1 2 3 4 5 6 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 7 Regular Session (Reconvened) 8 and 9 Budget Workshop 10 Tuesday, September 14, 2010 11 10:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X September 14, 2010 2 PAGE 3 --- Budget Workshop called to order and Commissioners Court meeting of September 4 13, 2010 reconvened 3 5 --- Review and discuss FY 2010-11 budgets and fiscal, capital expenditure, and personnel 6 matters related thereto, including, but not limited to, cost-of-living adjustment, salary 7 considerations, staffing levels, health benefits and insurance 3 8 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 9 (Revised August 2010 payroll report) 80 4.2 Budget Amendments (6-10) 81 10 --- Commissioners Court adjourned 87 11 --- Budget workshop adjourned 122 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Tuesday, September 14, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., a 2 special meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was 3 held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 8 Let me call to order this Kerr County Commissioners Court 9 workshop scheduled and posted for this date and time, 10 Tuesday, September 14th, 2010, at 10 a.m. It is that time 11 now. Also, yesterday's Commissioners Court meeting was 12 recessed until 10 o'clock this morning, so I will also call 13 that as being resumed. There are a couple of matters that we 14 have to attend to, but Mr. Looney is here from San Antonio, 15 our health benefits consultant. He's got some other 16 commitments beginning, I think, somewhere around noon, and so 17 we are going to keep him on schedule where he can be where he 18 needs to be. There's been some suggestion initially with 19 regard to the budget that the -- the COLA be eliminated, but 20 at the same time, the employee contribution to the health 21 plan of $55 a month be eliminated. Certainly, that's -- you 22 know, that's about a wash, and notwithstanding the way it may 23 have otherwise been characterized, it was put in the budget, 24 the COLA, to offset that -- that employee contribution. 25 Obviously, if the -- if the employee contribution goes away, 9-14-10 cc/bwk 4 1 well, it just stands to reason that the COLA can go away 2 also. 3 But we -- we've only got a couple other areas that 4 I see where we can make a significant difference in our 5 budget. You know, we've nickeled and dimed here and there. 6 We've got two areas, as I see it. That is in our employee 7 health benefits program, and that's going to depend upon how 8 we design our plan later on this year. The other is -- other 9 area of significant budgetary cuts can only come, in my way 10 of estimation, at least, unless some of you gentlemen have 11 some real good ideas that I haven't heard before, through 12 significant reduction in force of our employees. But in 13 order to keep Mr. Looney on schedule, with permission of the 14 Court, I'll call on him to come forward and we'll talk about 15 the health benefits program for openers, I guess. 16 MR. LOONEY: Judge, thank you very much. Good 17 morning, Commissioners. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Morning, Gary. 19 MR. LOONEY: This is a challenge. By far, this is 20 one of the biggest challenges we've had in our industry in 21 some time. I'll bring you up to date on where we are. Next 22 Monday we will be submitting information for bids for the 23 county's insurance for this next year, 2011. We pulled the 24 claims from the last two months, and we have not had a 25 significant reduction in our claim flow, so we're still -- 9-14-10 cc/bwk 5 1 our claims are still higher than they have ever been in the 2 past. So, we're watching that kind of flow moving forward. 3 Typically we have some reduction when school starts again, 4 September, so I wanted to get -- the full month of September 5 will be given to the individuals that are bidding on the 6 insurance when we get that information available. I've had 7 some questions asked about -- again, about whether or not 8 there is a requirement by the county to provide coverage for 9 dependents, the dependents of employees. It is not a 10 requirement under the new legislation. It is not a 11 requirement under ERISA. It is only a requirement for the 12 state of Texas fully-insured plans under a certain level of 13 participation, a certain level of employees. So, there is no 14 requirement that an employer provide dependent coverage under 15 our health care plan. So, I wanted to answer that question; 16 that question had been asked. 17 The other processes that we're going through, we 18 made some changes in plan design, and we're putting that into 19 the RFP information so that when we get the bid, the RFP 20 information in it will have some reflection on cost, on the 21 fixed cost portion of the plan, which will include some of 22 the options that we've talked about, one of which will be 23 exclusion of the dependent coverage under the plan. So, we 24 will be able to get a fixed cost analysis of what that would 25 do as far as the fixed cost side of it, and the estimates of, 9-14-10 cc/bwk 6 1 of course, claim cost on the other side of it. As I 2 understand the budget right now, that 2.287 million does not 3 include employee contribution for dependent care coverage, 4 nor does it include what we potentially have for some 5 significant reductions in our plan cost as a result of claims 6 that are currently being paid. We have to adjust the plan 7 design; either change deductibles, co-payments, prescription 8 drug program, a lot of different plan design issues that we 9 really have not applied to that -- that number at this point. 10 As soon as we get the fixed cost number back, then we'll be 11 able to apply, then, the plan change numbers and try to get 12 to that budget number of 2.287 million. So, that's -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: If the -- if the employee 14 contribution is taken out, which is anticipated in the 15 overall budget which I filed, it would seem to me that that 16 needs to be absorbed somewhere, and there could very well be 17 some significant pressure to reduce that 2.287 that's plugged 18 in now in order to offset that employee contribution that's 19 plugged in there now. 20 MR. LOONEY: To be able to do that, we're going to 21 have to change plan design and build in additional cost 22 sharing back to the employee. The employee wouldn't have the 23 premium cost, but they may have a greater cost sharing cost 24 as a part of the -- the plan design. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Like I said, 80 percent 9-14-10 cc/bwk 7 1 instead of -- 2 MR. LOONEY: 80 percent. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What, 80/20? 4 MR. LOONEY: 50 percent, catastrophic-type care, as 5 opposed to the type of care that we're seeing today. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, can you summarize 7 what -- I can't think of the right word I want to use -- the 8 items you have in your -- what you included in your budget, 9 the dollar figure. Was it 2.287? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, that's the amount that's in the 11 budget for Kerr County contribution to health care costs. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that assumed a plan design 13 of what? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: That assumed a plan design of -- of 15 an increase -- a contribution of $55 per month per employee, 16 and also an increase of $55 per month to each of the other 17 categories of care, for dependents, spouse. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that got that. 19 MR. LOONEY: Judge, I don't think that 2.287 20 included that number. I think the revenue created -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm talking about the budget. The 22 budget included those as income to -- 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: To offset. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what -- 9-14-10 cc/bwk 8 1 MR. LOONEY: As an offset. Oh, as an offset. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: It also included a $250,000 3 deduction for reduction in force to be accomplished by 4 midyear. The only other aspect of the plan that was 5 included, according to my recollection, is the application of 6 the HRA benefit being used for deductible only. 7 MR. LOONEY: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: But beyond that, I don't think there 10 was -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Eva -- or Gary, you possibly 12 know the answer. If we raised the dependent -- the family 13 coverage and the child and the spouse, each one of those went 14 up 55, can you give us those numbers? 15 MS. HYDE: $370,200. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much? 17 MS. HYDE: $370,200. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: No, I mean per employee. What's it 19 go to? If he -- if the Judge's budget raised each of those 20 $55, what are those numbers raised to now? 21 MS. HYDE: Employee plus spouse, 250. Employee 22 plus child or children is 250, and the family plan goes to 23 450. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: If -- if there's an increase in cost 9-14-10 cc/bwk 9 1 for dependent coverage, what -- what effect do you see? 2 MR. LOONEY: Any time you have an increase in -- in 3 contribution levels, the individuals in your organization are 4 going to start making decisions as to where they're going to 5 get their health care and how much premium dollars they're 6 willing to spend for the benefit and what the plan design 7 appears to be. So, you may very well have individuals at a 8 pay scale that are unable to afford the additional premium, 9 and those individuals that make that decision as to whether 10 they want the health care or not are going to be -- probably 11 the ones that don't take it are going to be the healthier; 12 the ones that do take it are going to be the less healthy, so 13 you start -- you start into a spiral of the individuals 14 staying on the plan are the ones that need it the most. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: On a -- on an individual basis, 16 what's the ratio of claims, dependent versus employees, so 17 far this year? 18 MR. LOONEY: So far this year, it's about three to 19 one, dependents to employees. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: So, for every dollar of claims cost 21 we're paying per employee, we're paying approximately $3 for 22 dependents? 23 MR. LOONEY: That's gross. Yes, those are gross 24 numbers. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And what if we were to drop 9-14-10 cc/bwk 10 1 dependent coverage completely? What is the savings? 2 MR. LOONEY: The cost -- estimated -- well, the 3 current plan design with the two changes we had talked about 4 making would be about 1.8 million. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would -- 6 MR. LOONEY: Total. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Total cost would be. So, 8 $487,000 reduction. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Gary, do you have any way to 10 know how -- approximately what percentage of some of the 11 increases, besides having a really bad claims year, which we 12 do about every three or four years, -- 13 MR. LOONEY: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- but with the new health 15 care law being passed, what percentage do you feel like that 16 you can contribute to the increase caused by that? 17 MR. LOONEY: Now -- 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How brave are you? 19 MR. LOONEY: You know, Blue Cross/Blue Shield last 20 week got a cease and desist order from the Health and Human 21 Services for making any kind of comments about the increased 22 costs to health care as a result of legislation. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So you're going to follow 24 their lead? 25 MR. LOONEY: I can tell you that from -- from what 9-14-10 cc/bwk 11 1 we're seeing, there's anywhere from a 3 to 5 percent just 2 across-the-board increase in the actual fixed cost of the -- 3 of the health care itself, because of the mandated benefits 4 that are being placed on the system. The one thing that 5 we're having the most difficulty with is that the health care 6 costs in general is going up. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. 8 MR. LOONEY: And -- and there's not any -- it's 9 hard to design why that is going up. We know that physician 10 costs, hospital costs, and everything else are going up, and 11 there's no control over that. There's no -- there's no -- 12 nothing legislatively that controls that. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So you think your -- your -- 14 the cost that -- the end cost after you negotiate on all the 15 charges is going to be higher than it normally is? 16 MR. LOONEY: Yeah. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The negotiated cost is going 18 to be higher. 19 MR. LOONEY: We've got some phase-in protections, 20 which are relatively minimal. We have more protection as a 21 result of being self-insured than we would have if we were 22 fully insured. A lot of the legislative changes and issues 23 affect fully insured programs that do not affect the 24 self-insured programs. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And fully insured programs -- 9-14-10 cc/bwk 12 1 we keep hearing this from all different angles and different 2 organizations. They're saying that the fully insured plans 3 are cheaper. 4 MR. LOONEY: We don't see that in our experience. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 6 MR. LOONEY: We're seeing a lot of trend back to 7 self-funded from people that were fully insured, as a result 8 of the new legislative changes, because they're not going to 9 be subject to a lot of the internal mechanisms that are going 10 to be required for claims reviews, for fixed cost reviews, 11 for audits that are going to be mandatory audits for fully 12 insured companies, maximum loss ratio requirements. There's 13 a lot of stipulated requirements in the federal regulation 14 that are trying to correct what they feel are -- are problems 15 that exist in the fully insured area. Many of them do exist 16 and need to be corrected. We're not in that position. We 17 are already under ERISA programs. We're already non- 18 discriminatory. We already provide benefits greater than the 19 least benefit that they say, and close to what they say is 20 the maximum benefit we're supposed to provide. We already -- 21 we're already in that category, so we really don't want to 22 shift back into a different process. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: On your Request for Proposals, you 24 are going to seek, however, proposals that would call for 25 fully insured? 9-14-10 cc/bwk 13 1 MR. LOONEY: Right. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: As we've done in the past? 3 MR. LOONEY: Always -- always measure that market. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: What's the timeline on the response 5 to the Request for Proposals that you're -- 6 MR. LOONEY: Three weeks. Three weeks from Monday. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And then it'll take some time 8 for you to lay it all out and evaluate it? 9 MR. LOONEY: Hopefully within -- within the 10 following week. We've got the format. It just depends on 11 how much outside political activity is involved. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. 13 MR. LOONEY: Commissioner Baldwin, you're awful 14 quiet. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. You're doing a 16 good job. 17 MR. LOONEY: Got to have questions. I'm -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have any questions. 19 I'm just concerned about the Obama care issues. 20 MR. LOONEY: That's a $5 penalty. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 22 MR. LOONEY: It's now called -- it's now called 23 PPACA or the -- what is it, the federal -- I can't remember 24 what the other name is that you're supposed to be using now. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's politically correct? 9-14-10 cc/bwk 14 1 Is that what you're -- 2 MR. LOONEY: The one that's politically correct. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're not known for being 4 politically correct. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other words of wisdom that you 6 have to offer? 7 MR. LOONEY: Just bear with me. We're working as 8 hard as we can, trying to make sure we get the numbers spent 9 properly. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we get numbers back in 11 here in three weeks? Is that what I just heard? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Four to five weeks. 13 MR. LOONEY: I'll have it back -- yeah, be about 14 four weeks. Any time -- any time, any questions, you know, 15 please let me know. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think it would be 17 interesting to see the difference in the cost of -- the fixed 18 cost in the 80 percent plan as opposed to the 90 that we have 19 now. 20 MR. LOONEY: The fixed cost itself won't change 21 much. There will be some minimal change. The big change 22 will be in the actual claims cost. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. 24 MR. LOONEY: Which will be protected under -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When you're going out on these 9-14-10 cc/bwk 15 1 RFP's, you're leaving it open to the -- are you specifying 2 what you want, or are you leaving the companies open to 3 specify -- to give us -- are you giving them a dollar or 4 giving them a plan? 5 MR. LOONEY: Giving them a plan. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: But with lots of options. 7 MR. LOONEY: Yeah. I mean, the way it -- the way 8 it's written is that here's where we are today. Give us the 9 numbers based on that, and then what your recommendation is 10 moving forward; give us your recommendation on that. So that 11 we get underwriting -- whatever they want to do in their 12 underwriting area to help reduce or change costs, they have 13 the ability to do so. But to be able to measure it properly, 14 we have to give them what we have today, and they have to 15 report on that so that we can use that as the monitor to see 16 where they go and changes that are made off of that number. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems almost impossible to 18 compare apples to apples, because if everyone's doing base 19 bid and then everyone's doing a what they want to do bid, 20 seems like it's really hard to -- 21 MR. LOONEY: It's not easy. That's why you pay me 22 the big bucks, Commissioner. The -- the worst mistake I ever 23 made in front of a commissioners court was I told them that 24 this carrier is going to duplicate the coverage from that 25 carrier. It just doesn't happen. There's no way to 9-14-10 cc/bwk 16 1 duplicate the two. So, we try to make sure we get all of the 2 major elements identified, but there are always -- there's 3 always some kicker somewhere. If the price is significantly 4 different, there's a reason, because claim costs are claim 5 costs are claim costs. So, if there's a significant 6 difference in the benefit plans in some way, then we'll -- 7 we'll find it. If there's a major difference in the cost, 8 we'll be able to identify what it is. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for Mr. Looney? 10 MR. LOONEY: Thank you very much. I'll be back 11 soon. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Good luck and godspeed. 13 MR. LOONEY: Thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Gary. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, do you remember last 16 week we had this discussion about, on the district level, 17 who's county employees and who are not? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All those folks are here to 20 talk, if we -- if you could be kind enough to allow it, let 21 them go back to work and make money. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We've had an issue come up in 23 the past coming from various directions about who's a county 24 employee, who's not a county employee. The question's 25 normally arisen with regard to those persons involved with 9-14-10 cc/bwk 17 1 District Attorneys' offices and the District Courts. Now, 2 from a budgetary standpoint, I'm not sure that -- the total 3 interplay, but we had asked the County Attorney to -- to try 4 and come with some analysis about that and how that might 5 affect the issues involved with their being a county employee 6 or not a county employee. One issue that's been raised is, 7 if they're not a county employee, they're not, quote, in our 8 numbers for our plan, and we need at least 250, or at least 9 it was assumed. I don't know whether that's a hard and fast 10 rule or not. But have you got anything you can enlighten us 11 about, Mr. Henneke? 12 MR. HENNEKE: Judge, Commissioners, it's my 13 unequivocal position that the attorneys and staff of the 14 District Attorneys and the District Judges are not county 15 employees. We don't hire them, we don't fire them, we don't 16 supervise them, we don't set their duties, and we don't 17 control them. And as far as the -- the standard case law 18 interpreting what constitutes an employee, they don't meet 19 the definition. The District Attorneys are independent state 20 elected officials, and the District Judges are state judicial 21 officers. And in my opinion, the folks that work for the 22 216th District Attorney's office are employees of the 216th 23 District Attorney's office. Likewise with 198th District 24 Attorney's office and the two judicial districts that we 25 have. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 18 1 As you gentlemen are aware, each of those districts 2 are formed of multi-county -- multiple counties, and all of 3 those counties contribute to the budget of each of those 4 offices, and that's what the operating budget for those 5 offices are, in addition to what the officials themselves are 6 paid directly by the state. But I don't think -- and then 7 the practice has been that Kerr County has been, you know, I 8 think gracious to provide administrative services to those 9 state offices for their employees, for which we are paid out 10 of their budget. You know, we -- we cut -- you know, we cut 11 the payroll check. But just because the payroll check says 12 "Kerr County" on it doesn't make them a Kerr County employee. 13 The -- you know, all the attorneys in County Court at Law 14 right now doing, you know, indigent defense that get a check 15 from Kerr County, they're not -- they're not county 16 employees, and nobody would think that they were. 17 You know, as far as the insurance, you know, the 18 budget sets forth -- it breaks it out by line item; it sets 19 forth the cost of covering their employees under our -- the 20 County-administered insurance plan. We can add people onto 21 that plan. We have dependents and spouses added onto that 22 plan. The amount it costs to have the coverage, I've seen in 23 the budget, is -- is a line item amount there. You know, we 24 get paid that amount from -- from their budgets. We include 25 them, and I understand from Eva that we receive a tangential 9-14-10 cc/bwk 19 1 benefit from that by keeping our numbers above 250. It helps 2 us out. Apparently, by having more people, it allows to us 3 have cheaper insurance to some -- to some degree. You know, 4 we -- we, you know, administer -- you know, they're allowed 5 to administer the retirement through the county retirement 6 system. That comes out of the budget that's appropriated by 7 all the different -- different counties. And, you know, we 8 cover them on some -- some insurance policies. But those, 9 you know, administrative services that we provide, you know, 10 we get compensated for out of the budgets that are set by 11 Kerr County and by the other different counties. So, you 12 know, I'm not sure that it's a budgetary issue. 13 I mean, at the end of the day, you know, the 14 relationship that this Court and Kerr County has to those, 15 you know, judicial and prosecutorial offices is a budgetary 16 relationship. I mean, there's nobody here in Kerr County 17 that oversees or controls the performance or execution of the 18 duties that the District Attorney does or that the District 19 Courts do. I mean, and I don't think that anybody would 20 argue that there is that -- that type of control. And, 21 likewise, the Government Code, in many different sections, 22 establishes that the District Attorneys and the District 23 Judges set the duties and govern the employees underneath 24 them; the court administrator, the court coordinator, the 25 assistant prosecutors, the investigators, and the staff that 9-14-10 cc/bwk 20 1 work for them. 2 You know, I know in the instance of the -- you 3 know, the District Courts, that under statute, each District 4 Judge, as I understand it, is entitled to their own separate 5 court administrator, it's my understanding. But the practice 6 here in Kerr County is that we have one court administrator 7 that serves two District Judges, because they both use Kerr 8 County the as their primary county. My understanding -- I 9 haven't looked at the number. I think that's saving Kerr 10 County money by having one person do what could be two 11 separate F.T.E's. Yes, sir? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Would it not be a budget issue, 13 however, from the standpoint that when the -- when these 14 state officers submit budgets to us that we're asked to 15 contribute to, that we have the prerogative; we can reject 16 the budget in its entirety if we wish, but -- but when it 17 comes to meddling on the inside of that budget, we're not 18 permitted to do that. Isn't that essentially the situation? 19 MR. HENNEKE: That's the interplay. That's how 20 it's set up with regard to how the District Attorneys submit 21 their budget to each of the counties, and the counties then 22 have discretion to reject or take action against that budget. 23 But as far as the actual, you know, administration of the 24 services, Kerr County is, in my opinion, a third-party vendor 25 for Mr. Barton and Mr. Curry, Judge Emerson and Judge 9-14-10 cc/bwk 21 1 Williams; that by practice, and I think a good practice, we, 2 you know, allow them to add into our system, and we get paid 3 out of their budget, which is being paid by all the counties, 4 to participate in those services. You know, whether it be -- 5 you know, and as far as the decisions of what -- you know, 6 within the budget, how the budget -- you know, budget amount 7 is allocated, I think that's within the discretion of the 8 office holders. 9 And my guess would be, especially with the benefit 10 that Kerr County has from having more people in its coverage 11 pool, I mean, you know, the difference would be if -- if they 12 just came and said, okay, here's the bill for -- or here's 13 our budgetary estimate for a private carrier, you know, that 14 could be more. I don't know. But I don't think the 15 administration of the actual services, because we are 16 reimbursed from the budgets of each of the offices, is, you 17 know, a real issue. Now, the total amount of the budget for 18 the offices, well, that's -- that's always a discussion every 19 year during the budget session. There's an interplay written 20 into the Government Code about how that submission is made 21 and how that approval or consideration is given for the 22 Commissioners Court, but I don't see -- I don't understand 23 how there would be a meaningful difference in -- since we get 24 paid, you know, by their budget, which is paid by all the 25 counties, of -- of taking a look or relooking at that. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 22 1 Commissioner Letz? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have is going 3 really beyond the personnel issue. Look at the rest of the 4 budget. They have all -- there's lots of line items in each 5 of the 198th and the 216th District Judges' budget. Am I 6 hearing that when -- in the past, I know when one line item 7 has gotten short, we have funded it from either the other 8 court, like we've transferred funds to indigent defense care 9 from the 198thto the 216th, or vice-versa. And my 10 recollection is at times we've taken from it our general fund 11 and put it in there to cover those expenses. Are those funds 12 then reallocated, and is Kerr County being reimbursed 13 proportionately from all the other counties? 14 MR. HENNEKE: Well, my -- on indigent health care 15 or indigent defense, it might be put under the budget, but 16 it's my understanding -- and I haven't looked at this -- each 17 county has their own indigent defense obligations, so it's 18 not really -- we might put it under the 198th District Court 19 budget or under the 216th District Court budget, but it's a 20 Kerr County obligation, paying the appointed lawyer fees for 21 individuals that commit crimes in Kerr County and qualify for 22 appointed counsel. So -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 24 MR. HENNEKE: That I don't really see as being part 25 of their -- I mean, it's under their line item, but it's -- 9-14-10 cc/bwk 23 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, only a portion -- 2 MR. HENNEKE: -- a county obligation. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only a portion of their budget 4 is really kind of equally distributed amongst all the 5 counties? 6 MR. HENNEKE: Yeah. The salary comes from the 7 state. You know, it's really the personnel and 8 administrative costs and the operating expenses and staff 9 costs that I think is divided up between the counties. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think it's equally 12 distributed, though. 13 MR. HENNEKE: I think it's apportioned based upon 14 some kind of formula, or based upon size or case load or -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Most of them population, and 16 some of them -- one of them is by case load. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we assess 18 administrative cost? 19 MR. HENNEKE: I don't believe that we do. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: No. Ms. Hargis, can you give us any 21 further enlightenment? 22 MS. HARGIS: Well, I think he's correct. I mean, 23 we pay -- we pay a portion of the staff and the general 24 operating supplies. And, however, the other counties do 25 reimburse us for some of the operating supplies as well, and 9-14-10 cc/bwk 24 1 telephone and things of that nature. So, it's only the -- 2 the actual attorneys, the indigent attorney cost and the 3 actual court costs that apply to Kerr County that are not 4 shared with the other counties. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: So, we're truly paying our own 6 individual costs plus a pro rata of the general costs that 7 are allocated off of -- 8 MS. HARGIS: That's correct. And most of the 9 District Court is based on population. The 216th is based on 10 population, the D.A.'s office, and then the 198th is based on 11 case load, so that is correct. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Of course, the one thing that 13 we do pay in excess of that is we provide office space. That 14 is not cost-shared. We have two of them that reside here. 15 MR. HENNEKE: And I think -- I think it is fair to 16 point out, Commissioner -- I mean, there's an inherent 17 intrinsic value to the residents of Kerr County by having the 18 judges staffed and primarily having their residence here, as 19 far as the accessibility of the courts, the ability of 20 attorneys to get more prompt service by having Judge Williams 21 and Emerson reside here, and having Ms. Henderson work here, 22 than, say, if she was in Brady or Kendall, or -- or something 23 like that. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. Well, there's no doubt 9-14-10 cc/bwk 25 1 about that. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You mentioned the D.A.'s and 3 the District Judges. What about, like, Adult Probation, 4 Juvenile Probation, the other areas like that, the secretary 5 at D.P.S.? I mean -- 6 MR. HENNEKE: Adult Probation is paid by the state, 7 but they're employees of the -- the judges -- or they're 8 judicial employees. There's case law directly on point for 9 that. Juvenile Probation, it's my understanding -- Judge, 10 please correct me on that, but I think they come, technically 11 speaking, under the Juvenile Probation Boards, and then a 12 certain percentage of the budget is paid by Kerr County, and 13 then the rest comes from the state. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So they're in that same 15 category. 16 MS. HARGIS: Comes from grants, not from the state. 17 MR. HENNEKE: From grants. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they're not -- those two 19 categories are not employees either. 20 MR. HENNEKE: Yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, what you're saying is 22 that if we have Court-appointed attorneys here, that is just 23 Court-appointed attorneys for Kerr County; these wouldn't be 24 the ones that were appointed for other counties within the 25 district. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 26 1 MR. HENNEKE: Correct. When -- you know, a lawyer 2 is appointed in a Fredericksburg case, Gillespie County case 3 for that. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. 5 MR. HENNEKE: Or Junction, Bandera. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for Mr. Henneke? 7 Thank you, sir. 8 MS. UECKER: I have a comment. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 10 MS. UECKER: I just wanted to point out that the 11 statutory authority that he quoted for the D.A.'s is the 12 exact same language that applies to every other elected 13 official, so it's the same. 14 MR. HENNEKE: Linda, I haven't quoted any -- I 15 pointed something out to you. There's very clear case law 16 that's interpreted where -- 17 MS. UECKER: No, I'm not talking about that. I'm 18 talking about your very first -- your opening comment today. 19 MR. HENNEKE: Okay. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Judge Emerson, do you 21 have any other questions with regard to these issues, or 22 comments that you'd like to make? 23 JUDGE EMERSON: Not except for just the chart that 24 was presented to y'all that does include -- or it's my 25 understanding includes total human resources expense, not 9-14-10 cc/bwk 27 1 just salary. So -- and that's the percentages based on the 2 last census, and I assume it'll change next year or so, 3 whenever the new census comes out. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Just based on population. 5 JUDGE EMERSON: Correct. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Henderson, anything you wish to 7 add? 8 MS. HENDERSON: No, sir, I think that's it. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Barton? 10 MR. BARTON: I'm good, Judge. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a matter of opinion. 13 (Laughter.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Now, Commissioner, -- 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm just tacky. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: -- we had the rare privilege of 17 being called "gracious" -- 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Gracious. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: -- just a little bit ago, and let's 20 not blow it too soon. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay, I'll try not to mess it 22 up. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question is to 25 whoever may be able to answer it. Do we have to charge -- or 9-14-10 cc/bwk 28 1 can we charge a -- we're talking about $55 per employee for 2 health care. Can we apply -- or charge non-county employees 3 a different amount? Eva's shaking her head in the 4 affirmative, so we can separate it based on categories like 5 that, on how much -- 6 MS. HYDE: It basically takes it back to the 7 multi-tiered plan. Just so that y'all understand, that's 8 what we call a multi-tiered plan. For this group of 9 employees, it's -- it's this tier, and for that group of 10 employees, it would be this tier. Or non-employees, or -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Non-employees coverage. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Now, administratively, that creates 13 additional problems for you, however, does it not? 14 MS. HYDE: It's a multi-tiered plan, which means 15 there's differences. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 17 MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: 216th D.A., Ms. Rucker, Ms. Brown, 19 anything you wish to offer? 20 MS. BROWN: No, sir. 21 MS. RUCKER: No, sir. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay, gentlemen. Let me 23 first get into the record, which I failed to do earlier, the 24 agenda item is to review and discuss FY 2010-11 budgets and 25 fiscal capital expenditure and personnel matters related 9-14-10 cc/bwk 29 1 thereto, including, but not limited to, cost-of-living 2 adjustments, salary consideration, staffing levels, health 3 benefits, and insurance. So, it's pretty well wide open, 4 what we have the ability to discuss today, as it pertains to 5 our budgetary matters. So I'll throw it back to you, 6 gentlemen. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I have two questions. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I guess I ought to 10 direct them to the Auditor, if she'd be so good as to get her 11 bag of tricks up here. I assume that every line item with 12 respect to employee -- employee salaries, et cetera, et 13 cetera, contained an up-tick for a cost-of-living; is that 14 correct? 15 MS. HARGIS: We haven't put it in as a line item 16 adjustment. We just put it in as an amount right now, until 17 you approve it, because we would end up changing those line 18 items significantly. So, we have the amount that it would 19 cost us plugged into the budget in one total amount as to 20 what the employees would cost us right now. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That said, I direct 22 your attention to the general fund, nondepartmental. 23 MS. HARGIS: Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And there's about $450,000 25 of proposed something or other, uncommitted. And in the 9-14-10 cc/bwk 30 1 nondepartmental general fund, 323,000, 33,000, 87,000, and an 2 employee training item of 65,000. 3 MS. HARGIS: Yes. Those are all the items that you 4 added. The 87 -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now, what? 6 MS. HARGIS: The 87,000 is the difference between 7 what we have in the line item budget for insurance. The 8 323,000 is the COLA. The 33,000 that you have there are the 9 adjustments for the longevities that will occur in the next 10 12 months, those employees who will be due longevity. And 11 that's -- that's what those line items -- rather than put 12 them in the line items -- exact line items, and have to 13 remove them if you changed your mind, we've just plugged them 14 in as one line item right there. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, at what point does some 16 of this change? 17 MS. HARGIS: As soon as you make a decision, then 18 they will go into the proper line items, or they will be 19 removed. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Information 21 Technology salary increases -- is that what I'm looking 22 at? -- in the proposed budget are going from 57 to 58, 66 to 23 77, et cetera, et cetera. 24 MS. HARGIS: We haven't put any increases in the 25 line items. Some of the line items have changed on the 9-14-10 cc/bwk 31 1 salaries, because you gave a 1.5 increase in salary in 2 midyear. In order to make those 100 percent, all of the 3 salaries have changed a little bit in everybody's line items, 4 because in order to give it to them for 12 months, we had to 5 multiply the 1.5 out for the whole year. You only had half a 6 year in last year. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Few more. Human 8 Resources, there has been some discussion about the value or 9 no value of that department. I'm not engaging in that 10 question. I think there is great value in that department, 11 and I only have to confirm in my own mind by going back about 12 eight years, where it was a dark hole of Calcutta down there, 13 and reports were wrong, the I.R.S. was all over us, we 14 couldn't get an insurance payment out, we couldn't get a 15 payroll done, we couldn't take care of our policy handbook, 16 we couldn't take care of all our policy changes that were 17 required by the federal government. So, I'm not going there. 18 I just wanted to know whether or not, however, that operation 19 is about as lean as it can get. That said, move on. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree with you. I've seen 21 it the other way, and I know I never want to see that again. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, I think H.R. functions 23 have become more and more important in recent years by virtue 24 of a lot of the federal laws which are mandated that come 25 down through the state, and it's not just a matter of 9-14-10 cc/bwk 32 1 functioning and getting out the payroll any more. It's a 2 matter of keeping us in compliance in a lot of respects 3 that -- and it's become very, very specialized, and it's kind 4 of like the tax law. If you don't -- if you don't stay in 5 tune with it every day, you're going to end up in the ditch 6 some way. So, I think it's very important that we have 7 someone that's capable of keeping us abreast on all these 8 issues. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under Juvenile Probation, 10 while I don't have anything highlighted, the bottom line is 11 significant. There's almost a $200,000 difference on the 12 bottom. 13 MS. HARGIS: There should be a decrease in theirs, 14 not an increase. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Should be a decrease? 16 MS. HARGIS: Are you talking Juvenile Probation 17 Department, as in the juvenile officers? Or Juvenile 18 Detention? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm looking at Juvenile 20 Probation, and I'm seeing a proposed budget for '10-'11, Page 21 63, 552 over 656 currently. 22 MS. HARGIS: Right, that's correct. It is -- the 23 budget is about the same as last year. Actually, it's a 24 little less than last year. The current budget is very low, 25 as we all know. That's where we have spent less because our 9-14-10 cc/bwk 33 1 housing costs have been less. We budgeted 432,000 for 2 housing. Not only have we only spent about 150, but we have 3 received additional grants which the Juvenile Probation 4 Director has been able to obtain over the last two or three 5 months of over $100,000, that were not our normal grants, to 6 reduce that as well. