1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Budget Workshop 10 Tuesday, August 24, 2010 11 10:18 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 BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X August 24, 2010 2 PAGE 3 Review and discuss FY 2010-11 budgets and fiscal, capital expenditure, and personnel matters related 4 thereto, including, but not limited to, cost-of-living adjustment, salary considerations, staffing levels, 5 health benefits and insurance 3 6 --- Recessed 74 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Tuesday, August 24, 2010, at 10:18 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: At this time, I will recess the 8 Commissioners Court meeting that was carried over from 9 yesterday, and I will reconvene the workshop that was 10 originally convened yesterday at 1:30. So, we're back into 11 gear with the budget workshop. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just kind of a general comment, 13 that I know there wasn't -- I didn't perceive unanimous -- or 14 unanimity, if that's the right word, on a tax increase, at 15 least certainly not a tax increase without reduction in staff 16 to go along with it. So, I wanted to kind of go back to that 17 point. And I just did some thinking while I'm on that short 18 little drive to my house. It appears to me that to 19 accomplish the half million dollar minimum target equates to 20 approximately cutting 10 employees. And I've looked at the 21 -- some of the paperwork list we got yesterday, and I have a 22 very hard time figuring out how you come up with 10 23 employees. So, I'd like to put that on the table kind of as 24 to something -- where do we look for 10 employees? I think 25 there's -- I think we can find some, and some -- I mean, 8-24-10 bwk 4 1 there are some people retiring, some others -- some 2 reductions happening right now, or have happened, and 3 probably may be some others that can -- are affected by the 4 hiring freeze, which is somewhat temporary. But that's two; 5 may get up to three, maybe four, something like that, but 6 much beyond that, I don't see it. So I'm trying to figure 7 out where we're going to come up with six employees. What 8 areas we're looking at -- or some of y'all are looking at. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think we scrubbed 10 around quite a bit over the last few weeks. I think the 11 bottom line answer to your question is, we're not going to 12 find 10. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't -- I have a hard 14 time saying you can find them, but I also say that I think 15 a -- a tax increase without a reduction is a short-term fix. 16 We've got to cut our long-term expenditures. Otherwise -- 17 because if we don't, basically, if we're not -- we need to 18 build our reserves back. I think we all agree on that. You 19 get there at this point in our budget by cutting expenses, 20 and the only thing we have left to cut are salaries. Or 21 raising taxes. And that only got us to the absolute bare 22 minimum, getting us up to a 12 percent reserve. We really 23 need to get up to 20 percent, and we're not going to get 24 there over time on the back of a tax increase alone. So, the 25 only way you get there is by reducing staff. Preference 8-24-10 bwk 5 1 would be through attrition, in my mind. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Commissioner, I think 3 it's -- I think it's a combination of things. I don't think 4 it's -- in my mind, I don't think it is strictly a reduction 5 of employees. However, that's where the major money is, is 6 employees and salaries. Commissioner 4 brought up 7 yesterday -- and in his opening part of his comment was he 8 said I was going to throw rocks at him or something for 9 bringing it up, of -- of shutting down the Collection 10 department. I'm not throwing rocks. You know, if that's 11 what we need to do, that's what we need to do. But we don't 12 stop there. I mean, why -- why just eliminate one office 13 when there's -- there's lots of places to do that? But also, 14 in my -- you know, I can show you four or five employees, but 15 I can also show you that there is a large number of money in 16 the nonprofit groups. We got this nice letter from this lady 17 where -- I saw her walk in, with Dietert Claim, that said she 18 would like for us to continue the funding as we've had, but 19 if we can't, cut it back to at least the amount that they can 20 still use it to go out and get grants and that kind of thing. 21 I think we need to embrace that. I mean, it's not a large 22 amount of money, but drops in the bucket fill up a bucket. 23 And, you know, these are -- these are unique times, in my 24 opinion. We've -- every year that I've been here, we've 25 struggled and tried, and eventually figured out a way to 8-24-10 bwk 6 1 balance things out. This is different. This is a different 2 set of numbers that we're dealing with, and I just think that 3 in order for us to meet the job that the public has hired us 4 to do, I mean, we have to take drastic measures. And that is 5 reduction of staff in several places, but the non -- the 6 nonprofit groups that we fund need to be deleted. I mean, 7 you add all of that up, and -- and I'm not totally ruling out 8 a tax increase. I will not vote for this 3 or 5 or whatever 9 this thing is that they're talking about. But if you can 10 combine all those things that I just described with a small 11 tax increase, I'll be happy to vote for it. But I won't vote 12 for the 3 or 5. But there's places to cut. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there are. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I went -- did I not 15 just say that the nonprofit groups -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm, I heard that. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. That's -- you know, 18 if you put your pencil to that, that's a pretty good -- 19 that's a pretty good chunk of change right there. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's one spot. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Take the -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, let's -- I mean that's -- 23 if you don't mind, let's look at nonprofits. Let's start, 24 because some of those -- there are nonprofits and there's 25 nonprofits; there's kind of two different groups of 8-24-10 bwk 7 1 nonprofits there, in my mind. You have the Dietert Claim, 2 which isn't -- as you just mentioned a minute ago, you know, 3 we can reduce, but not eliminate, because if we eliminate it, 4 there's a whole -- there's another consequence to that to the 5 public, because they must use it as a match. So, I mean, I 6 don't have a problem reducing it to the minimum, but I do 7 have a problem with reducing it to zero. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't say that. I -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, economic development, I 12 know that's a -- it's a hard one to look at, 'cause sometimes 13 it's hard to figure out exactly how -- what we get for our 14 money there. But, you know, I think there's a value there. 15 Everyone else on the Court may not share that, but I don't 16 know that it can't be reduced some. There's the -- the items 17 that the -- primarily the Judge uses through juvenile court. 18 You know, are we really -- is that a benefit to cut those out 19 completely? You know, or we're going to have to fund 20 something else to make up for that? I mean, I don't know the 21 answer to that, but I think you have to look at them. I hate 22 to say eliminate them. I think you have to look at them line 23 item by line item. I'm not even sure what else is on there. 24 Some of the -- or, like, the -- you know, the Appraisal 25 District. Well, that's -- you can't touch that. That's on 8-24-10 bwk 8 1 that list. That's a big number on that list. And if you -- 2 if you get those on that list that aren't touchable, I think 3 we can probably get down $20,000. And 20,000 is a lot of 4 money. And I'm guessing -- the Judge, I know, has a list 5 right here, and I wouldn't be at all opposed to reducing 6 those, but I don't know we -- you know, that's just going 7 to -- it helps, but it -- I don't see any way to get there 8 without reduction in staff. And in my mind, I mean, I 9 don't -- I think with our -- my goal today is to come up 10 with -- figure out a tax rate. I don't know that we can do 11 some of this other -- these details, but I would look at a 12 proposal -- or something I thought about would be, you know, 13 do a -- 10 or some number -- say 10-employee reduction in 14 staff to be accomplished by January 31st, January 1st. Give 15 us some time to really evaluate some of these and make sure 16 where it makes sense. Commit that we're going to reduce it 17 by that amount. We know that that will have an impact on our 18 reserves, which we're trying to impact, and we can kind of 19 look at -- 'cause I don't want to make a quick decision, 20 because Linda gave me a page today that says how much work 21 she's doing. And, you know, Jannett didn't. That doesn't 22 mean I'm going to hit Jannett today for employees just 23 because Linda stayed up late last night working on a report. 24 So, I think we need to really look at these when we have a 25 little more time. 8-24-10 bwk 9 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you have -- 2 Commissioner Oehler threw out two positions yesterday. The 3 other day I threw out one -- or several, actually. But you 4 could -- you could take one full-time employee out of the 5 personnel office and move that person and shut that office 6 down and move that person, so you're cutting one and a half 7 employees out of there, right there. You can move -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Explain that one. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Take a -- one of the 10 employees that's in personnel. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: H.R. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: H.R., excuse me. And attach 13 payroll and insurance to that person, and move that person 14 over to the Treasurer's office, and eliminate the rest of 15 that. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I don't see that as 17 a workable -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I do. I'm just 20 telling you what I think. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'm saying -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't ask you for your 23 approval. (Laughter.) 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not giving you my approval. 25 I'm just saying I can't go -- that's something that doesn't 8-24-10 bwk 10 1 make sense to me. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine. And let me 3 finish. So, you could go to the D.P.S. office and get our 4 employee out of that office. The State needs to start taking 5 care of themselves. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Kerr County taxpayers 8 don't need to be picking up any more State of Texas tabs. 9 And that's just -- 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I totally agree with that 11 one. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that one. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. There's one. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Because that's -- you know, 15 that's a deal that they always want our help to take care of 16 their problems over there, but we don't have any supervision 17 authority. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like the idea that we set 19 a target date to accomplish this, and it gives us time to 20 figure it out, as opposed to just nibbling around the edges 21 here and there. So, like, January 1 we have it in place. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, let me address the 23 issue of some of these County-sponsored, as we sometimes call 24 them. On economic development, when the Court approved the 25 plan going forward for the new economic development 8-24-10 bwk 11 1 organization, that carried with it -- the whole plan was for 2 that amount of funding that -- and the budget has been put in 3 place with that included in it. The issue of Dietert, I 4 don't know exactly the ratio by which Ms. Woods is able to 5 leverage those funds. I do know that by virtue of the fact 6 that she receives some degree of funding from the county, 7 she's able to leverage those funds for her Meals on Wheels 8 program. