you? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, okay. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We need to wrap up 18 the volunteer fire department and repeater issue. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Right. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not ready to do 21 that; we're waiting on KARFA. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: First Responder 23 issue. We still have the airport grant issue. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or airport funding. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I meant E.M.S., not 8-27-04 wk 202 1 First Responder. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: E.M.S. and airport and 3 other City matters, for that matter. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And if you can do 5 something with the -- county-wide with the 12's, I know 6 that's been talked about. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then the -- the issue on 8 trying to raise all the Level 12's to at least a 13. Do we 9 have 13's? Bound to have 13's if we have a 12. 10 MS. NEMEC: We have 13's, yes. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many employees 12 county-wide do we have at Level 12, Barbara? 13 MS. NEMEC: I would say between 25 and 30. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Between 25 and 30? 15 MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's that current 17 starting rate? 18 MS. NEMEC: A 12-1. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $18,407 a year. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, now, are you reading off 21 the jail schedule, or are you reading off an admin schedule? 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Clerical's the same. 23 MS. NEMEC: Clerical. Clerical. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Clerical's the same. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All of these are going to be 8-27-04 wk 203 1 clerical-type employees? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 18,407? What's that come 3 to hourly? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Eight -- 5 MS. NEMEC: Hourly is 8.85. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 8.85. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It would -- that 8 would deal with the issue we talked about last year, and 9 I've got -- still got some -- some sympathy for it, and 10 that's taking care of people that are paid so little that 11 they're eligible for public assistance. I don't know if 12 there's -- but, anyhow, anything we could give them would 13 get them a little closer to being away from poverty. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's a 13? 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A 13 is 19,339 a year, 16 being 9.30 an hour. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think -- I mean, 18 I'd like to know what the budget impact of that change would 19 be. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just that one? The -- 22 from the 12 to 13? We're talking about -- we're talking 23 about raising the 12. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All -- yeah. Well, 25 yeah -- no, clerical. I don't know of any other. 8-27-04 wk 204 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Delete 12. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: I got a question on that. 3 You're talking about only the ones that are entry level? 4 Or -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: -- are we going to -- or say 7 a person is a 12-5. If we raise 12's, are we going to 13-5? 8 Same -- same step? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think so. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, to give you an 11 example, if you had a 12-5, that would be 20,318 a year, and 12 that would go to 21,347, so it would be 9.77 an hour to 13 10.26 an hour. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What we need is the 15 number of people impacted and total cost. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number 4 said it. 17 Bottom line. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: We can't -- is there any 19 situation where, if that happened, the person that's -- 20 that's a -- like, that moves from a 12-5 to a 13-5 will be 21 making more than somebody that's already -- 22 MS. NEMEC: It's going to happen. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sure it will. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As long as he doesn't 8-27-04 wk 205 1 make more than the Sheriff. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: I can see where you'd wind up 3 passing somebody that's already -- that's already -- that's 4 at the entry level that's -- that's at a 14, for example. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Like, a 12 -- a 13-5 is 7 more than a 14-1? Is that -- 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't know; I don't 9 have the schedule with me, but I'm envisioning that 10 happening. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, it's something 12 like that. Something like that. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You could give your -- 14 MS. NEMEC: It will happen. It's going to be 15 hard to move a 12 and not move the 13's and the 14's and 16 just restructure everything. I mean, it's -- you know, 17 you're going to fall into where some departments, the 18 employees that are 12's are going to be making more than 19 people with higher responsibilities. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask this 21 question. If you had a 12-5 and you moved them to the 13-1, 22 are they decreasing their salary? 23 MS. NEMEC: Yes. 12 -- like, a 12-5 right 24 now is 20,318, and a 13-1 is 19,339. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What if we -- 8-27-04 wk 206 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Give your 12's a 2 two-step -- not a grade, but a two-step increase. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But then, still, if you 4 hire a new employee, they go back at a 12-1 then, which is 5 your -- what if you raised every spot $500, or some just 6 flat amount? What's that do, Barbara? 