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under department -- general 8 fund, Department of Public Safety, is that office in for 9 funding or out? 10 MS. HARGIS: They're currently in for funding. 11 They have requested those funds, which is included in your 12 budget. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it our intention to 14 continue to retain them for funding? 15 MS. HARGIS: That would be a decision of the Court. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Under Line Item -- 17 Fund 10, City/County operations, there's $142,000 shown that 18 I don't quite understand at the bottom, over and above the 19 cost of the airport services contract. 20 MS. HARGIS: We have to fund the shortfall in the 21 airport, which -- that their revenue doesn't cover, so our 22 contract replaces the contract that the city had. The city's 23 contract was $250,000. The airport has an operating budget 24 of -- it's a little confusing, 'cause we changed it 25 yesterday -- of around $577,000. We're -- we have the 9-14-10 cc/bwk 34 1 contract of 148. They have revenue of approximately 229,000 2 to 250,000. If they use the difference, then we'll have to 3 fund it, so we have to budget for it. They have not 4 generally used their entire budget in the past, but we have 5 to be prepared to fund that. So, therefore, that is in 6 there. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under Ag Extension, I see a 8 part-time salary improvement of $15,000. Can anybody tell me 9 anything about that? 10 MS. HARGIS: We don't -- 11 MR. WALSTON: There is no part-time position there. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon me? 13 MR. WALSTON: There is no part-time position there. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is no part-time 15 position? 16 MR. WALSTON: No. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Strike that out of there. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Get it out of the budget. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much was it? 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 15. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 15,000. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Keep going, Bill. I like 23 this. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll talk about fire 25 protection another day. On the -- there's a 31, Parks, okay. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 35 1 MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you and I both know we 3 have a contract under the capital improvement program for 4 repair of the dam, which is all-inclusive; this, that, sand 5 and whatever, whatever. I see in this parks thing items that 6 should be -- I don't understand why they're here. 7 MS. HARGIS: We put them in -- we are transferring 8 the money from the capital projects account into the parks 9 account for -- for history. We want to be able to see in the 10 future what we spent on those parks, and it would be the 11 natural reaction of most accountants to go back to that area, 12 so we are transferring the revenue from the capital to 13 coincide with the expense account so that we can trace that 14 for future use. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So this is just tracking, 16 basically? 17 MS. HARGIS: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I think I have one 19 more, and I'm finished. I'm finished, thank you. 20 MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Don't run off. 22 MS. HARGIS: Oh, don't run off? Next? 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, my comments are going 24 to be pretty -- pretty basic. I'm pretty much the same place 25 that I was, and, you know, if we're going to -- you know, 9-14-10 cc/bwk 36 1 you're going to have to get into some pretty large money in 2 order to be able to come up with a balanced budget and not 3 have a tax increase, or if you do have one, it would be 4 smaller than what was proposed. COLA, from what I know, from 5 the figures that we've been given, is $323,000. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say it again? 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 323,000, if that's -- am I 8 correct on that number? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If you take -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Two and a half. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- 2 and a half percent, take 14 that out, that will get you $323,000. And I'm not real sure 15 how to -- how to do this next one, but I think that, you 16 know, the City continually just comes to us and says, you 17 know, you're -- this is what, you know, you're going to pay 18 us this year, save for EMS. Well, they went up -- what was 19 it, 130,000, $140,000 this year on our contribution to help 20 them balance -- wasn't it 100-something increase? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I think it was about 80. I think it 22 went from about 170 to 250. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: EMS? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's about right. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 37 1 MS. HARGIS: What, the EMS? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 3 MS. HARGIS: The EMS is 200-something thousand. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: 270, and what was it? 5 MS. HARGIS: It was -- it was 139, and it's gone up 6 250. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what I thought. So, 8 you know, somehow or another, we could take -- we should be 9 able to get 100,000 out of that one. I mean, a little 10 increase is one thing, but, I mean, that's almost double what 11 we were paying the year before, and I didn't really see any 12 justification for that kind of an increase. I mean, they 13 stand up here with four guys -- they always send four people 14 over every time they come. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only two today. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I didn't see any of them 17 today. 18 MS. HARGIS: Two. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We got one back there, oh. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And one over here. They're 21 spread out. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There you go. They're down 23 to two today; maybe they can cut their budget a little bit. 24 But, you know, that just seems to be a little -- a little 25 large of an increase for one year without any warning. I 9-14-10 cc/bwk 38 1 mean, they just came in and said, "This is what it's going to 2 be." You know, we -- we've tried to get along, I think, in 3 most situations with them, and I believe that we've done a 4 little bit of work in the past with Road and Bridge to do 5 stuff basically for cost of materials. If they're going to 6 do this, they ain't going to get the cost of material work 7 any more; they're going to have to pay full price with 8 equipment time and manpower. So, you know, this is kind of a 9 "You do something for me, I'll do something for you" type 10 trade-off. You know, that's kind of an interlocal type 11 agreement or interlocal trade-out or whatever you want to 12 call it. But that's just too much increase, in my opinion, 13 without real justification. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not to mention 15 administrative costs. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right. That's part of 17 what we're talking -- we don't ever charge them 18 administrative costs for anything we do. So, you know, they 19 have the administrative whether they're working on stuff the 20 county contributes to or whether they're just work -- doing 21 all city work, so it's kind of like our employees. So, I 22 think there's some money there. I mean, you add those two 23 together, you get 100,000. That's 423,000. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- before you leave the 25 city one, I think there's something, 'cause the city, I 9-14-10 cc/bwk 39 1 think, came back a month or so ago and said that we were 2 throwing out the agreement we made three years ago. I think 3 it's important if -- you have to go back to how that 4 agreement came into place, and the reason it was done the way 5 it was was to keep funding equal going forward. It was felt 6 that the library and the airport were somewhat close in their 7 funding amounts, and it was easier over time for us to, you 8 know, take -- you know, reduce the library and increase the 9 airport, and they kind of balanced out. What has happened 10 all of a sudden is the EMS side has gone up substantially. 11 Fire has gone up, I think, what -- the same amount that we 12 had in the agreement, as I recall. But that's gotten -- it's 13 got out of balance there, and I don't -- you know, I would 14 agree with you that that's a -- they said that we were 15 changing the agreement. Well, in my mind, they're the ones 16 that have changed that agreement that we had. And I'm -- and 17 I agree with you on the streets issue. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And for a number -- 'cause I 20 asked Leonard for a number for that. Next year, the 21 estimated time and equipment cost, using FEMA equipment 22 costs, which are below market, is $50,328, or $50,000 should 23 be -- is the charge, which is still a bargain, to the city 24 for us to do their road program. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And each year they're going 9-14-10 cc/bwk 40 1 to want to do more and more, you know, and you couldn't blame 2 them for getting a deal where they don't -- they don't pay 3 the full cost. You know, it's not like a contractor cost 4 that they'd be paying. So, we're trying to assist them, and 5 then we get -- we get nailed for that kind of an increase. I 6 think it's just a little bit -- little bit high. Now, if you 7 really want to get down and you really want to put some money 8 in reserves and do all the things that the Judge talked 9 about, you know, there is always the option of everybody 10 taking a pay cut. That means all of us, me too. And that 11 gets you another -- if you -- depending on what percentage 12 you pick on that one is how much it is. And also, I do 13 believe that we ought to -- to do the -- pass on the 14 insurance cost, just like we proposed it to -- to our 15 consultant. And -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No -- 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And when times get better, 18 you know, we can do things -- and also a staff reduction, but 19 I think it needs to be done by attrition. I would really 20 hate for any of us -- any of our employees or department 21 heads or elected officials to have to tell somebody they 22 didn't -- didn't have a job any more. And I think that this 23 is one way to keep people on the job, is to -- 'cause we've 24 been -- the elected officials and department heads have cut a 25 lot of money the last two years out of their budgets, number 9-14-10 cc/bwk 41 1 one, so employees could have pay raises, which they got. Two 2 years ago, there was a tax increase for that, as well as to 3 increase money for additional costs in the budget. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, before -- I don't 5 -- I agree with you philosophically on what you said about 6 reduction in force through attrition. The problem I see is, 7 based on the Attorney General opinion the District Attorney 8 showed us yesterday, we can't do that. If we fund the 9 position in the budget, that person's in the budget for the 10 year, so we need to take the money out going in. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And pretty much maybe make some 13 adjustments later, but I think to get there, and I think also 14 to do the -- to get the COLA, we're going to have to reduce 15 numbers in the budget going in. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You may be right. 17 MR. HENNEKE: Well, and that's -- Commissioners, 18 that's the interplay right there between this Court and the 19 county elected officials. The non-elected department heads, 20 those are different. Those budgets and those positions, I 21 think you could freeze. But, you know, I think it calls into 22 question the interplay between the Court and the -- the 23 various county elected officials. I mean, there is the issue 24 that Ms. Uecker raised yesterday about putting in a hiring 25 freeze, and I wasn't aware of that Attorney General opinion. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 42 1 The question really hadn't been asked before it was brought 2 up yesterday. But there is other A.G. opinions out there 3 that I was aware of where there's been conflicts between 4 county elected officials and commissioners courts over -- 5 over budget, over appropriation of funds. And they are 6 elected. But if the county elected officials, you know, 7 don't want to cooperate, then -- then the option that's 8 presented, if this Court wants to eliminate positions, is 9 that you just -- rather than waiting until somebody retires 10 or leaves, you're just going to have to cut them now. And if 11 you eliminate the positions now, then they're not in next 12 year's budget. 13 And that's -- I mean, if -- you know, I think if 14 that's the consensus, if it's -- you know, if the county 15 elected officials would be willing to, you know, have the 16 kind of the attrition -- you know, that's kind of within 17 their purview, and has to be in cooperation with the Court. 18 Because, you know, once you set the budget, you know, I do 19 recognize that there are those limitations, but that kind of 20 forces you then to just go ahead and pull the trigger, which 21 I think would be -- you know, we're at September 14th 22 today -- particularly harsh by making that decision effective 23 October 1. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So what we need to do is, if 25 we're going to do that, we need to say which positions are 9-14-10 cc/bwk 43 1 going to be eliminated, and which offices, and put that -- 2 file that as part of the budget. 3 MR. HENNEKE: Now, that takes -- if you 4 eliminate -- 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And really just for elected 6 officials, because department heads are different. 7 MR. HENNEKE: That takes the issue off of the table 8 as far as affecting the budget for budgeted positions, you 9 know, December, January, March, whenever, you know. But -- 10 but then that forces the issue right now. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, if there -- if there are 12 elected officials in departments that we feel like that we 13 should eliminate positions, we need to do it ahead of time. 14 MR. HENNEKE: Otherwise, you could run into the 15 conflict with the elected official later on with them 16 objecting to it, and there being the -- 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. 18 MR. HENNEKE: -- conflict between their autonomy 19 and the budgetary authority of this Court. And there's not 20 just that one Attorney General opinion that Linda cited, but 21 there's others. For example, when, you know, commissioners 22 courts have tried to -- you know, one that came out recently 23 was cutting -- another county had a County Clerk's office 24 that closed for a holiday. The commissioners court wanted to 25 go back and dock the salary of the people that worked in that 9-14-10 cc/bwk 44 1 office because they were mad that that office was closed, and 2 the Attorney General, you know, held with the County Clerk, 3 that that was interfering with her autonomy as far as those 4 budgeted positions. So, you know, it's going to be an 5 issue -- I just felt an obligation. I think it's a harsh -- 6 harsh choice, but this Court's purview to be able to, you 7 know, make those decisions in the establishment of the budget 8 moving forward, and then the establishment of which positions 9 exist. And if there's not a position, there's not a 10 position. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can -- is it possible to fund a 12 position for part of a year? 13 MR. HENNEKE: I don't have any idea. I mean, you 14 know, when money's -- you know, if there money appropriated, 15 the money's appropriated. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So we're going to fund this 17 many positions for half a year, and at the midyear it's going 18 to go down to half of that? Is that what you're trying to -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And the -- and the other 20 thing -- other part of that question is, say we fund a 21 position in the District Clerk's office for half a year, and 22 then during the year we decide that we're going to -- say 23 we -- I guess we -- go back. Say we only fund for part of 24 the year more than we really think we're going to reduce. 25 Can we add back in? Can we go back, then, mid-year and say, 9-14-10 cc/bwk 45 1 "Okay, Linda, we're going to change that position that we 2 only funded half a year." Can we change that to a full-time 3 position for a year? 4 MR. HENNEKE: I think my reaction -- and, 5 Commissioner Letz, I haven't -- that's a pretty creative and 6 novel idea there. (Laughter.) But I think it -- my 7 reaction, and I looked at some of these issues this morning 8 before the budget workshop, is the creation of the position. 9 You know, you had a -- a part-time position. If you budget 10 -- you know, you funded one at a part-time, but you're 11 setting a budget for a year. And if you created a position, 12 I'm not -- you know, I think that would be an interesting 13 question for Austin. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't want that, then. 15 MR. HENNEKE: The expiration of the funding. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That didn't fly, Jon. 17 MR. HENNEKE: You know, would still -- the position 18 exists, but it's not funded. I don't know. I mean, if it 19 was a -- you know, a part -- funded as part-time, I think you 20 could bump it up to a full-time. I think you can always add. 21 But I think you get into a problem detracting or eliminating 22 once you've enacted a budget for the coming fiscal year. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you go with a part-time, 24 you're in the same situation. If you went to fund the 25 part-time spot, then the elected official has the ability to 9-14-10 cc/bwk 46 1 use those funds. 2 MR. HENNEKE: It's a part-time as budgeted. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As budgeted. So -- 4 MR. HENNEKE: As what -- what is in existence. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 6 MR. HENNEKE: And I'm not -- you know, I'm not 7 advocating on any particular angle, but I think that's -- I 8 just thought the Court needed to be aware of how I saw that. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler, on your -- the 10 issue of attrition, philosophically, I totally agree with 11 that. Now, from a -- from a strictly legal standpoint, based 12 upon our structure, obviously, we -- we don't have the 13 ability to control that. But I think if you'll look back at 14 what some of our elected officials have done over the past 15 several years, when maybe the workload of a particular office 16 was -- was impacted because of the economic circumstances, an 17 employee was lost, they've voluntarily chosen not to -- not 18 to refill that position, and I think that's part of the 19 strength of our employee core that we have here. And I'm 20 really disturbed when we continually talk about reduction in 21 force, reduction in force, because I think it goes without 22 saying, it creates a lot of angst amongst our employees. 23 We have a very dedicated and solid group of 24 employees that have done a real good job for the public for 25 many, many years, and to continually have them be whipped 9-14-10 cc/bwk 47 1 from pulley to post, and as we talk about these reductions, 2 as we just learned, it's kind of like chewing on a piece of 3 jerky. The problems just seem to multiply when we try and go 4 there. So, I'm real reluctant to advocate that we dismantle 5 a good organization. Yeah, you get some temporary economic 6 relief, but the problem arises when you've got to ramp back 7 up, and the costs to ramp back up, you start out with double, 8 effectively, what you lost, and then what you got to put back 9 in. But on top of that, then you've got the experience and 10 the training and the qualification, and it's going to take 11 you a while to get a new employee to the point where that 12 employee that you were at least thought forced to let go. 13 So, I agree with the attrition. I think that past 14 experience has demonstrated that -- that our elected 15 officials are responsible people. They're cooperative. They 16 understand the problems we have. They want us to understand 17 what their needs are and what their requirements are. They 18 know better what it takes to do their job. And when they 19 have openings in their offices that they feel like they can 20 get the job done without filling, I think they've done the 21 responsible thing over the past several years, based on my 22 observation, and have done exactly that. So, I agree with 23 the attrition aspect. And even though we can't legally 24 enforce it, by golly, we can get there that way anyway. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 48 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe we need to rework some of 2 these issues where there are significant amounts involved 3 with our -- with our colleagues over at the city. Seems to 4 me like there's some serious discussion that needs to go on. 5 The unfortunate thing of it now is that our colleagues down 6 the street, they've already set their budget in concrete. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: And they've been based upon certain 9 assumptions which we're now proposing that maybe something 10 differ. They've got a tough time too. They've already done 11 their process, and -- and for some reason, they have a need 12 to get through quicker than we do, and they're already set in 13 concrete. I fully advocate let's sit down and talk with 14 them, but to spring this on them at the eleventh hour, when 15 they've already got their things set in concrete, I don't 16 think is a fair thing. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I don't disagree with 18 you, but I think we need to put them on notice for next 19 budget year. We need to do it quickly. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I totally agree with that. We've 21 got issues to discuss. Let's get to the table with them, and 22 let's sit down and work these things out, absolutely. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, when it gets right down 24 to it, I do agree with what you're saying about the -- you 25 know, the employees. A lot of them have heard us talking 9-14-10 cc/bwk 49 1 about reduction in staff, and the way -- the way to avoid 2 that is to take a 2 and a half percent pay cut, and you don't 3 have to worry about it. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I think you've got enough -- I think 5 you've got enough morale problem now without making it worse. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't think that would be a 7 big morale buster, if -- you know, I think it's worse if 8 people know they're going to lose their job. And I think 9 it's worse for other employees in that office to know 10 somebody is not going to be there. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- well -- 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They're going to have to pick 13 up the extra workload. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there are some areas 15 that we can reduce staff. Not many, but there are a few that 16 I think. I think that the -- the non-county employees that 17 are on health insurance should pay a higher amount. I just 18 think, you know, they can -- and maybe, if it's not a -- I 19 don't think it should be a huge amount this year, increase, 20 but they just contribute more than the employees do, and with 21 an encouragement that maybe you should look elsewhere for 22 your health insurance in the future. But it is a little bit 23 late in the game for that. As to the city issue, they've set 24 their budget, but it was a one-way street, and these topics 25 have been on the table -- I mean, EMS was brought up as an 9-14-10 cc/bwk 50 1 issue early on. We talked about -- and basically almost gave 2 them notice that we were going to get out of the fire 3 contract; then we changed our mind on that based on some 4 information Chief Ojeda gave us. 5 You know, I don't have a real problem cutting -- 6 you know, let the City know we're going to cut $100,000 out 7 of what you're charging us, you know. You can apply it where 8 you want. Because the fact that they set their budget 9 early -- I'm glad, but that doesn't mean -- you know, we 10 hadn't, and they shouldn't have counted on that, all those 11 funds, necessarily, until we formally notified them. And we 12 have been at -- these have been on the table, in my mind, the 13 whole time. Most of them, I don't think we should make huge 14 changes, I agree, until next year, but on some of them, you 15 know, I'm -- you know, I still question the fire contract 16 some. That's -- you know, 195,000 is a pretty big chunk of 17 change there. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a new fire truck. 19 Every year we buy them a new fire truck. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: EMS contract went up almost 21 $200,000. That's, you know, a big change. We, in my mind, 22 lived up to our side of the deal we made a long time ago, and 23 they've increased some of their costs. So, I don't think 24 that's off the table, in my mind. I think that -- you know, 25 to me, there's about 100,000 in play, and I agree with you; 9-14-10 cc/bwk 51 1 you know, I think your number's good. I think it's a city 2 decision. If they want the county to do the road work, pay 3 us $50,000. If they don't, that's fine, but I don't think we 4 should pay those costs. I think that our budget is -- is too 5 tight. Airport, I'm not sure. I know we found -- the 6 airport or the city or somewhere, they found 75,000 recently, 7 so we have 75,000 coming back to the county, which is -- that 8 we didn't know about. 9 A question I have a little bit is, it was sent over 10 to the airport as a capital project. If it comes back, does 11 have it to stay capital, or can it go back in the general 12 fund? I heard the city say it went -- correct me if I'm 13 wrong, Mike -- went from the city general fund to capital 14 fund, and it came back capital fund, and then going back to 15 the general fund. That makes sense to me, but I'm not the 16 one that has to, you know, agree with that. 'Cause the funds 17 originally came out of the general fund, so they can flow all 18 the way back to the general fund. You know, that's an 19 auditor question, to me. But in any event, there is 75,000 20 that, as soon as the Judge writes a letter, we get a check, 21 as I understand. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Judge, the ink has already 23 dried? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm? 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The ink is almost dry on that 9-14-10 cc/bwk 52 1 letter? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's probably the first 3 you heard about it. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the Auditor and I need to 5 have a discussion, sounds to me like. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We found out about it yesterday 7 at the Airport Board meeting; weren't aware of it exactly. 8 We knew there were some -- anyway, 75,000 we were not aware 9 of that we can request back. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Got fresh ink in my pen. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm interested to see some 12 other comments. So far, I like a lot of what you're saying, 13 Commissioner. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, it's just -- that's the 15 way with it is with me. Go ahead. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My turn? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Now we go to the silent one. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, thank you. And the 19 gentle, kind one. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: The gracious one. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The gracious one. Mine's 22 kind of a two-part thing here. First I want to say that 23 these are extraordinary times. I've never seen these budget 24 issues like this in my 19 budgets. Extraordinary times 25 require extraordinary actions. And, first of all, out of the 9-14-10 cc/bwk 53 1 budget, the upcoming budget, the COLA, 2.5 percent is out. 2 Tax increase is out. And when I get down to reducing the 3 actual budget, I go straight to the county-sponsored part of 4 it, 10-660. And, Bruce, before you start jumping up and down 5 and screaming, let me explain this. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You mean because I live in 7 the west? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're on the top line? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to decrease -- or 11 take away the Ingram Volunteer Fire Department's contribution 12 to them, the $15,000, because they've had -- and this is not 13 the first time I've said this; I've said this numerous times 14 through the years. Their ESD has been in place for many, 15 many years, and they -- and they make a pretty good living 16 off that thing, and it's -- and it's just time for us to take 17 that back. And then the one in Mountain Home, I assume we 18 would probably give a couple of years to -- and then reduce 19 it as well. That's what an ESD is for, is to fund their 20 program, and it's time to do that. That's 15 grand. Trapper 21 contract is 31,000. The library is 200,000. Economic 22 development is 25,000. K'Star is 5,000. CASA is 1,000. 23 Public transportation, $15,000. Big Brothers, 4,000. 24 Families and Literacy, 3,000. And -- and then employee 25 separation, the Maintenance Department give up one employee, 9-14-10 cc/bwk 54 1 the Auditor give up one, County Clerk give up two, Tax 2 Assessor give up two, Sheriff's Office give up two, Road and 3 Bridge give up two, I.T. give up one, notify D.P.S. that the 4 freebie's over, and that's it. I can't -- I can't total that 5 up for you, but it's a pretty nice chunk of change. 6 The -- we had a gentleman in here a few weeks ago 7 that was talking about -- he was talking about replacing 8 employees with volunteers. I think that's a nice thought. I 9 love volunteers. I think it's the greatest organization on 10 the face of the earth, but I just don't see it working in a 11 setting like a county courthouse. But I told him that I'd 12 put it on the table. It's on the table, and we can deal with 13 it if we want to. That's basically it, Judge. I think in 14 order for us to meet the numbers, you know, we have the 15 option of raising taxes in a large sum, or we have an option 16 of cutting the budget, and I have chosen to go the cutting 17 the budget route. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many employees was that 19 total, Commissioner? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two, four, six, eight, 21 ten -- 11. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Effective when? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Immediately -- or October 1. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it was reduce all the -- 25 those county-sponsored? All those go to zero? 9-14-10 cc/bwk 55 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, mm-hmm. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Economic development, Commissioner, 3 will require you to send a court order where you approved the 4 task force recommendation, which included the funding scheme 5 for the new ED organization. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Be happy to send it. I'll 7 mail it if you'll fill it out. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. But you would advocate doing 9 that? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's the same thing as the 13 -- same thing as the agreement we -- or the program that we 14 worked with the city. These are extraordinary times. It's 15 not -- you know, first of all, do we -- do we put an 16 agreement with another government agency above our -- or in 17 front of our -- what employees we have? And my answer is no, 18 we don't do that. So, I mean, I understand agreements and I 19 understand handshakes and all those kinds of things, but 20 these -- these are different times here, and we have to plow 21 through it and get 'er done, in my opinion. That's all I got 22 to say about that. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I only got two 24 disagreements, and you know which two they are. Ingram -- 25 Ingram Volunteer Fire Department responds to your precinct, 9-14-10 cc/bwk 56 1 other areas, and they're not -- the ESD basically is a -- is 2 supplemental funding, which helps them buy trucks and 3 buildings and those kinds of things, and they still have to 4 raise money in order to operate. And the county contribution 5 basically is -- has been to pay some of their insurance 6 costs, and that's about all we do for all of them. That's 7 just about what their insurance costs are. And -- or 8 especially the ones I know about in my area. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And so I have to disagree 11 with that, 'cause I'm -- I got to take up for my own folks, 12 you know, and what they're doing. And I know that Ingram is 13 responding any time there is a fire. It doesn't really 14 matter what part of the county it's in. And they do it, and 15 I feel like that contribution is pretty small, actually, for 16 all of them, especially when we pay Kerrville for a new truck 17 every year. We don't even pay that much to all of our 18 volunteer fire departments combined, which that's something 19 we need to talk to Kerrville about. But the other one's the 20 Trapper contract. Of course -- and, of course, my area is -- 21 is over half the area of the county, and it is where you have 22 the largest populations of predators. And this trapper does 23 spend a lot of hours and does a lot of good with -- with a 24 lot of the predators that we have. And it's not a -- not a 25 huge subsidy, but -- it's not really a subsidy, it's a 9-14-10 cc/bwk 57 1 service. So, you know, I'm not for taking that one out. But 2 I don't disagree with you on most of the rest of them. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, those two are almost 4 50,000. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A lot of money. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: $46,000. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I mean, I've 10 said it many times, and I think Commissioner Oehler started 11 out there on some of the county-sponsored. I think they're 12 important. I don't mind reducing them, but I do think that 13 our contractual -- I call them contractual obligations, need 14 to be looked at. I think the word of the -- my word is -- it 15 means something, and when we struck a deal with the city, you 16 know, that was a deal. And I didn't -- you know, I would be 17 pretty hot if they totally, you know, changed the deal, and I 18 think the same should go for us. So, I don't have a problem 19 looking at it. As I said, I think 100,000 -- they've gone up 20 quite a bit. I think the fire -- I would rather designate 21 we're going to cut 100,000 from their total funding and let 22 them decide how they want to cut it, rather than say we're 23 going to cut the library 200,000 or 100,000 or whatever. I'd 24 rather -- it's their department, their budgets; let them 25 figure out how to do it. But I think they have increased a 9-14-10 cc/bwk 58 1 lot this year, and I'm not sure it's all justified. 2 I visited with Leonard about one of our larger 3 segments in the budget earlier and had a good discussion with 4 him. I said, "Leonard, how can we cut your budget?" I said, 5 you know, I know there's nothing much -- no slack in there. 6 I said, you've got really good people; you don't want to lose 7 your people, but it is a -- something that we have to find 8 money somewhere. And he came up with a plan that he didn't 9 like, but I think he is agreeable to it if he has to, which 10 is basically defer his sealcoat program for the county in the 11 majority -- almost all the county next year, and that will 12 give us a savings of -- give him a little bit of money in 13 those accounts, but we can take $200,000 -- $190,000, 14 $200,000 out of that program. That means basically no roads 15 in the county, other than emergency situations where we're 16 just keeping some money, will get new pavement next year. 17 And his personnel will spend next year working on roads, 18 brush, bar ditches, other work. They have plenty to do. 19 That's a $200,000 savings. And I think I would, you know, 20 forget two of his employees on there. I would rather go this 21 route this year rather than cut employees in that department. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that it's a good 24 plan. That's just about what it would be for that proposed 25 tax increase. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 59 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the -- I mean, the two -- I 2 mean, the 200,000 is far -- not far more; it's $100,000 more 3 than two of his employees, or probably more than that, 4 actually, but -- and I think Leonard -- I mean, we all know 5 how he feels about his department and feels about the work 6 and the quality of our roads. But I -- I appreciate him 7 saying, "Here's a plan," anyway. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too, and it's a good 9 plan. I love it. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: A good plan, and I agree with 11 it. But, now, another one of the issues that Road and Bridge 12 is facing is loss of revenue through some funds that's been 13 going down now for quite a while. I just found out; you guys 14 didn't tell me about that. But, anyway, you know, we're 15 going to -- by 2015, we're going to have lost over half a 16 million dollars more from right now today till 2015 for Road 17 and Bridge. Those funds have been collected in the Tax 18 Assessor's office for a while, and the state is basically 19 taking it away from us and taking it for themselves, and so 20 we're going to be down each year basically $100,000 for the 21 next five years, and it will all be gone then, so we're going 22 to have to figure out some way to make up for that loss as we 23 go along as well. And that's hard to do, because that was 24 moneys that -- that were not property tax. Those were funds 25 that were -- from my understanding, was a percentage that 9-14-10 cc/bwk 60 1 Diane was charging to collect whatever it was. I mean, they 2 tried to explain this to me the other day, but -- and most of 3 that was going to Road and Bridge. It's not going to be 4 there any more. Only thing we're going to have left there, 5 from what I understand, is the license plate fee money, so 6 that's another consideration when we start through this. 7 And, you know, you can cut it out this year, but how is it 8 going to get it back next year? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It will take -- it'll be a -- I 10 mean, at some point, we're going to have to do some sort of a 11 tax increase, or especially for his department, or shift tax 12 to his department. I mean, depends on -- that's the only 13 way. I mean, the state is taking the tax that was there. We 14 have to replace those funds. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And the Legislature's about 16 to meet again. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. So, I mean -- you know. 18 It's -- 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They need to take two more 20 years off, I think. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Isn't that a lovely 22 thought. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And the next thing I'll 24 say is, dollar-wise, pretty -- is very insignificant, but I 25 know Commissioner Oehler brought up a couple times about pay 9-14-10 cc/bwk 61 1 cuts. I would -- I think this Court -- we get criticized a 2 lot for sitting up here and not practicing what we preach. I 3 would say that we all take -- the Court only -- a 2 and a 4 half percent pay cut, and would ask all the other elected 5 officials and department heads to take the same. They're not 6 required to. We're required to. They can do as they choose. 7 I can't go back to the employees and ask them to take that 8 pay cut. I just think that's their -- that's too much. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's something. I'll go 10 along with that. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm there. I'd prefer 2 12 percent; I'm the poor boy on the Court, but I'll certainly do 13 my part. You know, and I've done -- been involved in that a 14 few times through the years. And two things will happen, 15 which I -- it's a good thing. It's a good thing; it's good 16 leadership, and we're putting money where our mouth is, but 17 two things will happen. There will be somebody from the 18 community accuse us of showboating and showing off and doing 19 it just for press or whatever, which I wish that person would 20 walk in here and look me in the face and say that. And then 21 the other thing, next year at this time, our employees will 22 say, "When are you going to do something for us?" That 23 happens. It just happens. That's the way it is. I don't 24 know if we have short memories or what happens, but that will 25 -- that will happen. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 62 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "What have you done for me 2 lately" syndrome. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What have you done for me 4 lately. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I know it sounds good to 6 say we're just doing it for one year, will be the intent, 7 then we increase it. But then next year, if we go back to 8 where we were, we have to publish pay raises and all that 9 stuff. Basically, it's just a reduction; can't put any 10 conditions on it. But, you know, I think it's -- you know, 11 it is -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's another point that I 13 hadn't thought of. If you reduced it by 2 and a half this 14 year and you wanted to bring it back next year, -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're getting a raise next 16 year. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- then it would be 18 considered -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A raise. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- a huge raise. May want 21 to rethink that. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Has everybody had an 23 opportunity to throw out on the table what they wanted to 24 throw out? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I don't -- I 9-14-10 cc/bwk 63 1 don't know -- we got a few numbers. We can run numbers on 2 some of this stuff, but I don't see much here on the table, 3 any kind of reduction or anything. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Quite a bit. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It looks to me like we're in 6 the neighborhood of 700,000 in my book today. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 700,000. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right, let's say there's 10 $700,000 cut. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But before we get there -- the 12 Judge is looking at me like I'm crazy. I come up with -- 13 COLA's out, which was already out. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the health insurance 16 contribution stays. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes. That's part of the key 19 to this. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, okay. So, that's 21 290,000, if I remember from another time. Road and Bridge is 22 190,000 off the sealcoat program. City's 100,000, wherever 23 they want to take it. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I missed that part. Where'd 25 that come from? 9-14-10 cc/bwk 64 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They can take it off of their 2 library, they can take it off the fire contract, they can 3 take it off the EMS. It's pretty much, from our standpoint, 4 EMS, but that's -- doesn't make that much difference as to 5 where it's -- 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Cut $100,000 out of what 7 they're expecting to get. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, there's a small pay 9 cut on the Court, and there's nine designated employees that 10 you mentioned. I said nine, because the two Road and Bridge 11 got traded out with the sealcoat program. And then some 12 additional attrition cuts. It ought to be -- 13 MS. HARGIS: Don't forget the 75,000. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, where does that leave 15 us? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The 75,000 from the airport. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you're writing the city 18 a letter and saying cut $100,000 of our budget; we don't 19 care? He's writing the letter to the city. And you're 20 saying cut $100,000 out of our budget, out of the budget that 21 -- our contribution? 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just cut it. We'll send you 23 $100,000 less, and you can take it -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't matter where it comes 25 from. I think, in my mind, it's EMS. But, you know, the -- 9-14-10 cc/bwk 65 1 and the -- we're going to save 100,000 off the EMS increase, 2 or -- 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They just about doubled on 4 us. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you going to be 6 specific, or are you going to just say $100,000? You can 7 talk to me; I'm your friend. You. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's pretty specific, 9 $100,000. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: According to Commissioner Letz, 11 we're going to fund $100,000 less than what would otherwise 12 be considered our contribution to our joint operations. 13 Where you allocate it is up to you. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Love pat. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I'm hearing. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the -- you know, that's 17 less than the increase. But we're still -- we're still 18 funding more than we did last year. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right, by about 20 $30,000. Well, actually, a little more. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Little more. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Because the fire truck deal 23 went up 20, didn't it? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Five. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Was it five? 9-14-10 cc/bwk 66 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we get a letter back from 3 the city that says, "Well, thank you, but no," then what? Do 4 we be firm and just don't send $100,000 over there? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if we didn't fund the 6 library, what do we do? I mean, it's the same thing. I 7 mean, it's -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would take it off EMS. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, that's what I'm saying. 11 I think you're probably going to have to get specific, 12 because we send monthly or quarterly payments over there 13 somehow. I don't remember -- 14 MS. HARGIS: They bill us. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They bill us and we send 16 them an equal payment over there for the -- for those things. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe the fire truck was 18 part of, you know, some agreement that was made. I think we 19 need to renegotiate that. But I believe that, you know, EMS 20 thing was about the only thing that was thrown onto -- onto 21 us at the level that it was increased. And I still don't -- 22 I don't understand the justification for it. And we asked 23 them to increase their rates in order to cover some of their 24 increased costs, and the last time that happened, the overall 25 contribution went down, and then all of a sudden, it's back 9-14-10 cc/bwk 67 1 up again. So, I don't know whether they're not collecting, 2 or whether they're -- it's time for another rate increase for 3 their service. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, they've included in this 5 year's proposal to do an additional rate increase. Exactly 6 what percentage, I don't know, but there is an overall rate 7 increase. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know last time it worked. 9 It took us quite a while to get -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Took us three years to get there. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- them to agree to it. Once 12 they did it, all of a sudden, our contributions went down. I 13 think, too, during the course of all this, we need to re -- 14 we need to re -- have all the -- all the elected officials 15 and department heads that have fee schedules to bring up and 16 look at those schedules and see where they are, see if there 17 are some areas where we could increase some fees on things, 18 and some fines. I believe that one of the J.P.'s is -- is 19 doing that with the other three, and -- and, you know, 20 there's some of this revenue that we can't -- you know, we're 21 not going to get back as long as our sales tax is down. 22 There's not anything we can do about that. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, earlier this year the Auditor 24 contacted all the fee officers and said, "Examine your fee 25 schedules. Are there additional avenues for you to increase 9-14-10 cc/bwk 68 1 that?" 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 'Cause I do believe -- you 3 know, I'm more of a user-fee type person. If a person needs 4 to use the service, they should pay for the service. More so 5 than being subsidized totally by the taxpayers, all the 6 taxpayers. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Number 1? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the employee reduction, -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- is that -- I'm trying to 12 come up with a number for that. The Judge had 250,000 in 13 there in employee reductions in his number. Is this in 14 addition to that? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is on top -- I haven't 16 seen the $250,000 reduction. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, it's a dollar 18 reduction in the budget that we're looking at. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably in place of. 20 The -- much like he also had a reduction in the 21 county-sponsored group, and my suggestion is in place of, so 22 I guess it would be the same thing. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So in place of, so does that -- 24 how does that wash? So, nine employees -- 25 MS. HARGIS: Well, I have to look at each one of 9-14-10 cc/bwk 69 1 the employees; I have to see what -- I mean, and, again, you 2 can't just -- you're just going to have to reduce their 3 budget by an amount, because you can't tell them which ones. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. I don't 5 have -- don't have any intention of telling an elected 6 official what to do. 7 MS. HARGIS: So, you know, I'm -- I, personally, 8 with taking on the 198th and the airport, I don't know how 9 I'm going to lose another employee. There's only three of 10 us. And in my legislation, it says that I will hire and fire 11 my employees, and if I don't go over 5 percent of my budget, 12 which I have not. So, the -- what I'd like to -- you know, I 13 need kind of a consensus of what you want to do so I can go 14 plug it in and see if it's going to work. The 200,000 that 15 Road and Bridge is willing to give up for sealcoating would 16 just about replace the .06 as far as that is concerned, and 17 that would put him whole. You can't count that towards the 18 general fund. The general fund I'm looking at, if I add in 19 the 75, it's a $498,000 savings there, pure savings, by 20 reducing that. But we have -- we still have the 250 to worry 21 about. Do we leave the 250 in as far as staff reductions, 22 and how are we going to put that? Or do we take that out? I 23 don't see -- I don't hear a consensus yet on that, so I 24 need -- if you'd like, I can go plug it in real quick. If 25 you give me a minute, I'll see what the end result is. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 70 1 And -- and, again, the goal here is to get our cash 2 reserves up. So my biggest worry still is that the revenue 3 will continue to go down. If we could put a figure on 4 exactly why it's going down, that would be great. I mean, we 5 can analyze it; we can try and go back and analyze it. But 6 it's almost -- it depends on every case and what that case 7 is, and on the criminal side, what they get fined in the 8 court system and what that Judge fines them, whether they go 9 to jail or they don't go to jail. It's really hard for us to 10 put that on there. Someone else asked me a question about, 11 you know, our delinquency, and it's in the audit, but 12 probably you guys don't pay much attention to it. I have to 13 come up with that number for the auditors, and we do have 14 about a $2 million accounts receivable for the -- for the 15 fines out there that are uncollectible. And a lot of that is 16 because we do send these people to jail, and it's 17 accumulation over 10 years. It's mostly fines from criminal 18 court. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Most of it's criminal court 20 fines? 21 MS. HARGIS: So that's an accumulation of over 10 22 years. That's 10 years worth. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. So, basically. 24 $200,000 a year, average. 25 MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm, and probably about what we 9-14-10 cc/bwk 71 1 send to the penitentiary every year. And then when -- right 2 now, with the economy as it is, I mean, we're seeing that 3 even in the Adult Probation. A lot of those people don't 4 have jobs, because jobs are hard to find even if you don't 5 have a criminal record right now, so they're not paying their 6 fines either. So, it's kind of a catch-22 there. As far as 7 the other fines, it -- you know, I mean, I can -- looking 8 back at some of Jannett's stuff, especially on the civil side 9 -- I mean, on her fines, it's -- the housing industry is 10 pretty much come to a halt there, so that's part of that. 11 So, if the housing comes back, I think that will pick back 12 up. But we need an infusion in the economy here. I'm sure 13 the City will say the same thing; it'd be nice to have an 14 infusion. They may know of new businesses that are coming to 15 town that we're not -- don't have privy to, which would be 16 nice to know. 17 But our sales tax went up last month, and I got 18 excited. And as I told Commissioner Baldwin, this month it 19 went down. It didn't go down a lot over last year; only 20 $2,000, but when you look back two years earlier, it went 21 down about $20,000. So, we're really running four years 22 ago -- on four years ago's revenues on the sales tax side, 23 not on the -- but if you'll give me just, you know, 5 or 10 24 minutes, let me go at least plug these changes in, take out 25 some others, and see where we're at. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 72 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you going to put Road 2 and Bridge -- you're going to put in 200,000 or 190? 3 MS. HARGIS: Well, he said 200. I'd rather -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then I said really 190. 5 MR. ODOM: 190, then the 50, so that's 240,000. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the 50 is the city. 7 That's a city option. But we put 50 in there to charge the 8 city for their work. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Get an answer out of him 10 right now. 11 MS. HARGIS: 190 or 200? 12 MR. ODOM: 190 is what I -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 190. 14 MS. HARGIS: Again, that doesn't affect the general 15 fund. So I can plug that in, so if you'll give me -- that's 16 pretty much a wash on his; that's easy for me to do. But 17 there -- right now, I can take the COLA out and the -- and I 18 can add in the 100 -- I mean take out the 100 and then put in 19 the 75, which is additional revenue we hadn't anticipated. 20 Are there any other -- we have the 250 in there, which is 21 kind of, sort of, either/or for the -- for the employees that 22 Commissioner Baldwin has. Is there any other cuts? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Ingram Volunteer 24 Fire Department, Trapper, Library, Economic Development, 25 et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 73 1 MS. HARGIS: Let me put these in, and then we'll 2 come back with those, okay? I'm not getting -- if I get a 3 consensus, I'll put them in. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. I understand. 5 When you come back, though, you're going to come back with 6 all these things totaled up, aren't you? 7 MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then can you kind of 9 just run the numbers real quick to see what kind of tax 10 increase is going to go along with this number? 11 MS. HARGIS: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To get us to where we need 13 to go? 14 MS. HARGIS: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- on the employees, I 17 don't have a problem with doing a -- you know, effective 18 maybe October 1, November 1. I'm not sure I totally agree 19 with -- I mean, I think the totals I don't have a problem 20 with. I may make -- or recommend some adjustments as to 21 where they come. And I'd probably, you know, maybe add one. 22 I notice you didn't mention the D.P.S. secretary, which I 23 think that needs to come out. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I thought about that, 25 and it's just my own personal view -- you know, you talk 9-14-10 cc/bwk 74 1 about -- talk about the agreement thing with the city. You 2 know, it's kind of -- it's eleventh hour to make that kind of 3 change, and I just felt like that -- but if -- and if I could 4 talk y'all into leaving it there one more year, 5 immediately -- immediately tell them it's coming out next 6 year. I mean, write a letter immediately over there, along 7 with the city and their library money. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, nine employees. 9 He doesn't care where they come from. I still think we need 10 to have more discussion. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine. And I 12 remember -- 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree with that. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember Ms. Hyde saying 15 that the number 40,000 was about an average number per -- 16 MS. HYDE: About an average, yes, sir. 17 MS. HARGIS: Well, that's the average without -- 18 with the health insurance. Unfortunately, I can't count 19 three months of the health insurance, because that is -- that 20 contract goes from January through December, so we're already 21 committed for that amount of money in our current health 22 program. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 24 MS. HARGIS: So for three months, I can't take that 25 out. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 75 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 2 MS. HARGIS: Okay. But I can -- and I can -- you 3 know, what I'm going to do is -- just let me finagle a little 4 bit. I'll figure it out. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you finagle on a regular 6 basis? 7 MS. HARGIS: I do. I try. But if you'll give me 8 about 15 minutes, I think -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: That's why she has a larger 10 allocation for pencils. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There you go. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We've got -- 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Before she finagles on 14 employees, I would like to make a comment. I don't know if 15 you want to take a break first or whatever. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not going to take a break. We 17 still got a couple Commissioners Court items to tend to from 18 yesterday that we're recessed over. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're in -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I gather from what you're saying 21 that we're going to hear from you one way other the other. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're going to hear from me. 23 (Laughter.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I was afraid that was the result, 25 but -- 9-14-10 cc/bwk 76 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's when. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Gentlemen -- and I will 4 address employees mainly. It is eleventh hour. It is 5 unusual circumstances, okay? And -- and I know there are 6 agreements that were worked with the city. Not actual 7 contracts or whatever, but agreements. There were also 8 agreements worked with every department head and elected 9 official when the positions were authorized. And when you're 10 starting to cut personnel over funding for a $150,000 11 increase in an EMS situation, or a $200,000 bill for a 12 library, or the fact that the City doesn't pay anything for 13 animal control, okay? Or the -- the roads is a good 14 situation. I have an issue with taking the stance of cutting 15 employees before you seriously look at and cut those things 16 that don't affect people's lives for the rest of it. 17 The county has never had an over number -- a large 18 number of employees. I won't speak for the rest of the 19 departments around. I know that they are in the same 20 situation mine is. The '06-'07 Sheriff's Office budget 21 contained three more employees than it does now, and you're 22 wanting to cut more. I have a total number of certified 23 peace officers of 44. City of Kerrville has a total number 24 of 55. My 44 -- and that's counting transport, bailiffs, 25 courthouse security, warrants, investigators, civil that the 9-14-10 cc/bwk 77 1 city doesn't have. If you take all those and divide them up 2 by the square miles in this county, every one of my officers 3 are responsible for about 25 square miles. You take the 4 number of city officers that are on the force and divide 5 those up by about 14 square miles or so, they're responsible 6 for maybe three-quarters of a square mile. If you take out 7 just patrol, my patrol officers are responsible for about 200 8 square miles. Where do we cut from? We're lower than what 9 we were. 10 The library -- and my mother -- and God bless her 11 soul, seriously, because she is a very avid librarian and was 12 a librarian and loved the library, but times have changed 13 with internet. Times have changed with things called Kindles 14 and everything else. And the library serves a certain 15 specific number of people. Every county employee you have 16 serves every citizen of this county, whether they're inside 17 the city or outside the city. It's not just a special few. 18 And to take the stance of cutting employees before some of 19 these other things get cut, I just don't understand. Maybe 20 that's why -- I'm just a dumb sheriff, but I don't 21 understand. But I've seen every department head and every 22 elected official cut and cut and cut for the last number of 23 years so that we could just attempt to get our employees' 24 salaries up to the point where we were competitive, and we've 25 come pretty close. We're not there yet. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 78 1 I think that was evident in what was printed in the 2 paper this last weekend about where department heads and 3 where salaries are. Kerr County's still below all of our 4 competitors around here. And one thing that county employees 5 have pretty well been able to count on most of the time is 6 job security. The last three months have been a nightmare in 7 the Sheriff's Office, because I do have the most employees, 8 and I can tell you, it's every day I get questions, "Where is 9 it going to come from?" And it's unfortunate that the county 10 has only certain alternatives to raise money. And those -- 11 the main alternative is what none of us want to hear, and 12 that's the two words called a tax increase, okay? You can't 13 raise every citizen and business in this county water and 14 sewer by 20 bucks a month or 250 bucks a year and call it a 15 fee increase and get no protest over it. That would add a 16 lot to your budget. All you can do is the two nasty words of 17 saying a tax increase. 18 Our taxes in the county are -- the county taxes are 19 already well below the city, well below the school districts. 20 And I'm sorry, it -- the freeze on the taxes for the elderly 21 did hurt. Were they deserved to the elderly? I think they 22 were. Were they deserved for our military? I think they 23 were. Where we all made a mistake -- or I'll say you made a 24 mistake, is not raising them proportionately a little bit 25 over those years, but now we're going to make our employees 9-14-10 cc/bwk 79 1 pay for it. Look at the number of employees you have. Look 2 at the job duties that each one of those employees do, and I 3 will pretty much guarantee you that each employee does the 4 job duties of what big corporations -- you know, two or three 5 employees do. Cutting employees, I -- I don't even see it 6 being -- that it should be an option on your table, 'cause 7 we're already at bare bones. Everybody's cut employees just 8 to survive the last number of years, and to try and get our 9 salaries and benefits up. We can all live with having to pay 10 a little bit on the insurance. Most departments do. But to 11 cut employees before we cut some of these -- the trappers? 12 Okay. We're going to keep a trapper instead of letting -- 13 telling a rancher to go out and there and shoot your damn 14 coyotes and wolves and that yourselves? And we're going to 15 cut an employee loose to do that? I don't see the logic in 16 that. 17 You know, even if you don't cut the entire funding 18 for the -- for the city's library, you cut enough of the 19 funding for the library, you charge for animal control inside 20 the city, you charge for the roads inside the city, okay? 21 Before you cut employees. You know, the city doesn't pay a 22 lot of what happens in the jail or what happens in these 23 courts. And people don't realize that if it's above a Class 24 A or B misdemeanor, or a Class B or above, the County bears 25 that cost. If it's a divorce filed or a lawsuit filed in the 9-14-10 cc/bwk 80 1 city, the county bears that cost. Doesn't matter where that 2 person lives; the county bears that cost. And yet the 3 county's the one with the lowest taxes around. That's all I 4 have to say. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Gentlemen, why don't we tend 6 to a couple of Commissioners Court items. Number one, the 7 Treasurer has mentioned that there was a slight 8 miscalculation on her August 2010 payroll report that was 9 submitted to us yesterday. She wanted to make sure that the 10 record was correct. The total amount -- total funds as shown 11 was, in fact, correct, but there was a total on another 12 category that was not correct. And because she is so 13 persnickety about being right on every single thing, she's 14 asked us to -- 15 MS. WILLIAMS: I admit I made a mistake. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: -- reapprove -- reapprove her 17 corrected report, which all it does is correct Total Other. 18 But, in fact, the total -- total funds that are in issue are, 19 in fact, correct then, and are as shown on the amended 20 payroll approval report. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 24 approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the 25 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 81 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you for your honesty. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: The other issue that we had was the 8 -- there were, I think, five different budget amendments that 9 were requested by the Juvenile Detention Facility to transfer 10 funds to overtime so that those funds could be expended this 11 budget year to -- according to my understanding, were 12 necessary in order to roll off some compensatory time 13 requirements. Mr. Stanton, if you'll tell us what that's 14 about, and where you've been and where you are now. 15 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. The employees at the 16 Juvenile Detention Facility -- it's a little bit different, 17 because we do work 12-hours shifts like the Sheriff's 18 Department, and on the average, our employees earn about 165 19 hours a year of time off that they have to take, including 20 comp time, vacation time, and holiday time. On the average, 21 they -- just on holiday, I mean, we accumulated 602 hours of 22 holiday time this time, just because we have to be manned 24 23 hours a day, seven days a week. We started out at the 24 beginning of October 2009 with a total of 3,414 hours that 25 needed to be used up, but that includes vacation time, which 9-14-10 cc/bwk 82 1 all the employees earn 80 hours every year of vacation time. 2 This current year, from October 1st of 2009 until September 3 1st of 2010, we burned up 2,475 hours of that time, but 4 that's not including -- that's just what they had on the 5 books. That's not including what they've earned this year. 6 Currently, without paying off the holiday time, 7 which has been on the books and everything that we've been 8 trying to burn for two years now, if we don't use it, we 9 would have 3,876 hours of time on the books, which includes 10 vacation, holiday, and comp time for all the employees out 11 there. If we can use the money that's already in our budget, 12 that -- we're not asking Commissioners for any more money. 13 If we can transfer the money that we've already got in our 14 budget to pay off the holiday and comp time that everybody 15 has on the books, we'll be able to reduce that down to just 16 the vacation time that the employees have on the books, which 17 averages about 151 hours per employee out there, which would 18 take care of a lot -- almost 1,300 hours of time that's 19 currently on the books that the employees have. We have 20 tried -- like I said, this past year we've used up 2,475 21 hours of letting people take time off as much as we can 22 possibly. We're limited by the number of part-timers that we 23 have, the number of hours that the part-timers can work. 24 We've, you know, had full-time staff cover for other 25 full-time staff to try to allow people to take time off. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 83 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you fully staffed? 2 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you think you need to 4 rethink the part-time issue? Or -- 5 MR. STANTON: At the beginning of each budget year, 6 we -- we sit down and figure out how much time -- how much 7 time it will take for each employee to be able to use their 8 vacation time and whatever they've got on the books. What 9 seems to catch us every year is we have employees -- we had 10 three employees go out on FMLA this year, and they were out 11 for almost -- on the average of three and a half to four 12 weeks at a time. And those types of situations come into 13 effect where we've already got people plugged in to take the 14 time off, but then we have to -- because we have people out 15 on FMLA and different things, we have to plug them back in 16 and different things like that. I think that with our -- 17 with the way that our part-timers are set up now, I think 18 that we -- we have enough part-time staff to cover everyone. 19 One of the things that we've talked about implementing this 20 year is kind of a standardized vacation schedule where we're 21 going to schedule everybody's vacation for the whole year, 22 plug it into a schedule, allow everybody to -- to pick the 23 dates that they want in advance. And that way, we'll be able 24 to plug in part-timers in, and hopefully we'll be able to -- 25 to take steps to not get into this situation again. But 9-14-10 cc/bwk 84 1 that's -- that's where we're at at this point. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: If we were to encumber your current 3 year's budget for an additional 60 days to give you that 4 period to try and roll off some more of that accrued time, 5 would you be able to roll off any appreciable amount of it 6 during that 60 days? 7 MR. STANTON: I believe so. I mean, I believe this 8 budget -- this current budget year, with the people that 9 we've got, we've got people scheduled to take off, I mean, up 10 through the end of this month. And with the amount of money 11 that we have in our part-time budget line item, we've got 12 enough money to cover exactly that amount of time off through 13 the end of this month. Next month, when the -- when the new 14 budget kicks in -- and, see, I'm not sure if we're talking 15 about this year's budget or next year's budget. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: We'd be encumbering this current 17 year's budget. 18 MR. STANTON: We would have to make some 19 adjustments; take some of the money that we're asking to take 20 to pay this, we'd have to move it into part-time item to be 21 able to pay the part-timers to work those hours that we need 22 to cover for the people to get that time off. So, the short 23 answer is -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: So, if we give you an additional 60 25 days in this year's budget to roll off some of that time, 9-14-10 cc/bwk 85 1 because of your scheduling and your ratios that you're 2 required, you wouldn't be able to roll off a whole lot of it 3 without affecting your budget in some other way? 4 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm certainly willing to do 6 that. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, call for a motion. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do which one? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To allow him the 60? Allow 10 him the 60 days. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: To see what effect it can do? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See what effect -- see how 13 that would work. Give him the opportunity to work that off, 14 as opposed to writing checks. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Hopefully it won't get worse. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I -- maybe I heard 17 something different. I heard that it isn't going to have any 18 budget impact; it's -- all we're going to do, instead of 19 writing the employees a check, we're going to write part-time 20 employees checks. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what I'm hearing. 22 MS. HYDE: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's not what I heard him 24 say just now. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Essentially, that's it. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 86 1 MS. HYDE: Right. 2 MR. STANTON: It's right and it's wrong. I mean, 3 honestly, it's right and it's wrong. I mean, yes, we either 4 are going to write the part-timers checks or write the 5 full-time people checks. I'm not sure how much time -- 6 because of people we've got currently that are getting ready 7 to go off on FMLA and the staffing ratios and stuff, I don't 8 know how much time I'm going to be allowed -- allowed -- I 9 don't know how much time I would be able to allow my 10 full-time employees to take off in the next 60 days that 11 would make a significant difference in what they've already 12 taken off. But it is less expensive to pay the part-timers 13 than it is to pay -- pay off the full-timers. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So -- okay. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: What -- what degree of savings do 17 you think we could accomplish by adjusting -- amending your 18 current year's part-time budget by shifting some of it over 19 there? We're looking at, as I recall, $17,000 in overtime? 20 MR. STANTON: $16,515. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 22 MR. STANTON: We might be able to reduce it down to 23 10,000. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's 6,500 bucks. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second Commissioner 9-14-10 cc/bwk 87 1 Baldwin's motion that we give 60 days, if it works. If it 2 works. If not, we write the check. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second to 4 permit Juvenile Detention to have an additional 60 days to 5 encumber this current year's budget to attempt to roll off 6 accrued compensatory time, holiday, or overtime issues. 7 Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify 8 by raising your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 13 MR. STANTON: Thank you. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's try it that way, and hopefully 15 we'll get some benefit. 16 MR. STANTON: Thank you. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. I appreciate it, 18 Mr. Stanton. Anything else with respect to the Commissioners 19 Court meeting matters that were considered? That being the 20 case, I will adjourn the Commissioners Court meeting that was 21 convened yesterday and continued over and recessed over until 22 today. 23 (Commissioners Court meeting of 9-13-10, which recessed and reconvened on 9-14-10, was adjourned 24 at 12:05 p.m.) 25 - - - - - - - - - - 9-14-10 cc/bwk 88 1 JUDGE TINLEY: We've still got our workshop. Other 2 than getting the number from the Auditor, anything else to 3 come before the workshop, gentlemen? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the only -- I'd like to 5 discuss a little bit the employee reduction item, as to how 6 -- what's the best way to get there. I mean, I think, you 7 know, the Judge put in the budget a somewhat arbitrary number 8 that we would get to primarily by attrition. I think 9 Commissioner Baldwin had more specific cuts. And I'm not 10 sure the dollar differences is that much different. It 11 appears to me that specific cuts yields probably another 12 $150,000, plus or minus, additional that way, but that also 13 doesn't account for workers -- or unemployment compensation 14 rates going up, and having to make those payments and some of 15 that other stuff, so it's probably not going to be that full 16 amount. Anyway, I just wondered what the -- need a little 17 more discussion on that one. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That is -- and that is a big 19 difference between -- between eliminating positions and 20 employees not having a job, basically, or being let go, which 21 is what it is, and those who leave on their own accord. Big 22 difference in cost. And we don't -- we don't get much 23 savings out of the ones that we lose, because most of them 24 will probably draw unemployment, and that's -- 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Apparently, the Tax Assessor wants 9-14-10 cc/bwk 89 1 to say something. Before we -- if we're going to continue 2 this thing, we need to give the reporter a break and come 3 back after lunch, or -- or we need to get it wound up pretty 4 quick. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we come back 6 after lunch? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We're going to be in recess 8 until 1:30. 9 (Recess taken from 12:10 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 10 - - - - - - - - - - 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order. We 12 were in recess. I -- is Ms. Diane Bolin here? She was 13 seeking an opportunity to say something when we recessed, 14 because it appeared like we were fixing to go for a while, 15 and I needed to give the court reporter a break and let 16 Buster eat lunch. He told me he was hungry. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I didn't. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: You didn't eat lunch? Do you want 19 to be excused to go do that now? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, I'm on a lean, 21 mean -- something. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Reality is he had two 24 lunches. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 90 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a comment. It seems 2 that we're in a situation with our other elected officials 3 and us that we can't tell them not to hire if we put the 4 money -- dollars in the budget. And the only way we can not 5 do that is not to fund positions. Which makes it much more, 6 you know, I mean, definite, I guess, to say -- you know, it's 7 kind of a -- it's kind of -- we're boxed into a corner there 8 if we're going to get the budget cuts that we want. But an 9 option may be if we get an assurance from all elected 10 officials that no spots will be filled throughout the year. 11 While they may have the legal ability to do it, if they 12 assure us that they won't do it, that may be a way for us to 13 get the reduction in force through attrition that I think 14 everyone up here says is a preferable way to get there. Just 15 a thought. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Wait a minute. Everybody up here 17 says it's preferable? What's preferable? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The attrition. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Attrition is better than -- 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Better than making it 22 mandatory. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- mandatory. But, you know, 24 we can't get to a -- you know, we don't have the ability to 25 do the attrition. The elected officials do. And if they're 9-14-10 cc/bwk 91 1 willing to do that, I'm willing to trust them, if I have 2 their assurance they're not going to hire any positions. But 3 if that trust is not followed through this year, in their 4 future budget year, I would have -- I would consider that as 5 not being a team player. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, that's just my personal 8 feeling, how I look at it. But -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, like I said a while 10 ago, I -- I've observed some of that attrition taking place, 11 and where the elected officials deemed that it wasn't 12 absolutely necessary that they fill that position, they've 13 declined to do so, some of them on multiple occasions. And I 14 trust our elected officials to do the right thing. When it 15 comes to the overall mission of the county, if they've got a 16 position which they know it will be of benefit to -- to us 17 overall, that even though they have the position authorized 18 in their -- in their budget and funded, that if they don't 19 have to fill it, that they'll do the right thing and not fill 20 it. But I'm -- if there's got to be any reduction, I -- I 21 think it's very, very important that it be done by attrition. 22 I'm concerned about the message that we're sending, 23 particularly to our employees, when we -- when we determine 24 our priorities in trying to achieve reductions in the budget. 25 For example, we heard here earlier this morning 9-14-10 cc/bwk 92 1 that -- that if we eliminate dependent coverage availability 2 under our health benefits plan, we will -- we'll achieve a 3 savings somewhere in the $450,000 category. That's without 4 any cost to the employee. No contribution by the employee. 5 But then there is -- there's continuing strong talk about, 6 well, we -- we've got to -- apparently you don't want to go 7 there. Instead, we're going to tell our employees that -- 8 that they're not the most important thing; that maybe 9 dependent health coverage is, and -- and we're going to roll 10 out 10 employees or so, which I would submit to you, probably 11 the overall economic effect is less doing that than it would 12 be for what we heard about the elimination of the employee -- 13 dependent health care benefit. It sends, I think, a 14 terrible, terrible message to our employees about where they 15 stand in -- in the priorities. 16 And then when you add on top of that, okay, not 17 only are we not going to give you a COLA to offset what was 18 proposed to be that you pay as part of your contribution of 19 the health benefits cost; we're going to eliminate the COLA, 20 but we're going to leave in place the requirement that you 21 continue to pay a portion of that cost, I'm just real 22 concerned about -- about what it -- what kind of a message it 23 sends to our work force that's been a really good work force, 24 cohesive, loyal, dependable, capable. They've been doing us 25 a good job for many, many years, and they're being told now 9-14-10 cc/bwk 93 1 that they have no value, essentially. That's -- that's what 2 I'm hearing, and I really hate to hear that. I think it's 3 atrocious, frankly. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's absolutely not true, 5 though. You're making a false statement there when we say 6 that these employees are not worth it. That is untrue. And 7 I find -- I actually find that offensive. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Commissioner, -- 9 MS. PIEPER: That's how they're feeling. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: -- the facts are what lead me to 11 that conclusion. It's -- I know you've said it's not true, 12 and I don't believe that, in your heart of hearts, you 13 believe that. But -- 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did you say? 15 MS. PIEPER: I said that's how people feel. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And those with dependents, you 17 don't -- I mean, the majority of the elected officials and 18 employees would rather have no dependent coverage? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I say leave it to -- leave it 20 to the employees. Let them tell you which is more important, 21 that there be a reduction in force or that they not have 22 dependent coverage for health benefits. Let them tell you 23 what's important to them. If you really trust them, if you 24 care for them, care about them, you'll let them help you make 25 that decision. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 94 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's in your budget? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is in your budget -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: In the budget -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- regarding that? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: In the budget that I filed, the only 7 adjustment, as I told you, had to do with the -- the COLA to 8 offset what was included in the budget, that the employees 9 pay a portion of the health benefits coverage. That seemed 10 to be the very strong direction that the Court was going at 11 the time that I filed that. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we're going to go back to 13 the drawing board now and open up a whole new option of 14 whether we want to cut the -- cut the budget, or now we're 15 going to redo the insurance program? Is that what you're 16 saying? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that -- you heard it this 18 morning, that that would be one significant way to affect the 19 cost, the total overall cost, by about $450,000. Doing that 20 one thing. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Also asking you to reduce 22 your salary. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I could reduce mine to nothing and 24 it wouldn't come close to making that same -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 95 1 JUDGE TINLEY: -- impact. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that. You 3 know, we're talking about trying to get to where we're -- 4 where we're going. Are we -- I mean, I'm not following your 5 -- your meaning in all this. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, what I'm saying is, if your 7 employees are really a priority, demonstrate that to them by 8 giving them the option to tell you which they prefer when it 9 comes to eliminating positions or deleting their ability to 10 have dependent coverage under their health benefits. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we're back to the drawing 12 board. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But those numbers don't 14 balance, Judge. I'm -- we can do it right now. We can go, 15 "Okay, we're going to have $250,000 you have in the budget 16 for attrition, eliminate dependent coverage." That gets 17 400,000 there. We need to find a million today. That's 18 400,000. The city's 100,000, airport 75,000. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Paving, 190. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Paving is 190. We're closer. 21 But we're still reducing staff through attrition by 14 22 employees. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: You got so many things in play that 24 I think probably what it's going to come down to -- 25 MS. BOLIN: I thought they were down to nine this 9-14-10 cc/bwk 96 1 morning. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: -- is taking a separate vote on 3 every single one of these proposals to cut. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. We can't take a vote 5 today 'cause we're in a workshop. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: No, I understand that. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, we were -- we were kind 8 of right at 660, and if we trade out the -- the difference 9 between -- the COLA is gone, and also get rid of the employee 10 contribution and add in eliminating dependent coverage, that 11 should net out about 200,000 more. I think -- you know, and 12 that puts us at about $860,000 in cuts right now, which 13 should get us there. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't believe that -- that 15 if we do this the way that Jonathan just described, by 16 attrition and -- and asking elected officials to do certain 17 things during the course of the year, that that's the same 18 thing as telling people tomorrow they get a pink slip. That 19 is their choice to do that. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's two different worlds. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a whole different way 22 of doing things than us telling them that, "Nope," you know, 23 "we're eliminating your position through the budget," and the 24 elected official has to tell somebody to hit the road. What 25 we're -- that's not what this is about, is the way I see it. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 97 1 And this is the way that I support it, is through attrition 2 and people making a choice to go do something else, rather 3 than being forced to. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So you're telling me that 5 your present position is that reduction in force through 6 attrition only is the only thing that you're in favor of? 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That would be my preference, 8 and I think it's the preference of everybody on this Court, 9 including you. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that during -- with the 12 attrition, there may be some reshuffling within employees, 13 because, obviously, someone may retire in this position and 14 you may need to fill a position over here. There may be some 15 lateral moving around of positions, but they have the job. 16 MS. BOLIN: So then what happens if -- like, my 17 office is a pretty young office. If nobody retires or moves 18 on in the next year, then what happens? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, then through the 20 attrition way, if there was an opening in another office, 21 they would be -- it would be open for them to take that, you 22 know, opening in another office. 23 MS. BOLIN: But if they don't want to switch 24 offices, they want to stay there, then I still keep the same 25 number of employees? 9-14-10 cc/bwk 98 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. I think at some point 2 there's got to be a reduction in employees, 'cause we're -- 3 this is not a one-year -- I mean, like we're fixing for one 4 year. We have got -- I don't see how we cannot reduce our 5 payroll as a whole and make it through next year. This year 6 we can make some cuts and get it down, but we have some 7 long-term problems in our economy, and everything I hear is 8 that we're going to be just as bad off next year. The only 9 way we can make -- we're pretty much cutting everything we 10 can this year. We've got to get the payroll down by next 11 year. 12 MS. BOLIN: Well, I know in my office that the 13 clerks have said that they wouldn't mind taking a 2.5 if 14 everybody in the office kept their jobs, plus pay the 55. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, I have a -- 16 JUDGE TINLEY: That's a demonstration of the 17 dedication and loyalty that the employees have to us. I 18 think it's incumbent upon us to reciprocate. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think the Auditor crunched 20 some numbers during lunchtime. Maybe she can enlighten us 21 with what -- after we had our morning session, what she was 22 kind of instructed to do. And I don't know what those are, 23 but -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. You got a 25 handout for us? 9-14-10 cc/bwk 99 1 MS. HARGIS: Well, let me go over them, and then -- 2 then we can kind of decide. We started out in the -- in the 3 original budget, and we're focusing on the general fund, 4 because that's our largest fund. Road and Bridge's 190,000 5 is a good fix for this year. It's not a fix for next year, 6 but it's a fix for this year; it puts them in the position 7 they need to be in. So, we kind of removed that little piece 8 of the -- of the tax rate that we talked about, the .006. 9 Because their .06 was going to bring in around 152,000, and 10 now it's -- the 190 is actually a little bit more, so their 11 fund balance would be about 610,000. They need to be at 500, 12 550, in case we have a flood, so forth and so on. All right. 13 So that takes care of Road and Bridge. Take Road and Bridge 14 out of the scenario. 15 We need to go to the general fund, which the other 16 funds are mandatory. They're rolled up into that, all the 17 tax rate that we have. We have our debt service included in 18 here and all the other little -- little funds that are 19 mandated. Okay. If we remove the 100,000 for the city, 20 which is what you said, we add in the 75,000 that we got 21 unbeknownst to us yesterday from the airport, we take off the 22 COLA, which was around 323 and change -- and I'm going to let 23 Eva address this. Gary talked about 2 million, 8. We've 24 been budgeting 2 million, 9. And so -- 25 MS. HYDE: We'll take $150,000, from 2.95 down to 9-14-10 cc/bwk 100 1 2.8, as our estimate at this point. And it's still an 2 educated guess. So, there's another $150,000. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if -- if we drop the 4 dependent coverage completely, that goes down another 5 400,000. 6 MS. HYDE: Give or take. Give or take a little 7 bit. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I heard 420. We heard 487 9 this morning. I think it's probably somewhere in the 10 neighborhood of 425, 450, in that range. 11 MS. HYDE: Somewhere in there. It's an educated 12 guess. But I would also caution you that if we do dependent 13 only -- I mean, excuse me, employee only, and you -- you cut 14 the dependent coverage, we don't know what the offset's going 15 to be, because some of them need the insurance, so they may 16 go somewhere else for that as well. I think that that is one 17 of the benefits that offsets some of the low pay that we do. 18 And I know y'all don't like hearing that, but I do think that 19 that is one of the huge benefits for people working here, is 20 that we have good benefits for the dependents. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, that's the truth, 22 yeah. 23 MS. HYDE: So I know it's not a popular thing this 24 year, but I'm going to go back to -- we've been doing this 10 25 weeks now, since July 6th. I think you even said it's been a 9-14-10 cc/bwk 101 1 long time. Our summer's kind of gone. If you -- if you cut 2 them too much, this is a small town; there's not many jobs, 3 so we're going to force people to move, and that's going to 4 hurt our economic plan. If I can't get a job here and I'm 5 only making $26,000, I can go to San Antonio, and my costs 6 are a little bit less. I might move in with family, might 7 move in with friends, but I can get $26,000 in San Antonio. 8 So, we're taking the lower -- the lower, younger folks that 9 we want to be part of this county in 10 or 15 years, that are 10 the next level of management, that are supposed to be the 11 ones that are learning these jobs, and we're basically -- 12 unfortunately, the message they're getting, whether it's what 13 you guys are saying or not, is they're not important; that 14 they're a number, and that number needs to be cut. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I -- you know, that's 16 been my feeling, a lot of it, but what I'm hearing from 17 people in the room and the Judge is that it's more important 18 to look out for the employees; that that's what we're -- 19 MS. HYDE: It is important to look after the 20 employees. But you've got -- we've got to find a middle 21 ground in order to maintain the people that we want to 22 maintain. You can't go through and say, "Eva, I want to cut 23 you 'cause I don't like you today, 'cause you're an H.A. -- a 24 hard tail." Or I don't like you today because you're saying 25 that my office is too fat or my people make too much money, 9-14-10 cc/bwk 102 1 or I have too many supervisors or we don't have the money for 2 training. I mean, these are all things that you guys said 3 you wanted, these people want. They're doing great. They 4 continue to improve. We've cut the budget by over a million 5 in expenses every year. We've given the employees raises 6 from the cut in expenses. You yourself, Commissioner Letz -- 7 I'm not trying to throw words back in your face, but you told 8 me yourself, in 10 years we've had two tax increases. 9 Ten years. Ten years. Unheard of. That is 10 wonderful. That is a wonderful reason why we want to move 11 down here. But at the same time, when we're in deep -- deep, 12 then you know what? I understand, it's a vote. I understand 13 that people are going to be angry, but at the same time, the 14 people that are paying the taxes tend to kind of understand 15 it, 'cause we're the ones that are going to be eating the 16 increase. The freeze people are not. And -- and, 17 Commissioner Baldwin, you've known my dad for a long time, 18 and I don't think I have ever in my life heard him say to 19 raise taxes, and he actually said raise taxes this year. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's kind of a scary cat, 21 anyway. 22 MS. HYDE: Yeah, he is. So for him to say that, 23 and even agree to a 3- to 5-cent increase, although I told 24 him, "It doesn't come off of your back," they're looking at 25 it that way. Some of the older folks that have always been 9-14-10 cc/bwk 103 1 negative, negative, negative are saying, you know what? 2 They're in trouble. And it's not because they've been 3 fiscally irresponsible. That's my two cents. 4 MS. HARGIS: Okay. If we add that 150 on and the 5 190 for Road and Bridge, we're at 838, so I would be 6 comfortable. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Give me those numbers again. 8 MS. HARGIS: Well, 323. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's the COLA. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 12 MS. HARGIS: 100 reduction. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 14 MS. HARGIS: 75. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 16 MS. HARGIS: 150. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, tell me where that 150 comes 18 from. 19 MS. HARGIS: The 150 is the reduction in -- between 20 2.975 and 2.8 for the insurance. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 22 MS. HARGIS: 648. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 24 MS. HARGIS: 190, Road and Bridge. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I've already got that, yeah. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 104 1 MS. HARGIS: 838. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 38? 3 MS. HARGIS: 838. Is that what you got? 4 MS. HYDE: Jeannie, can you go over them one more 5 time? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 7 MS. HARGIS: Okay. 323, 175, 150. 648. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Wait a minute. 648? 9 MS. HARGIS: 648 is those numbers, 648 combined. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. 11 MS. HYDE: Okay. 12 MS. HARGIS: Because I'm dealing with two funds 13 here. I can't mix dollars, guys. I'm reducing the general 14 fund by 648. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. 16 MS. HARGIS: I'm reducing Road and Bridge by 190. 17 The total combination of both is 838,000. All right. We 18 started out with a need for at least 2 million, 7. With 3 19 cents, that's what we -- we put in the original budget that 20 we filed. The ending result was a fund balance -- or a cash 21 balance of 2 million, 7, okay? If we take these reductions 22 that I just gave you and we do a penny and a half, we're at 23 2 million, 7, no staff reductions. If we do a penny -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, no staff reductions? But 25 isn't that -- the $250,000 still in there? 9-14-10 cc/bwk 105 1 MS. HARGIS: No. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: For the Judge -- 3 MS. HARGIS: I took it out of just this summary. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 5 MS. HARGIS: I'm giving you several scenarios. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This keeps all employees 8 intact? 9 MS. HARGIS: All employees intact, the penny and a 10 half. A penny and three-quarters brings in, you know, about 11 $79,000 more, which makes my cash balance a little healthier. 12 Which two pennies -- two pennies and no staff reduction is 13 great; it gives me 2 million, 8. Okay. A penny -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: That's your, quote, excess cash 15 balance or reserve as we've talked about? 16 MS. HARGIS: Right. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. What is it again for one 18 and a half? 19 MS. HARGIS: One and a half is 2 million, 7. And 20 I'll give y'all copies of this. 2 million, 7 and change, 21 general, and then 2 million, 779 at a penny and 22 three-quarters. Two pennies -- I need to change this one, 23 because I didn't add the 150. It brings them to about 2 24 million, 8. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the penny and a half 9-14-10 cc/bwk 106 1 would meet your budget? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just under it, about 70,000 3 short. 4 MS. HARGIS: The penny and a half brings me about 5 exactly where we were before. We were at 2 million, 702. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much is the budget 7 that's lying in wait? 8 MS. HARGIS: Pending result of the cash reserve, 9 that budget is standing there at 2 million, 702. So, this 10 brings me -- a penny and a half, no staff reductions, brings 11 me exactly the same with what we've done here today. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm a happy little boy. So 13 far. 14 MS. HARGIS: Now, -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now. 16 MS. HARGIS: -- here's what I don't -- a penny and 17 eight staff reductions brings me to the same place as a penny 18 and a half and no staff reduction. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Staff reductions can be through 20 attrition by midyear? Or, I mean -- 21 MS. HARGIS: There's no way for me to do that. I 22 just have to put the whole amount in, and the whole amount, 23 the eight people is 313. Because you can't take a full 24 $40,000, because we are -- again, our insurance is a calendar 25 year payment, so we still have 90 days that we have to pay 9-14-10 cc/bwk 107 1 for our -- for the people we signed up on January 1 of this 2 year. So, I just took nine months of insurance on people, if 3 we -- and their salary for a whole year. If you want to take 4 half of that, 313 divided by two. Two pennies and the eight 5 staff brings me 3 million, so -- and then without a staff 6 reduction and one penny brings me 2.4, so that is the lower 7 end. But a penny and a half and what we have done here today 8 will take care of this year. And, you know, -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But is -- 10 MS. HARGIS: -- the attrition situation is up to 11 y'all, and you need to keep that in mind. Once we set the 12 budget, they have that ability to either use that money or 13 not use it. And, you know, I don't really think they're 14 gung-ho right now about reducing, so -- and I know I'll get 15 shot for this, but that's something we -- we may depend on, 16 and we need to get their word that that's what's going to 17 happen, but I think we have to figure out how it's going to 18 happen. Or, you know, we -- I mean, I don't know. I don't 19 exactly know how that's going to happen. I don't know where 20 your attrition is going to be. I don't know these people and 21 their employees that well, and I don't keep up with that. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Can I make one suggestion that 23 may help with her situation, and may help with your penny and 24 a half? Y'all still have in my current budget the fitness 25 standard study, okay? Fitness program we all said wasn't 9-14-10 cc/bwk 108 1 going to cost the taxpayers anything. There's never been a 2 standard set. There is that amount in my budget, split 3 between the two training budgets, total of 25,000. If I tell 4 you to reduce my training budget between the two 25,000, I'll 5 wait another year or two before we actually put standards in 6 place. Doesn't mean I can't encourage my people to get fit. 7 That will cut that 25,000. And then I have one position -- 8 one employee that was elected to an elected position starting 9 January, and I have one other position that I could move into 10 that one, and I could eliminate that one position. And that 11 one position -- that way it won't hurt me on the street. 