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: And I don't know whether it's -- 11 whether it's a factor that the amount directly affects the 12 degree of leverage that she has, or whether it's just that 13 she's getting some amount, and so the amount of leverage is 14 the same. I'd be interested in Ms. Woods telling us that. 15 MS. WOODS: May I address the Court? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, surely. Surely. 17 MS. WOODS: Thank you. The Texas Department of 18 Agriculture grant is the one that we're talking about, and 19 their requirement -- I did a little research. They -- the 20 county needs to give a home-delivered meal provider like we 21 are at least 25 cents for every eligible person in the 22 county, and that's eligible people 60 or older. So, I went 23 to the -- and it's the 2000 census, and I know certainly it's 24 going to be a little different when the new census comes out, 25 but essentially that was 13,392 people who are age 60 or 8-24-10 bwk 12 1 older in Kerr County. You multiply that times 25 cents, and 2 the minimum for us to be able to apply for the grant would be 3 $3,348. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Now, does the amount increase your 5 leverage? If the amount is increased, does it increase your 6 leverage? Or -- 7 MS. WOODS: No. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. 9 MS. WOODS: No. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We just have to meet a 11 minimum threshold? 12 MS. WOODS: Right. Right, for us to be eligible to 13 apply for the funding. And last year we received $44,000. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 15 MS. WOODS: So it's very important to us to be able 16 to apply for that grant. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's important to the 18 community, too. 19 MS. WOODS: Thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's your total budget, if I 21 could ask? 22 MS. WOODS: It's just under a million dollars. And 23 nutrition is probably the largest piece of that, because of 24 labor, as well as a lot of food costs. And we've used the 25 county money every year to purchase food, and that runs us 8-24-10 bwk 13 1 about, oh, 125,000 to 140,000 annually. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: So, what we're looking at with you 3 in order to give you the leverage you need, if I'm hearing 4 correctly, is approximately a minimum of $3,500. 5 MS. WOODS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 MS. WOODS: We would appreciate that very much. 8 Can I answer any other questions? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: You certainly perform a very 10 valuable function for our seniors, and we appreciate that. 11 MS. WOODS: Thank you. Thank you for your 12 consideration. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: With -- with regard to some of these 14 others, certainly, a lot of those provide various needs for 15 programs that originate out of the courts; juvenile courts, 16 adult courts. But, you know, certainly, adjustments could be 17 made there if that's what's required. I certainly think that 18 our first -- when it comes to making cuts, we need to keep 19 our employees in mind first so that they are the last to 20 suffer, and only as a very last resort do we put the 21 sacrifice on them, whether it be reduction in pay, reduction 22 in force, things of that nature. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's why I said achieve 24 as much as you can through attrition. So -- 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I would agree. 8-24-10 bwk 14 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, that's a much better 2 way to do it than it is to -- 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Judge? 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- give somebody notice that 5 they're no longer employed. They can do it on their own or 6 seek other employment and go to some other job, and then, if 7 possible, not replace that position. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This thing about putting the 9 employees first, the one thing -- and I'm just putting this 10 out there -- that I hear from my employees the most, and what 11 I have heard from them the most is they were going to cut -- 12 and this is a quote from them; I'm not voicing my opinion, 13 but that they were going to cut employees and that, but yet 14 still fund the library. (Laughter.) That's what I hear. 15 And that's -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Rusty, the library's 17 on my list. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what the employees say. 19 Because that's a very large chunk of -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a great -- 21 absolutely. We send $200,000 over there, and we don't even 22 own a brick in the place. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just saying. I'm not going to 24 voice an opinion either way, 'cause I understand both sides 25 of that argument. But that's what feedback from employees 8-24-10 bwk 15 1 is. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I suspect very strongly that 3 the issue that we resolved several years ago on these various 4 city/county functions, all of those are about to come back on 5 the table, it appears. Starting, I guess, with the 6 discussion dealing with the fire contract yesterday. But if 7 that's where the Court wants to go, is to reopen those 8 discussions and to reexamine those particular things, why, I 9 suppose that's the Court's decision to make. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- I think the -- I have a 11 hard time funding the library at the level we're funding it 12 at, but I think it was part of a trade that we did on 13 funding, and for that reason, would -- you know, personally, 14 I'd want to set that aside for right now. The fire contract 15 was really -- while it was on the list when we did that 16 discussion, it wasn't part of any moving things around. It 17 was a separate item, and was kind of insulated, because it's 18 one of those -- it was a -- there was no negotiations there. 19 The City gave us the price. We said yes or no. And this 20 year, we're saying no. Or, you know, at the moment we're 21 saying no. Whereas some of the other things, there was 22 trade-offs in responsibilities and funding, and I think that 23 gave a commitment for that funding. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I tend to agree with you. I 25 think if we mess with that, we're opening another can of 8-24-10 bwk 16 1 worms. We've all agreed, and basically have stopped all the 2 squabbling that used to take place on an annual basis. 3 City's not real happy with some of what we're doing, I don't 4 think, but we tried to be fair, I believe, with them, and 5 necessarily trying to be fair to us. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I would suggest to you that maybe 7 the perception that the fire contract was a totally 8 stand-alone separate matter, that may not be the perception 9 down the street. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they want to reopen all of 11 it, we can. "They" being City Council. Make sure -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly their option. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, if you don't take and 15 give 2 percent COLA, there's -- there's a whole bunch of 16 money right there, $164,000. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The problem I have with that, 18 Commissioner, as a stand-alone item, is it doesn't solve a 19 long-term problem. Where I see us next year, what we're 20 going to have is the same situation, but lower-paid 21 employees. And I think that, you know, if you -- at some 22 point, the only way we're going to -- you know, without a 23 drastic turn-around in the economy, I don't think anything's 24 going to happen in the next five years. We're going to have 25 to reduce staff. I don't see how we cannot. We can't make 8-24-10 bwk 17 1 the budget work, that I can see, -- 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- without it, and I think that 4 the -- it gets a little bit of a perception, do you hurt 5 everyone a little bit? Or do you just, you know, try to keep 6 the pay up for the employees that we're asking to do more? 7 Because if we do a reduction in staff, we are asking everyone 8 to do more, because we do have the workload. And I think 9 along with that reduction, I look at going back and 10 continuing on an annual basis to look at problems in our 11 whole employee pay grades, and try to adjust those year by 12 year. And I think Linda brought up some yesterday that I 13 agree with, we need to look at. And I -- I mean, if we don't 14 do a reduction, like I say, hopefully through attrition, we 15 can't -- we'll never get there. We're just going to get 16 worse and worse and worse. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you know, a COLA to me is 19 very important, and I almost put that, to me, as a -- you 20 know, more important, and I'd rather have the reduction in 21 staff through attrition. That's how I think we need to get 22 there. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I just -- you know, I 24 can't -- I can't fail to bring up, you know -- yes, the 25 employees are still -- a lot of them are underpaid according 8-24-10 bwk 18 1 to what, you know, the job duties are. But at the same time, 2 over the last -- last three years, there is -- some have 3 gotten as much as 21 percent. If you want to average it out 4 over four, that's 5 percent a year. And that's -- and that 5 kind of thing is not -- the people -- you know, the business 6 owners and the contractors are turning people loose, and they 7 can't give the ones they're keeping 2 percent. So I don't -- 8 I just don't think it's the right message to send to the 9 public, that the county employees are going to get 2 percent 10 COLA when nobody else is going to get it, and also a proposed 11 tax increase to go with it. And so the perception is that 12 you're raising taxes to give county employees a raise. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I don't know that no 14 employees outside of the county are getting raises. I know 15 some businesses that are being forced to. One -- 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Being forced to give raises? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, to keep people. I mean, 18 there's -- I mean, salaries are going up still. I mean, 19 there are some in the -- construction, that's a cyclical 20 business, and they're hurting; there's no question right now. 21 But there are other areas -- a lot of other areas that -- I'd 22 probably say the majority in the private sector are getting 23 increases this year. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're talking to a different 25 groups of folks than I am. 8-24-10 bwk 19 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm saying the construction -- 2 contractor business and the ranchers, I mean, they're -- 3 those are -- they're cyclical. But I know that the big 4 corporations are giving increases. The banks are getting 5 increases. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Banks are making money. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, there -- there's a lot of 8 employees in this town. I'm not -- you know, I don't know if 9 our biggest employer is, but there are a lot of employees 10 that are getting cost-of-living adjustments. So, I think 11 that to say we're the only one is not accurate. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And a lot of those are also 13 carrying a bigger part of the insurance load than our 14 employees are. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: A lot of those big companies 17 have gotten out of the insurance business. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're in agreement most of the 19 way. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, we agree with most 21 things. There is just a few points we don't agree on. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Commissioner, you mentioned 23 the insurance. By putting employees first, we can always 24 modify that insurance program to have employee-only coverage. 25 So that we don't -- 8-24-10 bwk 20 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: That's where the major portion of 3 the expense -- or the extraordinary portion of the expense 4 occurred, in the dependents. So -- 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's where we had the -- 6 that's where we had the bulk of the claims this past year. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You know, I don't disagree 9 with that totally. I don't think that's what our insurance 10 consultant recommended that we do, because if we do do that 11 totally, we lose -- we lose and we gain, and it doesn't 12 really balance out as well, because we miss those premiums to 13 help pay for some of those claims. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We lose the ones that aren't 15 costing us. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we keep the risk. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a balance that has -- 19 that I didn't really think was -- exists when we first went 20 into looking at this thing. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think by keeping the 22 dependents in coverage and increasing the cost, that 23 dependency, we're going to get a higher concentration of -- 24 of dependents with medical difficulties, as opposed to ones 25 that don't have those difficulties. So, I think our premium 8-24-10 bwk 21 1 -- premiums are going to go down, and -- and the claims 2 amount are going to go up. So -- 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's going to be an 4 interesting year. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we're going to go from bad 6 to worse in that situation. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's going to be an 8 interesting year to see what happens. You know, this is 9 probably the worst year we've had in two or three years. It 10 all cycles just like everything else, we hope. 'Cause in one 11 way, that -- we get -- we get some money back to help offset 12 some of those costs, and refunds and whatever, from our stop 13 loss. And that kind of -- kind of helps us in that way, but, 14 you know, I think savings -- if I remember correctly, if we 15 get employee-only, our exposure would be 1.8, and if we did 16 what we're suggesting that we're going to do, it's 2.2. So, 17 it's about a $400,000 swing. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: $420,000. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think that the -- there's 20 a -- a little bit of a misnomer by saying you're protecting 21 employees by going to employee, you know, only coverage. We 22 have a lot of employees that are single parents, and if we 23 basically don't cover their families, how are we helping 24 those employees? 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 8-24-10 bwk 22 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or don't give an option. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Don't give an option. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there's -- it cuts both 4 ways. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What did we decide on the 6 benefit cards? That's going to be 600? Or did we go to 400 7 on that? I couldn't remember. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's still open. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We had decided six. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what I thought, but I 11 wasn't sure. I know we talked about four. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That would increase the 14 deductible to the -- on the employees and dependents; that 15 would be more to be paid out of their pocket for the 16 deductible. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the savings on that 18 versus six? I mean -- 19 MS. HYDE: It only ended up being about $60,000. 20 But what Gary and I had asked you was to hold off on the HRA 21 cards. Keep in mind that we're using the employee portion 22 that you guys requested that the employees have to pay this 23 year to offset that $750,000. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. 25 MS. HYDE: So, although it's coming back down to 8-24-10 bwk 23 1 2.287, we're asking for a little bit of wiggle room there, 2 'cause we're only in six months. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. 4 MS. HYDE: So we asked about the HRA, how much, the 5 deductible, the rollover, the prescription plan. You know, 6 give us a little bit of wiggle room, because if claims don't 7 come down, we're going to need that room. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Walston had a question? 9 MR. WALSTON: I just was curious. One of the 10 things I understand -- I appreciate 2 percent COLA, and 11 understand how that's trying to offset some costs that the 12 employees are going to be faced with, one of which is a $55 13 increase in insurance. If we maybe do away with the COLA 14 and -- you know, and take the $55 insurance cost off, it may 15 basically come out the same. So, the other thing on -- on 16 the rest, before we -- and I don't know if the County's even 17 available to do this, is to offer an early out to -- early 18 retirement to try to absorb some of that. I don't know if 19 that's an option or not. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's something I'd 21 want to explore between now and whatever the date -- target 22 date, whether it's, you know, 1st of January, whatever. 23 Because I think that, you know, that's how you -- I don't 24 think our regular attrition is going to get us to 10 25 employees. And I -- but I certainly think that's a far 8-24-10 bwk 24 1 preferable way, to offer some sort of an incentive, than to 2 laying somebody off. I'd rather have it be somewhat by 3 choice. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hyde, how many employees do we 5 have that are retirement-eligible at this point? Do you 6 know? 7 MS. HYDE: Between 10 and 20. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Between 10 and 20? 9 MS. HYDE: Not counting -- not counting the Court. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10 and 20. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There's two up here, right? 12 Two up here; is that -- is that correct? 13 MS. HYDE: I was not saying that. I said excluding 14 the Court. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's retirement-eligible? 16 MS. HYDE: Which part? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'm just saying -- you 18 said 10 to 20. What is the criteria you're using? 19 MS. HYDE: When you talk retirement, my 20 understanding of retirement is our T C.D.R.S. retirement 21 account, and health benefits. In order for them to receive 22 health benefits, they need to be 60 years of age. There was 23 a misnomer for many, many years that you didn't have to have 24 -- be 60 years of age. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, those are just 10 to 8-24-10 bwk 25 1 20 that are over 60? 2 MS. HYDE: Sixty, and also completely vested in 3 T.C.D.R.S. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What -- it's the rule of 80? 6 70? 7 MS. HYDE: Rule of 75. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 75, age and years of service. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You know, Roy asked a good 11 question. What would that do? Either Jeannie or Ms. Hyde, 12 whichever one of y'all want to answer, if you forego the COLA 13 and take away the $55 that would be required per month to be 14 paid for -- by employee for health care, et cetera? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're going through papers; 16 you're getting ready to get an answer. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know. I figured it would 18 be pretty quick. I mean, they've looked at these numbers 19 over and over in every kind of form and fashion imaginable. 20 MS. HYDE: If you do away with the $55 employee 21 contribution, that's $180,840. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the COLA's? 23 MS. HYDE: 260. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 264. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's 80,000 -- 8-24-10 bwk 26 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Or if you do a 2.5, it's 323. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: About half. 3 MS. HYDE: I'm sorry? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Which would be about half. 5 MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. Which -- 6 MS. HARGIS: Not half. At 323 it would, but not at 7 the 2. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I was talking about. 9 MS. HYDE: That's what he's talking about, was 323. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's for 2 and a half. 11 MS. HARGIS: 180. 180. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 13 MS. HARGIS: 180. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, it's 180? 15 MS. HYDE: 180,840. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So that leaves you -- leaves 17 you 84,000 short on the 2 percent. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't -- you know, I could 19 go along with that; get rid of the COLA, get rid of the 20 change on employees, and any changes on the family coverage 21 or dependent coverage will still be -- probably just be 22 employees only. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That just means the County's 24 contribution to the insurance would be greater, correct? 25 MS. HYDE: Absolutely. 8-24-10 bwk 27 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our contribution to insurance 2 is greater, but the COLA's down, so that's -- I mean, that 3 helps us net $80,000. Correct? 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, it doesn't net it; we're 5 still 80,000 short. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, the COLA was going to cost 7 us 260. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 260. We're going to get 180. 9 MS. HYDE: You're going to get 180. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get 180 back. We're going to 11 spend 260, get 180 back, so we're -- 12 MS. HYDE: 60 to the good. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 60,000 to the good. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're right. So, that helps 16 a little. 17 MR. WALSTON: For a lot of the employees, $55 a 18 month for premiums is a lot. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: For somebody who has paid 20 insurance in the private sector, that is nothing. 21 MR. WALSTON: Well, I understand that. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's not funny, you know, but 23 that's the real world. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only other thing, wasn't that 25 pre-tax, though? So this 55 out of an employee's paycheck 8-24-10 bwk 28 1 would really have been about 40-something. 2 MS. HARGIS: 30. 3 MS. HYDE: 30. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So that's all -- you know, the 5 55 was going to cost -- 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: One thing I discovered -- I 7 asked some questions the other day that I didn't share with 8 y'all, but I'm about to. What happens -- it seems to me that 9 what happens whenever the employee -- and correct me if I'm 10 wrong, you or Jeannie, either one. This ought to be -- this 11 is maybe a little interesting, but I think it's right. 12 Employees that contribute an amount of money every month to 13 health care costs is also deductible on your income tax, 14 correct? And so you have a counter there, where actually 15 some of the lower paid people may actually not be affected at 16 all. Some of them actually, I think, get just a little bit 17 more money than they were getting before by contributing. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That lowers their income. 19 MS. HYDE: Lowers their income. On the flip side, 20 you've also got -- 21 MS. HARGIS: That's a Schedule A deduction, and 22 most of the lower paid employees would not have Schedule A 23 deductions to begin with. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No. 25 MS. HARGIS: So they can't use it. 8-24-10 bwk 29 1 MS. HYDE: They would do it through E.I.C. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Anyway, so that is one thing 3 that does factor in at some -- 4 MS. HYDE: But you also have -- 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- some pay scales. 6 MS. HYDE: You also have on that one -- on those 7 income tax increases, keep in mind, the A.G.I. has now 8 changed for health insurance or health portions. It used to 9 be 7.35 with your A.G.I. It's gone up to 10 percent. So, 10 they're -- it's -- it's -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can't get -- 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just making it so much 13 better, right? 14 MS. HYDE: Every time we think we have another way, 15 there's another change. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And while -- and I think there 18 is a reason to go with what was said. Basically, it doesn't 19 impact the employees as -- really not that much one way or 20 the other. But there is probably a perception, it's better, 21 if we are raising taxes, that we don't give raises at the 22 same time. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what I think. But 24 that's just -- that's just -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't disagree. 8-24-10 bwk 30 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You know, and that's 2 basically what Laurinda said the other day, was, you know, 3 why don't you leave things alone? Don't worry about all the 4 other stuff, and just try to keep the same -- keep it like it 5 is the best you can. And really, we've jacked around with 6 this thing. We've looked at every side of the insurance 7 issue and COLA's, and we've cut money out of one place and 8 another, and it does get to -- there comes a time when it's 9 hard to cut any more. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You can just go so far and 12 still have service available, even basic service. But I 13 would be -- I would be more in favor of doing just exactly 14 what Roy said, and that would forego the tax increase as 15 well. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it will forego 17 the tax increase. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're still carrying over 19 some money, and you're -- and if you have -- if you have 20 basically a reduction in staff by attrition, that's going to 21 be some more money. And I think -- you know, I think it's 22 worth a gamble to try it. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know you don't share my 25 feeling, but -- 8-24-10 bwk 31 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather hope your right -- 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But prepare for the worst? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Prepare for the worst. Because 4 I'm just not real -- you know, and I know there's -- it's 5 easy to say we put a tax increase in for one year; if you're 6 right, reduce it next year. If you're not, we're back on the 7 drawing board. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I just -- you know, we 9 had a big tax increase two years ago to give big raises. 10 And -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- that money, you know, 13 didn't have to go all to raises, but it did. And so now 14 we're paying the price, because we've hit -- we've hit a 15 downturn with very little new taxable property. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Part of those raises, 17 Commissioner, was that our employment has stayed pretty close 18 to level for a long time, and we've asked more to be done 19 with less. We've done -- and I think that we've got that. I 20 mean, I think there's -- every office, probably, in the 21 courthouse can show that their workload has increased in the 22 last five years. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we haven't increased staff 25 proportionately. So, I think we are asking everyone to do 8-24-10 bwk 32 1 more for less, and part of the trade-off there was we'll pay 2 you more to do it too. We're going to ask you to do more, 3 but we're going to pay you a little bit better. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that's a good thing. 5 If you get some reduction by attrition, there will be some 6 money there, hopefully, at some point to -- to give employees 7 good raises so that they can be expected to do more. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I just -- we're in total 9 agreement on everything, except I just -- it worries me to 10 not do a tax increase, 'cause I think our reserves are at a 11 point, if we end up with any kind of a hiccup, we have to 12 borrow money, and that's not being good stewards of the 13 taxpayers' money, in my mind. And the amount that, you know, 14 we've -- on the tax increase, you know, I don't want to -- if 15 we -- I would have a hard time voting for one over two cents, 16 and that would truly be a one-year, unless things don't 17 change. We get a little bit of a break, and that's coupled 18 with a 10-employee reduction. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So you'd be willing to have a 20 sunset clause in your motion? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do what? 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: A sunset clause on the two 23 cent tax increase in a year, if things -- well, what does two 24 cents buy you? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the answer is yes, but 8-24-10 bwk 33 1 it's not -- but it's worthless. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understand that. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: From a legal standpoint. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understand that. Once a 5 tax increase goes in, I don't know that it ever gets reduced. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you can -- 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Unless you sunset. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- lean over and give me a good 9 backhand next year at this time. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That doesn't help either. 11 That just makes you go the other way more. I'm thinking 12 about kicking you in the shin anyway. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two cents is -- how much is two 14 cents? 15 MS. HARGIS: It's 580. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 580. So, I mean, and five -- a 17 two cent increase along with a reduction of 10 employees 18 through attrition one way or another during the first, you 19 know, six months, I'd say, of the year, should give us 20 another $250,000 to help for reserves. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If you do 10, that's closer 22 to 500,000. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, but doing it by midyear, 24 so it's 250,000. It's 500,000 long-term, but this year -- 25 we're not going to have them done October 1st. 8-24-10 bwk 34 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it's maybe half that. But 3 the number -- and it gives us a little bit of time to work 4 through it, figure out how we get there. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does two cents accomplish 6 what we need to accomplish? 7 MS. HARGIS: No. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: With the reduction in staff of 9 10 employees? 10 MS. HARGIS: Well, even with a reduction in staff, 11 I mean, it depends on -- you know, we have different levels 12 of employees. 13 (Low-voice discussion off the record.) 14 MS. HARGIS: You also increase the 180, so we have 15 to cover the 180,000. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Increase 180? 17 MS. HARGIS: Because -- yes. If you take on the 18 $55 per month that you were going to charge the employees for 19 the insurance, you now have to take that on in lieu of the 20 COLA. We're $180,000 short for that. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we're not doing the COLA, 22 so we're -- we gain 60. 23 MS. HARGIS: But we haven't got the COLA in there. 24 Remember, the COLA's not in there. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8-24-10 bwk 35 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We worked to scrub that 2 insurance to get it down to 2.2, right? 3 MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leave it there. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Leave what? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leave it there. That 7 embodies employees buying into it, $55, and all the other 8 things we talked about, and it drove that cost down to 2.2. 9 Let's not go reopen that can of worms all over again. We've 10 already done that. 11 MS. HARGIS: Again, let me -- let me -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: For budgeting purposes, I would 13 think we'd want to leave the 2.2 there, because we may have 14 some harder decisions to make down the road as we see the 15 claims develop. The trend there now is not a very pretty 16 one. 17 MS. HARGIS: No. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: And we may have some tougher 19 decisions to make on the insurance plan, and it would be to 20 delete that 180 that we're going to gain. 21 MS. HARGIS: Here's when we discussed the 2 percent 22 COLA's and 3, and the 2.5. The 3 cents will bring in 23 870,000. If we deduct 350, it only brings us to 14.26. You 24 can see that -- you know, and even in the second slide where 25 we're putting 810,000 in, we're only coming up to 15. It 8-24-10 bwk 36 1 takes a lot to get those reserves back. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we're -- if we do the 3 reduction in staff, I mean, approximately 10 employees is 4 going to yield you $250,000 dollars net, $500,000 net over a 5 12-month period, and that's got to be added to that number. 6 MS. HARGIS: Well, it could be. But by the same 7 token, you've still got to either pay a COLA or pay the 8 difference in insurance. We got to do one or the other. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Don't have to do either one. 10 MS. HARGIS: No -- 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, we don't have to do that. 12 That is not -- we can if we choose, but we don't have to. 13 MS. HARGIS: No, we have to cover whatever premium 14 that you decide that you want to do; that's correct. But 15 right now you're at the 2.2, so if you take away the $55 and 16 don't do the COLA, then we're $180,000 short there. That's 17 one of my biggest concerns, is that the insurance is going to 18 be more than we think it's going to be, and if we don't have 19 sufficient reserves to cover that, regardless of what we 20 do -- and the other -- the other side of that is that, you 21 know, if we do the -- the reduction in staff, that also 22 reduces the number of people on our premium. That may 23 increase our premium, because you -- you get your insurance 24 policies based on numbers. There's a -- a range of numbers; 25 like, a small group is 50 -- 50 people. The next group, I 8-24-10 bwk 37 1 think, is -- is around 150. It jumps. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we'll do that. I 3 don't -- I cannot imagine that reduction's going to increase 4 our -- I mean, we're not talking about a huge -- we're 5 talking, percentage wise -- 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're not cutting the 7 entire -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we're cutting 10 employees. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Basically, about -- 10 MS. HYDE: It needs to stay above 250. 11 MS. HARGIS: We have to stay above 250. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And how much do we have, 290? 13 MS. HARGIS: No, 274. 14 MS. HYDE: Figure on 274 because of these other 15 offices. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, 265, 264. We're -- 17 MS. HARGIS: The 274 includes our ancillary 18 offices, such as the district -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 20 MS. HARGIS: -- the district courts, the D.A.'s 21 offices and so forth. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they'll still stay -- for 23 insurance purposes, they'll still stay as employees, though. 24 MS. HARGIS: You know, if -- if we could see the 25 revenue coming back, that would give me a little bit, but I'm 8-24-10 bwk 38 1 still not seeing that trend go up. I'm still seeing the 2 trend go down. We did see a little bit of an upward trend on 3 the sales tax for this quarter, which was great. It was 4 about 6 percent. It was little; it was about $10,000. But 5 that's better than a downward trend. But that's not enough 6 to bring in -- you know, now instead of $315,000, I'm only 7 $305,000 short for the year. And my concern is that the 8 economy, as you've said, may take five years. But I know 9 we're going to have perhaps one more bad year, and if we 10 don't tackle it this year, we may have to tackle it even 11 higher. Keep in mind that if we're -- if next year we needed 12 six cents, but we can only levy four cents -- because you 13 don't know what the effective rate is. You don't know what 14 the appraisals are going to be. The other problem that you 15 have in a bad economic time, and I kind of went through this 16 in the Houston area when the oil bust hit, is that they had 17 to start lowering the appraisals, and then you're actually 18 looking at a reduction in taxes because the appraisals went 19 down. And that could happen. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It could happen. But, I mean, 21 I think that -- I mean, if we're at a two cent tax increase, 22 with a -- and I'm just talking about 10, reduction in force, 23 you know, that equates to me as getting closer to a four -- 24 the same impact to our budget, between a four and five cent 25 tax increase. And we're doing both, taking -- if we lower 8-24-10 bwk 39 1 our payroll and increase taxes at the same time, that's a 2 whole lot better fiscally from trying to build -- from what 3 you're concerned about, than that three-cent tax increase. 4 MS. HARGIS: Well, I understand. I need -- you 5 know, I'd like to see both, but -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We got to do -- I mean, I don't 7 see how we can -- 8 MS. HARGIS: I just don't think the two cents is 9 going to get there, simply because you've got a lot of these 10 folks that you may have retiring; if you give them an 11 incentive, that's also going to cut into that savings, and 12 which we have to budget in. And the other problem is, a lot 13 of those folks have a lot of extra vacation or -- that we're 14 going to have to pay them out, so it's not going to be, you 15 know, a full year. It could end up being, like you said, a 16 half a year. And without knowing at what grade these folks 17 are and what salary they are, you know, a $27,000 person is 18 about $40,000, and we have a whole lot of those. So, that 19 kind of gives you -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Need probably closer to 12 21 employees to get to half a million. 40,000 a person, I mean, 22 an average employee. 23 MS. HYDE: With the roll-ups -- you can use about 24 50 grand with your roll-ups. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because, I mean, the ones that 8-24-10 bwk 40 1 are going to -- would take any kind of an incentive are going 2 to be our higher paid, 'cause they're going to be closer to 3 retirement; they have more years here. 4 MS. HYDE: They're -- 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Buster, did you look on Page 6 29? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I've shut it down. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, you shut it down? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me about it. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I still see a supplement in 11 there for the County Judge. I thought we -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: After yesterday? 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. Did we leave that in 14 there? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we can eliminate the 16 Auditor. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That would be nice, wouldn't 18 it? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- the -- on 29, I thought 20 the 18,000 supplement is gone, and the 4,739 pass-through 21 stayed. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what I thought. And 23 it wasn't 7,739 either. 24 MS. HARGIS: What page are you on? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 29. 8-24-10 bwk 41 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Has to do with your 2 supplements. 3 MS. HARGIS: It was not clear yesterday. That's 4 the reason why we brought it back up. It was not clear that 5 even the J.P.'s were remaining. 6 MS. HYDE: Right. 7 MS. HARGIS: It was not clear. 8 MS. HYDE: There was some "yes" and there was some 9 "whack it." 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is supposed to be 11 pass-through, from what I was -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Both of those, the 4,739 for 13 the J.P.'s and the 4,739 for the Judge, was -- I don't 14 understand why they're the same number -- were both 15 pass-through. And then there was some discussion, because -- 16 why should we give increases because -- 17 MS. HYDE: Right. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- because they happen to be in 19 a position where they can generate revenue, and some offices 20 and some employees are not in that position. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, then didn't we also 22 talk about the fact that if -- if the municipal court judge 23 didn't want to go and magistrate their city prisoners, that 24 we were going to increase the charges from the Sheriff to 25 cover some of those costs? 8-24-10 bwk 42 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We did. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's actually a housing 3 increase, is what it's meant for. So, it's the processing of 4 all the paperwork from the jail employees and the meal and 5 all that kind of stuff. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that's a -- you know, 8 that's not a pass-through. It goes to general fund. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I know. But it's a -- I 10 mean, it's a -- it's basically a pass-through if it goes -- 11 whatever it goes for. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If I go up on it any other 13 year, it's general fund revenue. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's general fund either 15 way, but it's just funding the cost. I mean -- 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, what's your decision on 17 that one? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't know. That's a tough 19 one. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with both. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree with your J.P. You 23 know, they -- but, you know, everybody else is putting in 24 time and they're not getting an increase either, so -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. But the 18's out. 8-24-10 bwk 43 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that's what I thought. 2 But I know that that's kind of cutting the old judge a little 3 bit there, but, you know, he's not used to it, so we're not 4 taking it away from him. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One thing they are working on, 6 just about to get online, is the magistration through the 7 video conferencing. You wanted that, Judge, and they've got 8 all that set up. I mean, I don't see it as a pass-through. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Did you say -- 10 MS. HYDE: I think one of their points -- their 11 points is that when they -- and I hope there's one of them 12 behind me. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Pretty close. 14 MS. HYDE: Okay. Well, good, because if I 15 understand correctly, part of the issue is that they are 16 magistrating not county, but city folks. Although some of us 17 are city and county. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The county residents inside 19 the city. 20 MS. HYDE: The funds do not go to the county; they 21 go to the city. Is anyone back there? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think -- 23 MS. HARGIS: They're working. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there's a -- 25 MS. HYDE: I think that's the biggest issue with 8-24-10 bwk 44 1 them, are the call-outs for M.H.M.R. at night, the juvenile, 2 the magistrations that they're having to do. Because all of 3 those that are -- the city receives the funding and the 4 fees -- am I saying that right? -- receives the fees and the 5 fines. We don't get that as a county. And that's part of 6 their issue. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I agree. And that is 8 their issue, and I think it's a -- I don't know how you 9 tackle it, because I know that they met with the City -- I 10 use the term "City" 'cause I'm not sure who they met with; I 11 presume the City Manager -- and couldn't work out any 12 resolution there. And I think it should be a city 13 responsibility. But -- especially 'cause they are paying 14 someone that can do that job. They got a municipal judge 15 that can do it just as easily as our J.P.'s can. So -- 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Doesn't seem to me like a big 17 deal, but it must be to them. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't -- you know, the 19 other option is that we can say, "Don't do it." Well, we 20 can't. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Can't not do it. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can't not do it. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We don't need our jail full 24 because of those kind of people not being magistrated. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, downside costs us more. 8-24-10 bwk 45 1 But, you know -- 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's one -- on the J.P.'s, 3 there's one issue that we've been back around. Now, the only 4 time that the City gets all the funding on it or the fines 5 and fees is on Class C's. And there is some statute that 6 goes way back, and we can look at it. We just always wanted 7 to make sure that inmates were given all their rights that we 8 felt they ought to have, is on whether or not you have to 9 magistrate a Class C misdemeanor. If it's above a Class C, 10 which a lot of the city's are, okay, 'cause they're a 11 combination, then the county does get some of that funding, 12 because it's a state offense that's above a Class C. If it's 13 a Class C only, I'm not sure. See, used to, cities had their 14 own holding cells, and this city was one of them at one time, 15 that could hold them up to 48, 72 hours, and then they 16 processed all their own Class C's and let them go. Well, 17 back when the county first built the jail that was above us, 18 the city closed down theirs, and that's when the county 19 absorbed all that magistration. But I think the County 20 Attorney can be asked, and we can look at whether, if it's a 21 Class C only, they're required to be magistrated. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But it doesn't solve your 24 M.H.M.R. and your call-outs on the other things. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if -- in the broader 8-24-10 bwk 46 1 picture, it doesn't make any difference to our -- from a 2 budget standpoint. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It isn't going to change that 6 tax increase from 2.5 to 2 to 3. 7 MS. HYDE: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It needs to be resolved, and I 9 think the county should -- well, shouldn't -- the city should 10 pay their -- should be paying, but I don't know how we get 11 there. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we take about a 10-minute 13 recess? 14 (Recess taken from 11:15 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.) 15 - - - - - - - - - - 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if 17 we might. We were in recess -- let me have your attention, 18 please. Let's come back to order, if we might, back to our 19 workshop. There was discussion about fire contract, and it 20 was indicated to me that Chief Ojeda with the City of 21 Kerrville had some input he wanted to offer with respect to 22 that. Chief? We'll give you a couple of moments here. 23 MR. OJEDA: Yes, sir. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Don't run us into the lunch hour, 25 now, or you're going to have to buy lunch. 8-24-10 bwk 47 1 MR. OJEDA: I'll be sure to get off before that. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Take your time. 3 MR. OJEDA: Just for the record, my name is Robert 4 Ojeda; I'm the Fire Chief for the city of Kerrville, but I'd 5 like to also remind you that I am also the emergency 6 management coordinator for the county of Kerr, as well as the 7 city of Kerrville. And I just -- yesterday I sat in the 8 back, and kind of biting my tongue and just wanting to say 9 something, and I felt like after I thought about it last 10 night, and lost a little bit of sleep, is that I think I 11 would be doing a disservice to you if I didn't provide some 12 clarification, as -- and as we talk about that, some 13 implications in not renewing your contract with the City of 14 Kerrville for fire protection in these areas of that we 15 provide services to. 16 One of the those -- the clarification I'd like to 17 make is that I've heard back and forth that this is an issue 18 about one fire truck, and I want to clarify that. That is 19 not the case in the services that we provide. We provide an 20 all-encompassing fire service to the county of Kerrville -- 21 Kerr County, as well as to the city of Kerrville, and that 22 involves any types of runs that -- that a typical fire 23 service provides for, and those can involve structure fires, 24 grass, brush fires, high-water rescues, swift-water rescues, 25 motor vehicle accidents, extrications from motor vehicle 8-24-10 bwk 48 1 accidents, electrical shorts, drownings, searches for people 2 who have -- who have drowned, fuel spills, hazardous 3 materials or releases, high-angle, trench, as well as other 4 technical rescue operations, and then, of course, our medical 5 response. I just wanted to let you know that those are the 6 types of runs that we respond to out into Kerr -- the Kerr 7 County areas. And the implications of not renewing the 8 contract with us is that I think we will be experiencing some 9 extended response times into those areas that we provide 10 services to. 11 Aside from that, that there are also insurance 12 implications that can result from that. Recently, just prior 13 to my arrival -- in fact, in January of '08, and I arrived in 14 May of '08 -- is that the Kerrville Fire Department was 15 graded by the I.S.O., the Insurance Services Organization, 16 which is the largest organization that provides information 17 to insurance agencies as far as data as to what type of fire 18 -- fire protection classification a particular area has. And 19 I'm extremely proud to say that we went from a Class 3 to a 20 Class 2 in the -- in the I.S.O. ratings. The lower your 21 class is, the better, and the higher your class is, the worse 22 you are. Unlike people who say, "That deserves a 10," well, 23 in the I.S.O. ratings, you don't want a 10; you want a 1. 