7 MS. NEMEC: What does it do? Raises 8 everybody $500. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But, Jonathan, if you 10 turned a 12 -- what is now a 12-3 to a future 12-1 -- you 11 see what I'm talking about? -- you're raising that starting 12 salary. That 12-1 right now is 18,407. If, after the new 13 budget, a 12-1 would be what is now a 12-3, it would be 14 19,338, and you're just alleviating out Step 1 and 2, and 15 turning Step 3 into a 1. I think you'd square it all the 16 way across-the-board. 17 MS. NEMEC: But you can't do that without 18 moving everybody else, because what will happen is -- 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Your people already set 20 at 12-3 would be at 12-5. 21 MS. NEMEC: Yeah, but what will happen to the 22 13-1? The 13-1, when you do that, is going to be same as 23 your 12-1. That's why I'm saying you can't move that unless 24 you move everybody. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all don't forget, we 8-27-04 wk 207 1 have a court reporter trying to do all this. 2 (Discussion off the record.) 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One of the problems 4 is, we got more salary grades than Exxon. Literally. 5 They're too close together as a result of that, but we're 6 not going to -- that's -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next couple years. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, we'll take 9 care of that three years from now. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I guess if y'all are 11 going to give a certain percentage to the elected officials 12 for merit increases, you could just kind of suggest they 13 really look at their 12's and see if they're -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Might not be a bad idea 15 this year to try to -- we're going to be biting off more 16 than we can afford. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Already have. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you're right; we 20 already have. May not be a bad idea to give a pot -- or a 21 percentage, rather, to each department head/elected official 22 to use as merit increases, with the idea of raising the 23 lower end where possible. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just think one of 25 the major things that we could do -- I mean, really major, 8-27-04 wk 208 1 is -- and not this year, but next year, some year, is forget 2 about all these $1,000 raises and COLA's and all that, and 3 really and truly wipe out Line 12 and 13, and start 4 everything on a 14. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, couldn't you -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the only true 7 way to keep things going the way they should be. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It needs some more 9 study. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. But I think the 12 idea the Sheriff had about giving a -- some sort of a 13 percentage for merit increases has, you know, merit. It's a 14 short-term -- it's a bandaid on some of those situations, 15 hopefully. 16 MS. NEMEC: What I can do next year is do a 17 position schedule and move all the 12's and the 13's to a 18 14, and then distribute that to all the department heads and 19 elected officials, and then they can kind of look at that 20 and see where they have to adjust their other employees that 21 have more responsibilities and the pay is not the same, and 22 then kind of go from there. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the way you do 24 it, even though it might be more work, is do just what Dave 25 said; restructure our step and grade and eliminate two 8-27-04 wk 209 1 steps. And just shuffle -- you know, may not be totally 2 fair, but you end up with a -- you know, or two or three or 3 whatever, just redoing the whole schedule. 4 MS. NEMEC: Which is basically what we're 5 going to do with -- well, we're going to add 1,500 or 1,000 6 in -- okay. Yeah, that -- that'll work. I mean, we can -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's simplified, and that 8 way you could work out the differences between -- you have 9 to bump everybody up. Some may, percentage-wise, get a 10 little bit less compared to someone starting out. Have a 11 new 14 salary level as the minimum now, and try to eliminate 12 some of the steps or grades, whichever one. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Steps. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Steps. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Steps go across, 16 grades go up. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why do you call -- to me, 18 that's backwards. Ought to call it grades and steps, then, 19 instead of steps and grades. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Got a new language 21 down in Comfort now. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Besides German? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we have the issue 24 on your list on -- we can probably deal with this one maybe 25 today, the court reporter's salary. 8-27-04 wk 210 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the court 3 administrator's salary. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And court administrator. 5 We didn't discuss those two. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I had requested -- and I think 7 it's probably in the -- is it in this current rollup? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: (Nodded.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: It's already included 10 within -- within your most recent, and that's a $1,000 11 increase. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: (Nodded.) 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure that's 14 sufficient. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, be my guest. I'm sure 16 Ms. Banik will dutifully take it down. Roll it out. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't recall giving an 18 increase there, and I think it's a -- you know, I hate to 19 use the word "parity." I won't use it. I just think that 20 the -- you know, for the amount of work done and the amount 21 of things that we really don't get billed for at times, and 22 things that, you know, we have requested, Kathy gets it for 23 us, I wouldn't mind seeing a $2,000 raise. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I got no problem with that. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't either. 8-27-04 wk 211 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either. And 2 in this case, Commissioner, you can use "parity," 'cause 3 it's a court reporter working in the courthouse on county 4 business. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I like "equity" 6 better. I'm off of parity now; I'm on to equity. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, we're going to 8 equity. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I like that 10 proposal, too. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Equity for all. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Got that, Tommy? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two. 15 MS. NEMEC: Is that 3 percent plus 2,000? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. Let's take 18 care of the other one. I think -- I think -- where are we 19 with -- in terms of the administrative assistant to 20 Commissioners Court? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I think Commissioner Baldwin 22 had requested that. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 28,201. Is that 24 correct? 25 MS. NEMEC: 28,009 would be the 19-4, with 8-27-04 wk 212 1 the longevity. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 28 -- 3 MS. NEMEC: 009. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would be current? 5 MS. NEMEC: That's with her longevity for 6 next year that she gets. Right -- right now, she's at a 7 19-3. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, what's a 9 19-5? 10 MS. NEMEC: A 19-5 is 28,709. That's without 11 the 3 percent. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 3 percent. Plus 13 3 percent COLA? 14 MS. NEMEC: Right. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you're proposing a 16 two-step increase? Two? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, not less than 18 that. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I differ a little 20 bit, and it's nothing at all to do with the quality of the 21 work. And I think that the -- it's due to what -- I've 22 spoken with Kathy, but the -- the problem I have is that 23 it's a -- I would rather wait till next year and get a year 24 behind. I think it's a bad precedent for this -- for the 25 Court to set on making a pretty significant salary change 8-27-04 wk 213 1 after employment of about six months. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I disagree. I 3 think -- I think you can take into account the services 4 rendered and elevation of the office and how much better 5 things are running here, and reward that accordingly. So -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we have -- four 7 evaluations have come back, the Judge and three 8 commissioners, and the lowest factor is "exceeds 9 expectations." Most of it's "outstanding." There was a few 10 "exceeds expectations", but nothing below that, so it's a -- 11 we have all given her very high marks. And I'm going to -- 12 if I ever have the opportunity to vote, I'm going to vote 13 two steps. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm with two steps. 15 There's three two-steppers. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks like it's two 17 steps. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Next issue. 19 MS. NEMEC: So we're talking about 19-6. 20 She's at a 19-3 right now. Longevity puts her at a 19-4. 21 Two steps on top of a 19-4 is a 19-6. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's where it is. 23 MS. NEMEC: That's correct. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds good to me. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think the Sheriff 8-27-04 wk 214 1 has something to say. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: He wants to thank us for the 3 5,000. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just for clarity. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Why don't you go 6 back to the Sheriff's Office? You are -- you're through. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is just for 8 clarity, so there's no misunderstanding. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, that was his foot 10 that he raised up. I thought he stepped on something there, 11 maybe. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Pretty close. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can give your speech 14 if you want me to. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Probably not. In what 16 Tommy had figured and what's in that, except for cutting it 17 down to the 1,000 and that, the one other thing that we did 18 that I presented to the Court was moving the investigators 19 up to the sergeant level, which is a classification. If 20 you'll recall, we talked about that. That's already in all 21 of your figures you have. I just don't want it to get 22 approved, and officially it hasn't been said, because that 23 is a reclassification. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Your investigators are not the 25 equivalent of a sergeant? Is that what you're telling me? 8-27-04 wk 215 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, they are not. Have 2 never been. We have -- we're working it, trying to get them 3 to the equivalent of sergeant. All investigators normally 4 in departments are sergeants, but they are not -- even 5 though they have that authority at a crime scene or anything 6 else, they take charge of it when they're there, it's just 7 never been classified as that in this department. And that 8 was taken care of in what Tommy has figured in all our -- 9 our budget stuff, but I just haven't gotten the official 10 okay that that is what we're looking at. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's included 12 within -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That'll be about it. I 14 mean, on your list. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm out of money; I don't know 16 about the rest of you guys. But -- in fact, I've been -- 17 I've been working off that loan you promised to make me for 18 a pretty good while. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One thing I'd like 20 to see done, we talked about it a little bit, is that -- the 21 department heads and elected officials who are involved in 22 generating revenues through fees, fees that the 23 Commissioners Court has the authority to set, such as the 24 Sheriff and constables and others, just -- just quite a few, 25 I'd like for them to say, "Here's our current fees, and 8-27-04 wk 216 1 here's my recommendation. Don't do anything different." 2 Or, "Increase them," or just -- there may be some -- I don't 3 know if "significant" is the right word or not, but there's 4 some revenue generation opportunity that we ought to have a 5 chance to look at. We don't have to do anything on it. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I think there's a requirement 7 annually that all of the Sheriffs and constables and fees of 8 office -- is that January 1, benchmark on that? 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There is a schedule, and 10 I have them in here, but January 1 the Court has to set the 11 fees for the county. Y'all changed some last year, and 12 that's -- 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think it has to be 14 sent to the state comptroller by October 1. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I know I have it 16 in here. There was -- the only difference that I anticipate 17 at all is there is a -- it's kind of just a miswording that 18 makes it look like one type of citation could be one fee or 19 another fee, but I don't intend on changing any, what our 20 fees are. The big discussion we got into last year was over 21 eviction fees. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Where it would cost the 24 landlord 200-something dollars to go down and evict 25 somebody, and they didn't want to change a lot of those, so 8-27-04 wk 217 1 we didn't change the fees. They were in line. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Rusty, what I'm 3 getting at is, when I go through and scan through there and 4 look at all 254 counties, we're -- the fees we charge are 5 down toward the lower half of it. Some -- some counties are 6 charging twice as much fees here for certain things as we 7 are. I don't have any information that suggests we ought to 8 do it, but we might -- might ought to do it, and I'd like to 9 hear recommendations from you and the constables about 10 whether or not we ought to raise fees. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll be more than happy 12 to put it on your next Commissioners Court agenda to discuss 13 the fees, 'cause it's got to be done before court anyhow. 14 It's not actually part of the budget. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And pull up the research 17 that I can, and see what -- bring you what the other 18 counties are. There's a book of it, and then just let it be 19 open for discussion, let the Court tell them where they 20 choose. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There probably are 22 areas that you could increase. But I remember that 23 distinctly, about the eviction being -- that's an unfair 24 fee. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. Some of that -- 8-27-04 wk 218 1 you know, it gets real expensive for a landlord to get rid 2 of someone. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, one of 4 the issues here is that some of these fees are paid by other 5 counties. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They send us the 8 piece of paper over here, and before they do, they call and 9 say, "How much is your fee for this?" And we say ours is 10 40, and somebody else's is 90, so we -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we charge 35. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- we only get 40 13 bucks. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, 35 and 40. And 15 Houston is 55, I think, or 60. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A lot of differences 17 will be between the 45 charge and the 60 charge. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Or something that a lot 20 of them charge 60, and we charge 45. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We may want to take 22 a look at it. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sure. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we eliminate the 25 County Engineer's office, it's my opinion that there are 8-27-04 wk 219 1 some duties there that do need to be carried on; some of the 2 plat work, some of the -- those other things. And I would 3 think that we could take those duties and visit with Truby 4 and Leonard, and see if they would have any interest in 5 taking on some extra duties, and compensate them, of course, 6 accordingly. But I think that we need -- we need to get 7 them in here to talk with them about it and cut the deal, 8 and if we can't cut a deal, it's my opinion -- I'm in the 9 same place I was last year; that if we don't have a good, 10 rock-solid plan in place very, very soon, then I'm -- I'm 11 not going to be able to support eliminating the County 12 Engineer. If we can get a plan in place, and in my mind, 13 the best plan is to ask Truby and Leonard to take on those 14 duties -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we know what those 16 duties are? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, but it would be 18 pretty easy to -- we could sit right here this afternoon and 19 come up with those duties, I think. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the other thing 21 that -- and I agree with that, but the -- depending on the 22 word coming down from the County Attorney, we can always go 23 back to what was originally set up with the County Engineer 24 and a $3,000 salary, and have them do very limited plat 25 work, or -- I mean, engineering-type plat work, and put 8-27-04 wk 220 1 everything else off, either -- well, hopefully with Leonard 2 and Truby. I see that as a way, 'cause we had talked about 3 hiring a contract engineer occasionally, which makes me 4 nervous, 'cause contract fees can get out of line. But we 5 can go back to, you know, having a County Engineer on a 6 part -- on a true part-time basis for such -- I mean, for 7 the three or four times a year we need them to do some 8 analysis or to give some advice from an engineering 9 standpoint. As I understand or recall, I think -- I don't 10 know if Dave looked into it or someone else -- when the 11 original unit system was first set up, the salary of the 12 County Engineer was $3,000. Somehow, between '87 and now, 13 it's grown. A lot. So, I think that's another option that 14 we can look at. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Holiday schedule. Anybody got 16 any specific thoughts on that, to the one that's been 17 proposed? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think I have 19 any problem with it. I'd rather have Texas Independence 20 than Martin Luther King, but that's -- obviously, I'm not 21 going to get my way. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I don't have any 23 problem with it. The -- you know, noting that there is one 24 additional day on the schedule than we've had in prior 25 years, which is fine with me. But I just -- you know, we're 8-27-04 wk 221 1 giving another holiday. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not -- you know, 3 I'm not going to quarrel, make a big issue of it, but I 4 don't know why -- 11 holidays is pretty standard in 5 government and industry. I don't know why we need to go to 6 12. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, there's 10 here 8 on this list. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two of them are two-day 10 holidays. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, you're talking 12 about days. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm, normal days 14 off. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't care much 16 about this either, but we're going to get yelled at if we're 17 not the same as K.I.S.D. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I'm glad she put 19 that together. There's a Tivy cheerleader. Hey, I know how 20 it works, man. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You always wanted to be 22 a Tivy cheerleader? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You bet I did. Never 24 could find a skirt big enough. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, if we're -- I 8-27-04 wk 222 1 don't have any problem with this way, but if we went back to 2 11, I would delete January 17th. But I don't have any 3 strong feelings one way or the other. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've always noticed -- to 6 me, we always -- not just us; there's always a whole lot 7 more holidays in the first half of the year than the second 8 half of the year. If we can get rid of one, I want to get 9 rid of one in the first half. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. Is this -- is 11 this decision made in regular Commissioners Court meeting, 12 or is it part of the budget? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Part of the budget. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is it? Okay. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, it affects 17 costs, doesn't it? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, I personally 19 like -- and I think the employees like having two days at 20 Thanksgiving and two days at Christmas. I think those are 21 good holidays, and I would be willing to sacrifice one of 22 those other days. But, either way. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay by me. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. When are we going to 25 gather up next? 8-27-04 wk 223 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A.S.A.P. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Tomorrow? 3 MS. NEMEC: Can I ask a question on the 4 holidays? Does that include the 23rd as a half-day? 'Cause 5 I didn't have it on here, but there was a suggestion made 6 that it be on here, 'cause everybody's going to leave 7 anyway. So, do we want to officially -- officially do it so 8 that we don't have a problem? Some are going to get paid, 9 and some are going to leave and some are going to work. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm for that. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Is this a good time to bring 12 up the issue of everybody punching in on a time clock? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You haven't told them 14 about the clocks yet? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have the clocks been 16 ordered? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah. I think they're 18 actually in. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we go to half a day, 20 then I have to go in favor of deleting Martin Luther King 21 Day. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm there. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I am too. And we 24 can put off another year putting the parking meters out in 25 the parking lot. 8-27-04 wk 224 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we have 11 and a half 2 official days of holiday. 3 MS. NEMEC: So, we're deleting Martin Luther 4 King? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: For the 23rd, the day of 7 our Christmas party. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good compromise. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Officially shut down 10 that -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, 'cause nothing 12 goes on anyhow. We might as well shut it down. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Tomlinson? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I just want, for a 16 parting shot, to give you something to think about over the 17 weekend. This year, you know, we lose about a $400,000 18 debt. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: This coming year? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is our last year. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: This is our last year. That 23 may have a -- for '05-'06, that could have a negative effect 24 on our rollback. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: On our what? 8-27-04 wk 225 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Our rollback rate. And 2 what -- what could happen is that, because we're losing 3 interest and sinking fund on that debt payment, potentially 4 the rollback could be lower than our actual rate is. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, hope -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But hopefully next year, 7 when we lose that debt, we lose that tax rate that goes with 8 that debt. I mean, that's what I want to do. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm talking from experience. 10 It happened in Bandera. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we could go -- 12 MR. TOMLINSON: This year. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We could lose the -- is 14 it half a cent we added for that thing? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: What happened was that the -- 16 because -- because of losing the debt retirement and the 17 fact that the -- the values went up, the combination of 18 those two made the rollback rate go below what -- what the 19 actual rate was, and so the rate had to go -- the total rate 20 had to go down. So, my point is -- is that your -- you 21 potentially could be funding this same budget in '05-'06 22 with less dollars. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That should be fun. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Tommy. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I hope that's -- I 8-27-04 wk 226 1 hope that's a parting shot. (Laughter.) 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I mean, especially when 3 you -- in view of the fact that we do have this -- the tax 4 freeze on the 65 and over, so you have -- you're going to 5 have those two negative impacts the same year. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: How do we avoid, if we can, 7 not running the risk of that -- of that rollback -- 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I hate to say this, but 9 the law, in calculating the rollback, encourages a county or 10 any municipality to have debt. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: To incur debt? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: To incur debt. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Long-term debt. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: That's exactly right. So -- 15 so, I mean, so the way -- the way to avoid it is to incur 16 more debt. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Goat barn. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Haul out the Ag Barn. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, that seems contrary 21 to the way most, you know, business people think, but -- but 22 that's reality. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: You've -- of course, you've 24 got normal bonded indebtedness, G.O. bonds, and then you've 25 always got C.O.'s. What's the ceiling on those now? 8-27-04 wk 227 1 $2 million without voter approval? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- I don't think 3 there is a ceiling. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, there's not a 5 ceiling. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: On C.O.'s. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's not a ceiling, 8 but -- but the limit without voter approval, I think, is now 9 $2 million, isn't it? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't know, Judge. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've never heard that. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Never heard that 13 before. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I think there may be -- 15 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think so. Maybe 16 that's true. I haven't -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- I think on C.O.'s, 18 you've got -- if they go above a certain amount, you've got 19 to seek voter approval. I know that was the proposal. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we ask the 21 County Attorney for an opinion? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe we'll get it one 23 day. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: That's just -- I mean, in my 25 thinking -- in my analysis, I -- I see that there might be a 8-27-04 wk 228 1 problem -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next year. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: -- funding the same level -- 4 making the same level of funding the following year with -- 5 with those problems. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does it -- let me ask you 7 this. Does that -- knowing that, is it better for us to 8 have a little bit larger deficit this year and get some 9 expenditures possibly out of Road and Bridge and elsewhere 10 out of the way this year, and tell Road and Bridge you're 11 not getting anything next year? I mean, is that a -- is 12 that a smart way to look at it? Or does that make it worse? 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it could -- yeah. 14 Yeah, that could be -- that could help. Because you 15 would -- you could you afford to lower -- I mean, if you had 16 to lower your rate, then -- then you could live with it. I 17 mean, you'd have to have a crystal ball to know what really 18 is going to happen with -- with tax rates. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But it may be -- 20 it may make sense to give the Sheriff six cars instead of 21 four, and possibly -- I mean, some of these things that are 22 ongoing every year, knowing that that may give us a little 23 bit of flexibility next year if we are really in a crunch 24 because of this. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: What happened at Bandera was 8-27-04 wk 229 1 that the rollback rate actually came in lower than what the 2 effective rate was, and so -- so they're having to decrease 3 their tax rate by almost 2 cents. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who did this? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Bandera. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, some of us here 8 on this end of the bench think we can fashion a plan for the 9 Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center by -- in the next 12 10 months. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Jonathan, I don't know 12 if a deal just like the lease-type deal would really help, 13 because you still got those payments the following year. 14 And, you know -- 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Those are not qualified debt 16 retirement, anyway. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But accelerating 18 some purchase of some equipment possibly might work. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Outright purchase could. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: New ag barn will do 21 it. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we can get -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't look at Dave. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I still like the 25 idea of buying a hundred Lotto tickets every month, and if 8-27-04 wk 230 1 we hit, we get an ag barn. (Laughter.) 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mega-Millions will 3 take care of it for us. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, how long do we 5 have on that radio system? Is that going to be our third 6 year coming up? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: No, this will be the 8 second -- no. No, we -- no, we did. This is the third 9 year, 'cause we made a payment before we actually ever -- 10 before it was actually finished. So we did -- we did make a 11 payment. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's a five-year or 13 seven-year? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: This is the third year. I 15 think it's seven, because the -- I think it's only, like, 16 165,000 a year. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this was at five when 18 we did that one, right? Originally? Had to be, yeah. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Courthouse was five. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Five. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: It's done this year. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: And that's going to be our 25 problem. 8-27-04 wk 231 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that's the 2 problem you're alluding to. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if you -- it doesn't 5 help you to incur that -- does it help you to incur that 6 debt in next year's budget, or do you have to incur it this 7 year? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, in the -- in the 9 rollback calculation, you -- the debt -- the interest and 10 sinking part of the tax rate is exempt. So you get -- in 11 the calculations, you take -- you remove that rate from -- 12 from the total -- total rate to calculate the rollback. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: So it does encourage debt, 15 actually. Another thing -- you know, another thing that 16 might -- that potentially might be negative, too -- I mean, 17 it's positive in one way, but the -- the equivalent -- the 18 ad valorem tax equivalent of -- of your sales tax is also 19 calculated into the rollback, so the -- the larger your 20 increase in -- in sales tax is, the more impact it has on 21 rollback. If we were to have a 5 percent increase in sales 22 tax from -- from '03/'04 to '04/'05, that would make an 23 impact too. We get the use of the sales tax, but -- but 24 still it has a -- it has a negative effect on -- on the 25 rollback rate. 8-27-04 wk 232 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. I'm ready to 2 go home. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I am too. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Had a wonderful time. 5 Good being with y'all today. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: When are we going to meet 7 next, gentlemen? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's plan the 9 next -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would say next 11 Thursday. I mean, I think -- I don't see any reason to meet 12 till we get some of this information, and hopefully by then, 13 either Wednesday or Thursday -- Wednesday is bad for you 14 usually. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, next Wednesday's 16 good. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: He's okay next Wednesday. 18 Thursday is a killer for me all weeks. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wednesday's fine. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: You want to try Wednesday 21 afternoon or Wednesday morning? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Afternoon. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that's fine. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: 1:30 Wednesday afternoon? 25 MS. MITCHELL: September 1st. 8-27-04 wk 233 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1 o'clock? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1:30. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1:30. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: 1:30 next Wednesday. Let's 5 put on the agenda whatever we have information to talk 6 about. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unfinished business. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably get someone from 9 the City on it. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Should I get to the printer, 11 get me some great invites worked up, Jon? We'll stand 12 adjourned. 13 (Commissioners Court workshop adjourned at 4 p.m.) 14 - - - - - - - - - - 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8-27-04 wk 234 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 22nd day of February, 8 2005. 9 10 11 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 12 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 13 Certified Shorthand Reporter 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8-27-04 wk