12 Won't hurt patrol, it won't hurt the citizens. That's one -- 13 that's probably 40,000, 45,000 total with benefits, and 14 another 25,000 out of my budget itself, so you're talking 15 70,000 right there. If I'll commit that 70,000 to you and 16 the penny and a half, and that way no other employees have to 17 jeopardize, and no other, you know, attrition has to be made, 18 and we'll make do this year and see where we are next year. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I appreciate that. And I -- 20 and the only thing I would say is that the -- on the 21 attrition side, we've got to -- back what I said a minute 22 ago. We've got to end up this year with a smaller total 23 budget than next year, 'cause our employees are going to 24 start going the other direction if we don't figure out how to 25 cut our total payroll. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 109 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But what I'm hearing, 2 Jonathan -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I hear what you're saying. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On the penny and a half or 5 penny and three-quarters, you're still where she wanted to be 6 with the fund balance and being able to build a little. 7 There was some talk about 70,000. I'm giving 70,000 and a 8 position that's permanent. Between that and the penny and a 9 half, and what -- where they -- what Eva said on the 10 insurance and that, where it actually is, we're not having to 11 cut dependent coverage any more than what it's already been 12 changed. You're not having to go through attrition. You 13 ought to be able to be -- if what I understood Jeannie 14 talking, you ought to be able to be putting back into the 15 fund balance so we may come out better at the end, and not 16 get hit so hard again next year, because you're already doing 17 that. 18 Now, if you -- I'm not going to speak for another 19 elected official, ever, okay? But if, during that same time 20 period this next year, we see how attrition does work, 21 without guaranteeing -- just on the elected officials, 'cause 22 I know you can't force us to once the budget's done, and the 23 elected officials have tried and tried. But I think, like 24 the Judge says and everybody else says, the elected officials 25 are continuing to try. Yes, we want to look after our 9-14-10 cc/bwk 110 1 employees. If we have one leave and we can spread out those 2 duties -- and some of them are getting thin, 'cause the 3 departments aren't that big to begin with. But if we can, I 4 think they're -- I think every elected official is going to 5 try and help the best we can. But this will give you the -- 6 the start without a 3-cent tax increase. 7 And I hope that the 70,000 and the position I'm 8 giving up, okay, through attrition -- I can't give it up 9 October 1. I can give it up January 1 when that person takes 10 on a new position and I move one over without costing me an 11 employee, without putting anybody in the unemployment line. 12 'Cause unemployment's not going to save this county that 13 much. We're not going to -- you can, you know, cut as many 14 as you want. They still can, you know, under Obama, get 120 15 weeks of unemployment. That's a lot more than a year. But 16 if we can do it, and do it this way, from what I seen what 17 Jeannie's saying, what Eva just said, I think maybe we've 18 reached a compromise that will help the county build the fund 19 and take care of some of our issues. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hargis, under that -- under the 21 set of numbers, what would our reserve -- excess cash 22 position be, realistically, with each of those numbers? 23 MS. HARGIS: Okay. The penny and a half would put 24 us at 15.27. The penny and three-quarters is 15.67. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: 15 what? 9-14-10 cc/bwk 111 1 MS. HARGIS: 67. The 2 cents -- and this is 2 probably going to go up, again, because I didn't -- didn't go 3 back to each one of these scenarios and add the 150 in, so 4 this one is probably going to go up to 16, probably a little 5 bit more than 16 percent. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 MS. HARGIS: And those are -- those are the ones -- 8 and with the staff reductions, again, the highest one is two 9 pennies with the staff reduction, which would probably put us 10 at -- and the 150's not in there, so I'm going to guess 18. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm talking about no staff 12 reductions. 13 MS. HARGIS: No staff reduction? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Those are the percentages you just 15 gave me? 16 MS. HARGIS: Those are the percentages. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 18 MS. HARGIS: And that is budgeting really low on 19 the revenue side. And -- and hopeful that, you know, some of 20 this will turn around. We already know that Rusty's fees are 21 going up. That will be helpful. And I know that both the 22 clerks have looked at it. I haven't looked. I know Diane's 23 probably at -- when she charges her commission for the 24 outside agencies, that is at max there. 25 MS. BOLIN: It's set by the state. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 112 1 MS. HARGIS: But there may be some other things in 2 her office we might be able to look at. But other than 3 that -- and I believe that the J.P.'s are looking at it. I'm 4 probably going to get shot for this, but at some point, 5 though -- Jonathan is, unfortunately, telling the truth. At 6 some point, if the economy does not begin to turn around, the 7 only way that we can reduce is through that. But I'm -- you 8 know, I'd like to still have a little bit of hope that it 9 might turn around a little bit, and that each one of the 10 elected officials would keep that in mind for this upcoming 11 year. Even though that position -- someone might leave, and 12 they really need them, you know, can they move things around 13 to where they can be more productive? And the other thing is 14 that maybe, perhaps, during this first six months of this 15 year, that between Eva and myself, maybe we can go in and 16 perhaps maybe give them some suggestions about productivity, 17 which we've never done before. I know Eva's been trying to 18 help them with this the last three years, but maybe we can 19 apply a little bit more science to it to try to help. 20 You know, this is a hard decision either way we go, 21 but I think we're -- we've come from a 3.06 to a penny and a 22 half, and I think that would -- and -- and we don't know how 23 we're going to end up this year. We could end up better. 24 But I'm taking the fact that I'm concerned we may not -- you 25 know, I've reduced that, so that could come in better. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 113 1 People are watching what they're spending. And we could hope 2 further that our cash balance is higher than we anticipated, 3 but that's it. You know, all of these are estimates. But 4 I'd really like -- I know you can't make a decision, but kind 5 of a consensus today, because we -- it's really going to take 6 us time to put this document together to even get it in front 7 of you. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Ms. Hargis, I would suggest to 9 you that based upon the degree of attention that you got just 10 a few minutes ago, that may be the first that we've heard 11 today that could be considered reasonably good news. Now, 12 that's how it rang in my ears. I don't know about the rest 13 of you folks up here. I think -- I think Buster made a 14 comment. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me and the Judge are just 16 like that. I'm the tall one over here. (Laughter.) 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it's sounding like 18 we're closing in on it. You have that printout? Can we have 19 that? 20 MS. HARGIS: Yes. Yes, I will provide everyone -- 21 each of you with a copy of it. But, you know, I think that I 22 have to commend Leonard for what he's done, because I think 23 that's over and above, and -- and he's very conscious about 24 keeping this county in good shape. And since I live out in 25 the rural part of the county, I can say that. I appreciate 9-14-10 cc/bwk 114 1 everything that he does, and for him to do that, I think 2 that's above and beyond. I -- I really would like to 3 recommend that you seriously consider this penny and a half, 4 with everything that we've got here. I -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: If we don't do that, at least a 6 penny and a half, where's that going to leave us come 7 November, December? 8 MS. HARGIS: Well, -- 9 MS. HYDE: Tanked. 10 MS. HARGIS: -- I mean, it's real easy to figure. 11 If I got 2 million that I'm starting the year with, and I got 12 a million-dollar payroll and I got payables of 650 or 700 a 13 month, that leaves me 300,000. If I only collect about 700 14 or 800 in fees, I got enough to get to the 15th of November. 15 If I have a tax rate a penny and a half and it starts coming 16 in in October, I'm probably going to be okay. And -- and I 17 may start a little bit higher than that, so I think we can 18 make it. You know, we can borrow from ourselves, which is 19 not something I really want to do, but we can make it through 20 that type of a situation. And, again, that's a short-term 21 deal, too. Because as our capital money dries up -- and our 22 city down the street has the same availability, because they 23 have even more capital money in their account than we do. 24 You know, we have the availability of borrowing from ourself 25 for a short term, but very short term. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 115 1 So I think -- you know, and -- and we have all the 2 fund balances. You know, we'll be paying off one debt 3 service this year, which will help us, but I do want y'all to 4 keep in mind that the one that we did, the two-year program 5 that we're still using the funds for, has a big balloon. And 6 it kind of shocked me a little bit when I ran it out after we 7 did it. We're paying about a million, three right now, and 8 that particular year we're going to pay a million, four, so 9 our debt service will go up in two years, because that's the 10 kind of balloon way we set that up. We're paying mostly 11 interest rate now to make sure that our debt service stayed 12 fairly level, and so then we're going up. The only other, 13 you know, caution that we have is that we know that the 14 values may go down next year, so that's another concern that 15 I have. But if the values even held constant or stay pretty 16 close to the same level, I think we would be all right with a 17 penny and a half. And we can do a lot of praying that maybe 18 some folks will decide that the hill country's a nice place 19 to come, and they retire and they come here anyway. So -- 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I want to bring up one more 21 thing before -- and I know Jeannie's aware of this, is that, 22 you know, our insurance program, Eva gets lots of 23 reimbursements in those -- a lot of those. That money goes 24 into a fund, and a lot of times it goes back into the 25 insurance line item, or sometimes it goes other places. But 9-14-10 cc/bwk 116 1 what I think we should do, if at all possible, is take that 2 money that she's getting back, put it into a separate fund 3 for insurance, so that next time we have one of these bad 4 claims years, we've got some money -- it's kind of like an 5 insurance reserve that we can fall back on to pay the "up 6 jump the devil" years, and it doesn't hurt like it has this 7 year. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's an interesting 9 thought. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: At least a portion of it. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, a portion of it, until 12 we get to a certain level to where, you know, it will help us 13 in those bad times. 14 MS. HYDE: We've talked about this the last 15 couple-three years, and I don't think -- I'm trying to talk 16 slower, 'cause I was told if I talked slower, I think y'all 17 could hear me. So, we've talked about this the last three 18 years. When we do our stop loss and we do the employee 19 portion, those go back into the fund. Now, Mindy puts it 20 into the regular fund, and they can call it whatever they 21 want to, but it typically is about 300,000. That's the 22 employee portion. And then you have your stop loss. 23 Unfortunately, our stop loss has continued to grow, so -- 24 except this year, and we're kind of hoping, Mindy and I, that 25 they don't send me any checks for a little bit. That will 9-14-10 cc/bwk 117 1 help us out in October, November, and December. So, I 2 haven't really raised cain the last 30 days about, "Where's 3 my money?" 'Cause we want it in October. But you can -- you 4 can normally figure $200,000 to $250,000 that we're getting 5 back now that we didn't used to. When I first came here, 6 y'all's stop loss was $30,000 the prior year. I don't know 7 where the rest of it went. That's P.E., prior Eva. But I 8 can tell you that since then, we've made at least $250,000 a 9 year. And it's been more than that, but I'm hedging. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: But those are amounts we've 11 previously paid, and we're getting reimbursement from our 12 stop loss carrier because it exceeded our stop loss amount. 13 MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: During the bad times, unfortunately, 15 we need that, or have needed it, mostly for cash flow. 16 MS. HYDE: That's what we've -- yes, sir. That's a 17 good way to put it. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the onus is kind of on you 19 to determine how much of each reimbursement -- you may be 20 able to work with Mindy on setting it aside over there -- 21 MS. HYDE: I think the first -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: -- into a reserve account, and build 23 that. 24 MS. HYDE: The first 60,000 needs to reimburse the 25 county, which is what the plan was, because that's what the 9-14-10 cc/bwk 118 1 county loss is. So, the first -- the first thing is to take 2 the first 60,000 and put it back into the county to make us 3 whole. But then anything above the 60,000, I'm requesting 4 that that be put into whatever we can call it, wherever it 5 needs to go, even if we hide it in the checking account from 6 ourselves so that we don't touch it and leave it alone, and 7 it becomes by order of the Court that we use it for something 8 else. Because then when we have these years like this, we'd 9 like to have $750,000 to $800,000. Imagine that number, 10 because that's what we're up this year in claims. Now, 11 anything above that, my deal would be if we -- if we keep our 12 little balance sitting there and we're okay, anything above 13 that needs to go back in the general fund for use. But I 14 want to make sure I understand what Mr. Letz is saying on the 15 attrition, 'cause I'm trying to understand the consensus. 16 And Commissioner Baldwin, I saw him nod his head yes this 17 afternoon, so I'm just trying to make sure. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You sure I wasn't falling 19 asleep? 20 MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What was it? 22 MS. HYDE: About attrition, that we're looking at 23 attrition this year, and you're giving us an opportunity to 24 look at ourselves first. But we're trying to get a consensus 25 among the elected officials as well, that if the attrition 9-14-10 cc/bwk 119 1 doesn't occur and we don't make the big-girl and big-boy 2 decisions that we need to, that next budget year, there will 3 be decisions made for us. Did I understand that pretty 4 close? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty close. 6 MS. HYDE: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because -- and I -- to follow 8 up on that, I just -- we've made a lot of one-year type cuts, 9 like Road and Bridge. We can't keep deferring our road 10 program. 11 MS. HYDE: Right. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's bad -- you know, we have 13 to figure out a way to increase our revenue or decrease our 14 expenses, and the only thing that I see left that we got on 15 the expense side is our overall payroll. 16 MS. HYDE: We'll find some other ways. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You said it all in about two 18 sentences there, the entire thing. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's good. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He is good. We're going to 21 the liquor store, buddy, you and me. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You buying? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. (Laughter.) 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Whoa. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: You better jump on that, Jon. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 120 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think I'll even go. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Talking about a half pint. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Little bitty airplane bottles. 4 MS. HARGIS: Well, I have to admit, this turned out 5 a little bit better than I thought it was going to turn out. 6 I will go back. I want to check this to make sure it's 7 correct, 'cause we're -- haste makes waste. Make sure 8 that -- but I'm fairly comfortable that this will -- will 9 work. And -- but we'll start working on the document that we 10 will -- will have, and is there any other instructions? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want a copy of what -- 12 whatever you're going to do. I want it today, though. 13 MS. HARGIS: Yeah, I'm going to go back and just -- 14 I just want to check it one more time. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: The other thing that'll go into the 16 budget, kind of minor at this point, is a holiday schedule. 17 MS. HYDE: I've got it. I've got it; I just don't 18 have it with. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: You've already got it worked up? 20 MS. HYDE: Already got it worked up. I just don't 21 have it with. The only thing I wanted to ask is, y'all 22 always want Texas Independence Day. Is it on an election day 23 this year or not? 24 MS. BOLIN: No. 25 MS. HYDE: Okay. It's on a Wednesday this year. 9-14-10 cc/bwk 121 1 Do y'all want a Wednesday holiday, or do you like the 2 Monday/Friday holidays? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like Monday/Friday, and I 4 definitely love Texas Independence. 5 MS. HYDE: So we can celebrate Texas Independence 6 on a Friday instead of on a Wednesday? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When's March 2nd? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On a Wednesday. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When's April 21st? That's San 11 Jacinto Day. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A month later. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's San Jacinto. 14 MS. HYDE: I just want to be careful, 'cause I kind 15 of -- some people want Irish Day, other people want Canadian 16 Day, so Texas Independence Day is kind of neutral. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, when I was little, San 18 Jacinto Day was the day we got off; it wasn't March 2nd. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you went to public 20 schools like the rest of us, you wouldn't have done that. 21 MS. HYDE: I can have that for you this afternoon 22 and give y'all the copies, but I'll put it -- I'll put Texas 23 Independence Day on Friday. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Or show it as some options, 25 whatever. Just something we got to look at to start with, 9-14-10 cc/bwk 122 1 okay? 2 MS. HYDE: Can we have a couple extra days? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Options, I said. Not extras. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Christmas. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Now, all of a sudden, look at 6 him; he's picking on employees again. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Can you believe that? 8 We obviously care more than you do. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You told them they had to 10 come to work two more days. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, gentlemen. We ready to fold 12 this one up? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: We're adjourned. 15 (Budget workshop was adjourned at 2:20 p.m.) 16 - - - - - - - - - - 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9-14-10 cc/bwk 123 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 official reporter for the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 22nd day of September, 8 2010. 9 10 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 11 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 12 Certified Shorthand Reporter 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9-14-10 cc/bwk