24 And we are a 2. And seven out of every 1,000 fire 25 departments across the nation is a Class 2, so we are very 8-24-10 bwk 49 1 fortunate to have a Class 2 fire department within the city 2 of Kerrville, as well as in the county of Kerr. The only 3 higher grading of a fire department is a Class 1, and only 4 one out of every 1,000 fire departments in the nation is a 5 Class 1. So, you can see that we are very close to being one 6 of the best departments across the nation. I'm very proud of 7 that. My personnel are as well. 8 And so I think there's some issues that perhaps the 9 Court was not familiar with as far as the level of service 10 that we provide, as well as the quality of the service that 11 we provide. I recently, just yesterday, talked to Mr. Philip 12 Bradley from the I.S.O., and -- and kind of posed the 13 question, if this occurs, if Kerr County decides not to renew 14 their contract with the city of Kerrville as far as fire 15 protection is concerned, what will happen to the individuals 16 that live outside of the response area that we will have, 17 which is the city of Kerrville, versus what we would be 18 providing under the contract? And he told me that what would 19 happen is those areas would revert back to the I.S.O. 20 classification of the department that would be responding 21 into that area. So, they would no longer receive the I.S.O. 22 classification of 2, and they would revert to the I.S.O. 23 classification of the volunteer departments. 24 And I -- I asked him if he had by any chance the 25 listings of those departments and what their current I.S.O. 8-24-10 bwk 50 1 classifications are, and he said yes. Ingram, which is 2 considered in Kerr County Fire Protection District Number 3 one, has a split I.S.O. rating of a 7/9, so their current -- 4 the areas that we respond to currently that Ingram would be 5 responding to currently have an I.S.O. classification of 2, 6 and they would go to from a 2 to a 7/9 implication. Turtle 7 Creek Volunteer Fire Department has a split 9/10. Center 8 Point has a split 9/10. Comfort has a split of 6/9, and then 9 Tierra Linda has a split of 9/10 as well. So, you can see 10 that there's probably a 30 to a 50 percent increase in 11 insurance premiums that would be implicated into those areas 12 that we would not be responding to in the future, after 13 October 1st. 14 So -- and just to kind of give you a couple of 15 examples, I asked my staff if they had -- you know, just off 16 the top of their head, because I didn't have time to research 17 it, but I asked them if they had some incidents that they 18 kind of remembered about responding to out in the Kerr County 19 area. And on April the 24th in 2009, we responded to a 20 structure fire at 210 Loma Vista, which is in Kerrville 21 South. We responded with two pumpers, two chief officers; 22 22 personnel were on the scene. We incurred 66 hours of 23 overtime. We had one medic unit that responded to that 24 particular incident, and one of our firefighters was flown to 25 San Antonio due to chest pains, which resulted in him -- he 8-24-10 bwk 51 1 is no longer a Kerrville firefighter because of that 2 particular incident. He was not able to return. September 3 21st, 2009, 457 Skyline, a rope rescue. We had our rescue 4 unit, a medic unit, five off-duty personnel with one chief 5 officer. We incurred 18 hours of overtime for that 6 particular incident and rescued someone who evidently had a 7 fight with a cliff here in that particular area. 8 April the 16th of 2010, most recently, swift-water 9 recuse on River Road in Hunt, where Mr. Spikes died. We had 10 four city vehicles, one raft, including a medic unit, as well 11 as our rescue unit. We incurred 80 hours of overtime that 12 were paid out to the rescue personnel. We lost that crew for 13 about 12 hours or so; they got caught on the other side of 14 the river, weren't able to get back, so they spent the night 15 at Hunt Fire Department. We, unfortunately, had to pay them 16 while they sat there at Hunt, so that's where we incurred 17 that 80 hours of overtime. We lost the use of that 18 city-owned raft for a number of hours. One Kerr County 19 resident drove into the low-water crossing and were saved by 20 the Kerrville Fire Department rescue personnel. And, 21 unfortunately, on April the 16th and the 17th, that same crew 22 spent a number of hours searching for Mr. Spikes, and he was 23 finally found close to a low-water crossing. 24 So, those are just a couple of the typical 25 operations that we perform out in Kerr County, and like I 8-24-10 bwk 52 1 said, I just wanted to make sure -- I was going to -- I was 2 going to be troubled if I didn't provide some clarification, 3 and perhaps some also some implications as to what would 4 happen should that contract not be -- not be reissued. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Chief, if I may, -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Surely. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I have a couple of comments. 8 And, first, there has never been any question about the 9 quality of service coming from your fire department. 10 MR. OJEDA: Yes, sir. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- and your EMS. 12 MR. OJEDA: I know that. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's first class. The -- the 14 issue has been -- and I think the last time we really had a 15 big negotiation about this was prior to you becoming chief. 16 MR. OJEDA: Taking office. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Taking office. But at that 18 time, it was made very clear by the previous City Manager 19 that we would get one truck, and that -- that's what we were 20 told. I mean, and I think the Court records and the minutes 21 from that meeting -- joint meeting will reflect that we were 22 going to get one truck. And that was a -- a sticking point 23 in our mind, because we were also having the volunteer fire 24 departments also respond to this joint area. 25 MR. OJEDA: Right. 8-24-10 bwk 53 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems like the -- the -- on the 2 high-water, the rescues and some of those things, you know, 3 clearly, you all assist in those, and I never really thought 4 of those as being part of this contract. I thought that was 5 kind of an emergency situation. Those -- there -- you know, 6 and there's a -- I believe we have mutual aid agreements that 7 are outside of this contract. But, you know, that's the 8 other part of that. And the other thing on the insurance, 9 first of all, what you are saying is different than what your 10 Council has told us, you know, primarily Councilman Motheral 11 and his issues about insurance and how they're calculated, 12 because he and I have had many discussions on it. And 13 secondly, on the insurance issue, insurance companies rate 14 very differently, how they -- I mean, that's -- some use 15 I.S.O., some use different things. The company that writes 16 more policies in this county than anybody else doesn't look 17 at it that way. They don't rate that way. So, I think that 18 it's not -- it's -- now, some certainly do rate the way 19 you're talking about, so I think there's a -- you know, a 20 blanket statement that everyone's insurance outside the city 21 limits is going to increase 50 percent is not necessarily 22 accurate. It may be accurate for some situations, and it may 23 not. And I just think that -- you know, just to kind of 24 clear that up. And I'm not an insurance person. 25 The -- you know, I think that the -- you know, my 8-24-10 bwk 54 1 decision has been -- was largely based on your predecessor 2 and City Council at the time we entered into our agreement 3 several years ago, the last time we really discussed it. 4 That's kind of, you know, overall, but it certainly is no 5 reflection. It's an issue that has been laid before this 6 Court by the City, and many times; the County needs to figure 7 out how to address fire in these areas that are the primary 8 areas we're talking about, which is Kerrville South and the 9 area primarily north along Highway 16. Those are the two 10 main areas. Pretty much all other areas are outside the 11 contract area, as I understand the contract area. There may 12 be different contract areas than I'm aware of. I see 13 Mr. Beavers shaking his head a little bit on that. But, you 14 know, we've been told that we need to address this; it's our 15 problem. 16 MR. OJEDA: I understand. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we're looking at -- at an 18 alternative which may not be perfect; probably isn't, but 19 providing additional funding to the volunteer fire 20 departments that also respond to fires in this area. 21 MR. OJEDA: And that certainly is a decision of 22 yours. I certainly don't want to -- to influence that 23 decision, other than I wanted some clarification as to what 24 some -- to let you know the implications that may occur. And 25 if I could elaborate on a couple of those issues, as far as 8-24-10 bwk 55 1 the -- the response with one truck, our personnel are 2 empowered to call for more resources, whether those resources 3 are personnel or additional equipment. They are not 4 restricted to one fire truck. And I gave you an example 5 where we responded with two fire trucks. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 7 MR. OJEDA: Additional vehicles. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 22 people. 9 MR. OJEDA: 22 people. I guarantee you, we don't 10 ride 11 people on one apparatus, so there's not 11 people 11 arriving on one truck. So, we -- they are empowered, as -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 13 MR. OJEDA: -- as the incident commander and as a 14 battalion chief, to call in additional resources. As far as 15 mutual aid, it is -- I have not found any mutual aid 16 agreements between us and any other entities in Kerr County, 17 so there aren't any mutual aid agreements. The only other 18 mutual aid agreements that I'm aware of that was done during 19 my administration is with Center Point Fire Department to 20 provide mutual aid services to the airport, and that was only 21 to protect those facilities at the airport, and that's the 22 only mutual aid agreement that I am familiar with. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 24 MR. OJEDA: As far as the insurance issue is 25 concerned -- and I don't know what the percentage of those 8-24-10 bwk 56 1 are, but ironically, I've got the letter here; it's dated 2 August 23rd, which was yesterday. And this is from the First 3 Insurance Agency of the Hill Country, and they are asking me 4 if we provide fire protection services to this particular 5 location, what their distance is to a fire hydrant, and this 6 is so that they can help determine -- help determine a fire 7 protection classification for this particular location. So, 8 there are insurance agencies out there that are using I.S.O. 9 as the -- as the crux for them to make a determination as to 10 what insurance premiums are. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 12 MR. OJEDA: So there are some, I guess. At least 13 one agency that we know of. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's more than one. 15 MR. OJEDA: Well, absolutely, 'cause we get these 16 -- we get these faxes and these calls probably three to four 17 times a week of people asking. When they renew their 18 insurance or they go to another agency, then they -- they 19 want to know what their P.P.C., Public Protection 20 Classification, is, and that's that range from a 1 to a -- to 21 a 10. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Does the I.S.O. have anything 23 to do with estimated response time into any areas? 24 MR. OJEDA: They calculate that by miles, so what 25 they're asking here -- 8-24-10 bwk 57 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I mean, if you have to 2 respond to a call 5 or 6 miles out of the city limits, you're 3 not going to be very effective. 4 MR. OJEDA: Well, it all depends on what the 5 incident is. If you have a small -- 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If you have a structure fire. 7 MR. OJEDA: -- a small structure, certainly, that 8 can escalate. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: A major structure fire that's 10 5 or 6 miles outside of the city limits, my experience has 11 been -- I've lived here a long, long time -- you might just 12 as well kiss it goodbye, because by the time it gets all the 13 water squirted on it, it's not going to be worth fixing 14 anyway. 15 MR. OJEDA: Well, I can agree with you, Mr. Oehler, 16 and I've been in the fire service for 37 years. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 18 MR. OJEDA: And I can tell you that I have seen 19 structures burn across the street from a fire station. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that's exactly right. 21 MR. OJEDA: So, it just depends on the incident and 22 what created that -- that incident that's going to make the 23 determination, but I have seen buildings burn down right 24 across the street from a fire station. Well, I can tell you, 25 with everybody in the station at the time that it came in. 8-24-10 bwk 58 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I can tell you that my house 2 will be on the ground by the time you or Mountain Home or 3 Ingram or anybody else gets there. And I have pretty cheap 4 insurance. 5 MR. OJEDA: Well, they base it on a 5-mile response 6 time; not as the crow flies, but actual driving distance, and 7 that's what they're asking. "Our insured feels that this 8 area is within" -- our insured, the individual that is asking 9 for the insurance. Our insured feels that the area is within 10 5 miles of the nearest fire station that responds to this 11 location. And that's what they wanted to verify. And that's 12 what I.S.O. uses, is a 5-mile criteria and the 1,000 feet 13 from a fire hydrant, and that's what they use. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And -- you know, and we're just 15 faced with a very difficult budget decision as to whether -- 16 you know, as to what's best, 'cause the volunteer fire 17 departments cover the same areas. The city of Kerrville 18 gives additional response time and personnel for a limited 19 area of the county, and it's just a cost that we have to 20 figure. I mean, when I said "limited," I saw Mr. Beavers 21 look up a little bit. And I think it is limited. I mean -- 22 MR. OJEDA: Do you want me to ask him to leave? 23 Leave the room? (Laughter.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Bring him up front. 25 MR. OJEDA: But, you know, I came from San Antonio. 8-24-10 bwk 59 1 We were the big boys -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. 3 MR. OJEDA: -- in that -- in Bexar County, and we 4 had 50 fire stations and 1,600 people, and so I'm here to 5 tell you that there was no need for us to rely on volunteer 6 firefighters. And when I came to Kerrville, my respect for 7 the volunteer fire service has increased tremendously. I see 8 what they do. I see what they can do, and I see what they do 9 and can do with the limited amount of resources that they 10 have, both on the personnel side as well as on the equipment 11 side, and I have a great deal of respect, you know, for the 12 volunteer firefighters. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They have lots of good 14 equipment now. They didn't have for a long time. And we pay 15 them -- 16 MR. OJEDA: They worked hard for it, too. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: All together, with all the 18 ones we have, we pay less to them total than we pay the city 19 for one truck. 20 MR. OJEDA: I understand. Well -- 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Now it's two trucks. 22 MR. OJEDA: Two trucks -- 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's been one truck; now it 24 just went to two. 25 MR. OJEDA: I'm here to tell you that you have 8-24-10 bwk 60 1 available to you -- as long as this contract is in place, you 2 have total availability of all of our resources, whether that 3 would be all four of our pumper companies, a ladder truck, as 4 well as the rescue truck, and all 70 of our personnel. If 5 that's what is needed for that particular incident, then that 6 is what is at your disposal. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the County Attorney's 8 about to jump out of his seat. 9 MR. HENNEKE: We might need to write the agreement, 10 then. And I appreciate your -- your representations and the 11 work that you do for the community, but I looked at the 12 agreement as early as this morning, and the agreement 13 provides that for structure fires, Kerrville South, that 14 there is one truck and three people that are under the 15 contract established to respond to that, and that for the 16 rest of the county, that the city of Kerrville is the 17 secondary responder; that if the volunteer fire departments 18 haven't responded within four minutes of the call, then the 19 City is obligated -- or obligates itself under the agreement 20 for a structure fire to respond to that. The contract 21 specifically excludes -- 22 MR. OJEDA: Grass fires. 23 MR. HENNEKE: -- grass fires. And everything else 24 that you're talking about, some of it may fall within the EMS 25 agreement, but that's -- all of those -- those enhancements 8-24-10 bwk 61 1 are not what is -- what is provided for under the agreement. 2 And -- and while I'm glad that the city of Kerrville does 3 provide those services, they're not in the contract. They're 4 not contracted, and they're not what there is an actual 5 obligation to do. 6 MR. OJEDA: I understand that, and I think what the 7 interpretation by the fire department is that we initially 8 respond with one fire truck to a structure fire. That does 9 not mean that we remain at just that one fire truck, and with 10 that -- those three people that arrive on that fire truck. 11 I've given you case examples -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. 13 MR. OJEDA: -- where we have exceeded that. 14 MR. HENNEKE: And what the contract says versus 15 what the practice may be may be two different things, but the 16 contract is very limited. And that's what, you know, the -- 17 you know, the 195,000 is paying for, what's provided in that, 18 that contract. 19 MR. BEAVERS: I just wanted to be clear. Mark 20 Beavers, Assistant Chief. The contract does specify that we 21 are the first response agency for the old Kerrville South 22 area, which is now the Kerrville Fire First Response 23 District, which extends north of town, 16, Harper Road, and 24 south as well. It does outline rescue, motor vehicle 25 accident, and that -- those types of things, hazmat out in 8-24-10 bwk 62 1 the county as well, though. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The one thing about that 3 contract -- and I appreciate Chief Ojeda, you know, because a 4 predecessor of his enforced that contract. 'Cause I know we 5 went to a structure fire where they wouldn't allow another 6 truck to come out with the fire personnel because that was 7 not in the contract, okay? That needed one in that area. 8 And I know that since Chief Ojeda's taken over, that's 9 changed, 'cause the deal in Kerrville South where they had 22 10 personnel and all that, very accurate. That's exactly what 11 happened, and the fireman did get airlifted. I didn't know 12 he had to retire or leave the department, but that's -- 13 that's very accurate. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If nothing else, it seems that 15 this contract is good to look at again. And we haven't maybe 16 reviewed it recently. Maybe there's a -- certainly, there's 17 a difference in the leadership in the fire department, or 18 the -- you know, and -- but I'm not convinced that the City 19 Council has changed totally, because they were, for the most 20 part, present when we did the last negotiations, and were 21 very insistent on the actual contract that the County 22 Attorney referred to. 23 MR. OJEDA: That empowerment that I provide to the 24 incident commander at the scene is -- comes for two reasons. 25 One is, we need to get the job done. 8-24-10 bwk 63 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. 2 MR. OJEDA: He needs the resources in order to be 3 able to accomplish that, and that's part of why we allow him 4 to call in additional equipment, as well as personnel. The 5 second is firefighter safety, is that he has those 6 firefighters at his disposal in order to make sure that 7 everyone goes home after that incident. And that's -- that's 8 the primary reason that he has that empowerment, is to make 9 sure that everyone goes home. We had one firefighter that 10 went home; unfortunately, he was -- he went home in a 11 helicopter, but he -- he's still alive, although he had to 12 give up his fire service. He's still alive, and that's all 13 that matters. And that's the two reasons why we allow our 14 battalion chiefs to call in more personnel and equipment. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Chief Ojeda, we appreciate you being 16 here and providing us that clarification. It occurs to me 17 that, based upon -- 'cause you can see what the perception 18 was based upon the actual wording of the contract from this 19 side of the equation. Maybe there needs to be some serious 20 discussions with the folks down at the city, in light of what 21 you've told us, to take another very hard look at this 22 situation, and I guess that's the message to go back down the 23 street. 24 MR. ERWIN: Yes, sir, that's fine. I wanted to ask 25 real quickly, the message that -- the message that 8-24-10 bwk 64 1 Commissioners Court wants me to take back to Todd and to our 2 City Council, then, is it -- 'cause this is the agreement 3 that was signed a couple years ago in 2008 by -- by our mayor 4 at the time and by each of the Commissioners. Is -- so 5 you're recommending, though, right now to stop the fire 6 service part, which would affect -- which is part of the 7 interlocal contract? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Erwin, I think everything is up 9 in the air right now. 10 MR. ERWIN: Okay. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: As you've heard, there has been 12 everything discussed from practically shutting the courthouse 13 down and laying off everybody -- 14 MR. ERWIN: Yes, sir. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: -- all the way to the other end of 16 the spectrum. So, I think everything's in play, as it were. 17 MR. ERWIN: Yes, sir. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: But in view of Chief Ojeda's 19 clarification and comments, it occurs to me that that should 20 serve as a vehicle to have some more discussions about this 21 particular subject. So, the honest answer is I don't know 22 where we are on that. 23 MR. ERWIN: Yes, sir, I understand. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: And I suppose we could go around the 25 table here, and maybe still not give you even any direction 8-24-10 bwk 65 1 on that, but no decision has been made. It hasn't come 2 before the Court on an agenda item to take formal action, and 3 until it does, we are where we are. 4 MR. ERWIN: Yes, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would make -- Judge, make one 6 other comment; that the agreement that you're alluding to, I 7 presume, is the -- the library and the airport and animal 8 control, all of that. 9 MR. ERWIN: Yes, sir. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The agreement, as I look at 11 that and recall it -- I was one of the main ones to help come 12 up with that plan -- was a guide. And it doesn't say in that 13 agreement that the City can go in there and reallocate funds 14 for the EMS, either. So I think you should maybe take that 15 back to Mr. Parton, 'cause he started -- he went in and 16 started tinkering with it, or city staff did, before we did. 17 And I think that we -- you know, it's a guide, and I think 18 it's a guide as to how we should look at these overall 19 services. I agree with it. I think it's a good plan. It 20 doesn't mean that there aren't some changes that can be made. 21 In my mind, that fire contract, while it's part of that 22 overall package, has never really been on the table, 'cause 23 it's always been a "take it or leave it" from the City, and 24 as -- where the rest of it were joint projects that we tried 25 to figure out a better way to long-term handle them, and I 8-24-10 bwk 66 1 think we've accomplished that. 2 So, I think it's a -- you know, I don't 3 particularly like the coming and saying we're throwing out 4 the whole plan, because that's not all that's being done. 5 And I think that there's no plan, and the plan doesn't say 6 you can't look at it and modify it. It's overall direction. 7 And like he said before, EMS was certainly looked at 8 differently this year than it has in prior years, and we're 9 being asked to fund that. I don't see why we can't look to 10 certain things -- look at them as well without saying we're 11 throwing out the whole agreement. 12 MR. ERWIN: Okay. 13 MR. OJEDA: And just to inform you, the numbers as 14 far as fire calls, the county accounts for about 19 percent 15 of our fire calls. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 19? 17 MR. OJEDA: 19 percent. So, in 2008, it was 20.48 18 percent. In 2009, it's -- it was 18.94 percent. So -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that -- that's not -- that's 20 all calls? Not just -- 21 MR. OJEDA: That's fire calls. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Structure fires, not -- 23 MR. OJEDA: That's -- yeah, that's fire calls. 24 That's when we call -- when a fire truck is sent out, whether 25 that be a structure fire -- 8-24-10 bwk 67 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That can be for ambulance, 2 for rescue -- 3 MR. OJEDA: No, ambulance is not included in this. 4 This is strictly fire calls that we respond to, whether that 5 is a structure fire, report of an electrical short, a 6 drowning, -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Accidents. 8 MR. OJEDA: -- motor vehicle accident, where we 9 have to extricate someone, a hazmat spill. Any type of -- 10 you know, any call that we would send a fire truck to that is 11 not First Responder medical call. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Isn't an EMS call where you 13 ask for assistance from the fire truck to help load? 14 MR. OJEDA: That's not included in that. That is 15 strictly fire calls, 'cause I think that's what the Court was 16 addressing, was fire calls. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 18 MR. OJEDA: EMS is kind of another separate 19 contract. We just kind of looked at fire calls. So, the 20 calls that are generated out in the county, whether that's in 21 the -- in the county or in the First Responder area of the 22 old Kerrville South, it accounts for 20 percent of our runs. 23 So, I want to thank you for the opportunity to address you. 24 I certainly would have had trouble sleeping had I not been 25 able to at least clarify and -- and provide you some 8-24-10 bwk 68 1 information on some implications on this particular contract, 2 and I want to thank you for that opportunity. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate it. Thank you. 4 MR. ERWIN: Judge, thank you. Commissioners. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank y'all very much. Who 6 were those guys? (Laughter.) 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, it seems to me -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we put this off another 9 day? 10 MS. HARGIS: No. No. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have to set a tax rate 12 today, or proposed tax rate has to be done today. And I 13 think we -- I think we still need to look at the budget. I 14 think that a reduction in staff, by attrition, hopefully -- I 15 think that's the way it can be accomplished -- is 16 definitely -- you know, has to be in the budget and in our 17 overall plan, but I'm not sure we're going to totally get 18 there today on the budget side of it, but the tax rate side 19 we need to get to. I mean, I'm willing to toss out a number 20 on that portion -- on that agenda item and see what happens 21 to it. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Toss it out. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, let's -- 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We got to get out of this 25 first. 8-24-10 bwk 69 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I didn't do it. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: County Attorney will be 4 jumping out of his chair. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to continue with the 6 workshop, or possibly want to continue with the workshop? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Possibly. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I just have one 10 question. Then I'm -- then I'm ready to shut 'er down and 11 rock and roll here. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My question is, the 10 14 employees by New Year's or whatever it was you brought up a 15 while ago, how -- how do you word that? How do you assure 16 that that's going to happen? "Do it if you can, folks"? 17 Because that's a -- to me, that's a major part of the cuts. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So it has to be a sure thing 20 or a not sure thing. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does have to be. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's part of the 23 adopted budget. I think it's -- you know, we have all this 24 other stuff in the back of our budget, like calendars and all 25 that stuff. I think it's part of that. I don't think it's 8-24-10 bwk 70 1 part of the tax rate. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And tell me what -- what 3 would be said in there. That the number of staff would be 4 reduced by 10 by January 5th? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Something -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Something along those lines, 8 very explicit. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would be a budget note, 10 I think. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A budget note. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then how do you decide 13 whether Jody's going to cut out two, or -- I mean, how is 14 that decided? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My thought would be -- this is 16 just mine. I haven't -- you know, I can change my mind if I 17 think about it the rest of the day. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm afraid you would. 19 That's why I'm trying to nail you down here. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you -- through 21 attrition, you see where we get, and then if we have to do 22 some sort of an incentive for early retirement, we do that. 23 We try to get the gross numbers down 10 to 12 employees, and 24 then we -- then we look at our staffing based on that and 25 move around a little bit to get the -- you know, say all the 8-24-10 bwk 71 1 people want to leave Rusty's office. Well, you know -- 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They'd rather I leave than 3 they leave, but... (Laughter.) 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe that. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we may need to -- you may 6 need to -- 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Early buyout. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- make some adjustments that 9 way. Say we have someone leave the District Clerk's office, 10 and we decide after thinking about it that, okay, we want 11 that number down, but that person is going to come out of the 12 I.T. Department, and we shift it around a little bit. And we 13 just have to -- I'm not sure how you get there -- I mean, how 14 you do it, but I think the number's a hard number, and we 15 just have to figure out how you get there. And I don't think 16 it's solely based on attrition. I think you have to make 17 some adjustments along the way, but a lot of it can be 18 accomplished -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, my vote is going to 20 hinge on -- on that. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whether it's -- you know, if 23 it's -- we're talking about laying off five employees, or are 24 we talking about 10, or are we talking about 12? And I have 25 -- I have to have assurance from you, from this Court, that 8-24-10 bwk 72 1 it's going to be that way, and the verbiage is going to be in 2 the budget. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And if it's not, I mean, 5 I -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think if we can't get 7 it through attrition or early retirement, then we lay off. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That is going to be my 9 statement too. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You've got to get there. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You get to what you can get 12 to by attrition, but you're -- you set a number, and then 13 it's decided who goes if that number's not reached by the 14 date. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, will this Court make 16 that decision? 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think the Court has to make 18 the decision. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Court makes the decision. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We have to eliminate 21 positions. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, that's fine. That's 23 hard work, but that's what we're here for. Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think, along the way, we 25 may eliminate some positions anyway. You mentioned D.P.S., 8-24-10 bwk 73 1 you know. That spot may -- I think is a candidate to go, 2 whether that person takes early retirement or not, or through 3 attrition. I mean, I think that there's -- you know, we 4 still need to look at them, because I think that there -- 5 when you take the reduction of total employees down 10, I 6 think we have to look at and work with the other elected 7 officials and department heads as to where it best fits the 8 county. So, I think there may be some -- a combination of, 9 you know, us making a decision and attrition. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. Okay, I'm 11 satisfied. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 13 MS. UECKER: I've got a question about one of the 14 -- on this employee chart. I see that the 198th gained three 15 employees. 16 MR. HENNEKE: They're not county employees, though. 17 MS. UECKER: Well, that was my question. I mean, 18 why would they be on here if they're not -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That bottom group are not -- 20 MS. HYDE: They're insurance numbers. I don't need 21 them. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: None of them -- yeah. 23 MS. UECKER: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: She answered it. 25 MS. UECKER: Yeah, she did. 8-24-10 bwk 74 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that 198th Ranger force? 2 MS. UECKER: Yeah, Ranger force. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, Commissioner? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. Thank you. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else with respect to the 6 budget workshop? 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, I don't think so. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We will -- I will recess the 9 budget workshop. It'll be subject to being reopened at the 10 call of the chair. 11 (Budget workshop recessed at 12:06 p.m.) 12 - - - - - - - - - - 13 14 STATE OF TEXAS | 15 COUNTY OF KERR | 16 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 17 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 18 official reporter for the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 19 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 20 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 31st day of August, 21 2010. 22 23 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 24 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 25 Certified Shorthand Reporter 8-24-10 bwk