1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Wednesday, September 7, 2011 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 GUY R. OVERBY, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X September 7, 2011 2 PAGE 3 1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on various matters in proposed FY 2011-2012 Kerr 4 County budget 3 5 1.2 Consider/discuss, approve by record vote the proposed Kerr County 2011 tax rate and set date, 6 time, and place of first and second public hearings on said tax rate 102 7 1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 8 adopt new election precincts and polling locations 106 9 1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action 10 regarding litigation and other matters relating to LCRA Transmission Services Corporation 11 proposed McCamey D to Kendall to Gillespie 345-kv CREZ transmission Line (Executive Session) -- 12 3.1 Action taken on matters considered in executive 13 session 108 14 --- Adjourned 109 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Wednesday, September 7, 2011, 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 special meeting of the Kerr County 9 Commissioners Court posted and scheduled for this date and 10 time, Wednesday, September the 7th, 2011, at 10 a.m. It is a 11 bit past that right now. The first item on the agenda is to 12 consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on various 13 matters in the proposed fiscal year 2011-12 Kerr County 14 budget. Commissioner Baldwin, you asked that this be placed 15 on the agenda. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, I did, and I 17 appreciate you doing that, Judge. I have what -- what 18 triggered it was that we had a couple of issues that really 19 didn't know -- we didn't know what to do with, so we kind of 20 set them aside and wanted to deal with them in a setting like 21 this today so we can take them individually and vote up and 22 down, or at least that's the way -- that's what I think we're 23 doing. Kathy was kind enough to go back through her records 24 and to see those things that we're -- we had talked about, 25 and so she's provided us with a list of things, and I guess 9-7-11 4 1 we'll just go down that list and visit about each one of 2 these. And -- and I hope, maybe, if there -- if there is 3 some questions from anybody, that we can actually take an 4 up-and-down vote on it and get them -- get them out of the 5 way. So, that's the way, personally, I'd like to proceed. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: It's not essential that we make a 7 firm decision on each of these matters, but if we can, fine. 8 If we can't, why, we can defer them. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct, sir. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I -- just kind of a process 11 today question. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What happened to your chin? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Karen. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Your wife? I see. 15 (Laughter.) 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I learned. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dodge. Dodge and weave. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. I know the next item 19 on the agenda is talking about -- we're setting a tax rate. 20 And I have a difficult -- I don't understand -- it's a 21 proposed tax rate, which I guess we then would -- can modify 22 later in the month when we set the final tax rate. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: We can't modify? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, sure. 9-7-11 5 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Modify it. This isn't setting 2 it; this is a proposed rate. But at the same time, it seems 3 that if we have things floating out there, it makes it harder 4 to set a tax rate based on your list. So, I mean, you 5 mentioned that we don't have to take action on them. It 6 seems to me we really need to strive to get -- 7 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- an up-and-down on each of 9 these, so -- because it will have an impact on the tax rate. 10 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Mm-hmm. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I have a few additions as 12 well, or things to up-and-down vote on. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I agree with you 100 14 percent. And what -- what I'm thinking is that there could 15 be some things on here that are really not controversial at 16 all. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Set them aside and go on. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're getting -- we're -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we're on the same page. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, Judge? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Our fearless leader. Would 25 you like for me to take off on this stuff? 9-7-11 6 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you -- are you working off the 2 list that Ms. Banik furnished us? Yeah, okay. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. Yeah, I sure am. 4 Everybody there? 5 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Mm-hmm. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. The first item 7 that we had talked about, you remember the 198th D.A. came in 8 with the young lady, Ms. Atkission, and she had offered to 9 work for his office for a -- for $30,000 a year, licensed 10 attorney, or almost a licensed attorney. And my first glance 11 at this thing, I -- I considered it maybe a -- kind of a 12 business decision. Then I got to thinking about it. If the 13 D.A. had needed somebody like that in his office, he'd have 14 come in and asked for it, but I don't think he did. So, 15 I'm -- I want to let that drop and go on. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Out. Drop out. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Drop out. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. 20 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I agree with you. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No reason to vote there, is 22 it? Or do you want to vote? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I think I just heard enough. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. Number 2, the 25 J.P.'s conference line. My memory says that there was a 9-7-11 7 1 couple of them that had $2,000 for conferences, and one -- 2 third -- I don't remember, but it was different, larger, and 3 moved around. And, you know, the only thing I have to go on 4 is how we do it. We have to get so many hours, and so we 5 figure out how to -- we take "X" amount of dollars and go get 6 those hours and comply with the state law, and go on down the 7 road. But I felt like that this particular line item 8 probably needs to be the same across the board. Or maybe 9 not. 10 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I do have one comment, 11 Commissioner. I did visit last week, and I think the 12 question came up last week why, you know, our J.P. in 13 Precinct 2, J.R. Hoyne, who's back here right now today -- 14 J.R., you know, is the newest J.P. that we have. The -- the 15 reason that the conference line -- that line item 16 particularly was higher than the other ones, of course, was 17 for some continued education courses that he needed to have. 18 I did have the opportunity to visit with J.R. last week, and 19 the item that he had in the budget for the year was $3,500, 20 and the other ones were less than what we talked about. In 21 talking with the J.P. from Precinct 2, of course, he's 22 learning as much courses that he can, and to help him with 23 his job, he has requested that if -- if we could possibly 24 keep that line item -- instead of going to 2,000, maybe keep 25 it for the additional 1,000. He has identified some other 9-7-11 8 1 courses that he thinks would be very helpful to him for this 2 year, so it would be a reduction from 3,500 to 3,000, so to 3 keep the $1,000 additional for him this year. And also, in 4 visiting with J.R., we also felt like next year, the 5 following year, then we could come back and get that same 6 level with everybody there. I think the main thing, I just 7 wanted to give that additional money to help him more advance 8 with his educational courses that he needs to help him right 9 now. So, my request would be for this year, to -- in that 10 precinct, to give him the additional $1,000 for the training 11 that he's requested to help him in his position. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is his training more than 13 everybody else's? 14 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I think it's more of the need 15 to take some additional courses that would -- would help him 16 in his position. I think he's -- he's looking at maybe -- 17 maybe some additional courses that would -- that would help 18 him in his position. So, you know, I think we're reducing it 19 from 3,500 to a $3,000 request, and understanding that the 20 following year, that that $1,000 would go away, and we would 21 be at a level deal for the following year. So, it's a 22 request for $1,000 additional for this year. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand it, but I don't 24 agree. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. Well, I can -- what I 9-7-11 9 1 can say is, you know, it's -- getting help is one thing, but 2 mandatory -- continuing education is mandatory. And if it's 3 not mandatory, I don't know that we should be paying for it. 4 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Well, again, I just think -- 5 new position, new opportunity. The other ones are a lot more 6 seasoned, and -- and I think just the opportunity to get him 7 the opportunity for the schooling, I can understand that for 8 this year coming up, and then reducing it the following year. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Judge Billeiter, you had a comment? 10 JUDGE BILLEITER: Yeah. The thing is, this 11 training is not just for the judges; it's for the clerks, 12 too. We've got two people that need to train. 13 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Right. 14 JUDGE BILLEITER: The ideal thing is for us to be 15 able to take courses close to home, but last year I wanted to 16 go to San Antonio. I could not go to San Antonio because I 17 was on call. Our mandated hours have gone up. Everything 18 else has gone up. I had to go to South Padre Island one 19 time. I had to go to -- 20 JUDGE MITCHELL: Tyler. 21 JUDGE BILLEITER: -- Tyler one time to get my 22 mandated hours, which have gone up, and to get my clerk's 23 training. I think this is probably one of the best 24 investments the County can make to keep the county from being 25 liable from us making mistakes. I paid $1,000 this year to 9-7-11 10 1 take a paralegal course to better prepare myself for my job. 2 I paid for that out of my own pocket, didn't ask the County 3 for a dime. I believe it should be set at 3,000 for my 4 training and my clerk's training. As you know, everything 5 has gone up. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For all four? 7 JUDGE BILLEITER: Yeah, for all four. If we don't 8 use it, fine, but I don't know what school I'm going to be 9 able to go to. I don't know what school my clerk's going to 10 be able to go to. So, that -- I'd like for the Commissioners 11 Court to consider that maybe J.R. needs additional training. 12 That -- that would be great. I think -- like I say, I think 13 that's one of best investments the County can make, is to see 14 that we're adequately trained. 15 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: So, your recommendation is to 16 move it from two to three; is that correct? 17 JUDGE BILLEITER: Yes, sir. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well -- 19 JUDGE BILLEITER: The cost of the -- our costs have 20 gone up just to enroll. It went from, what, 50 to 100? 21 JUDGE MITCHELL: Mm-hmm. 22 JUDGE BILLEITER: Yeah, 50 to 100. So, I think 23 it's a good investment for the county. If we do not get our 24 mandated hours, we can be removed from office. That's it. 25 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I would make -- I guess we 9-7-11 11 1 have a -- if you're asking for a vote on it -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, not yet. 3 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: That's just my comment. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to hear what these 5 guys here have to say. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to see it increase to 7 maybe 2,500 for all of them. I can't go to three. I mean, 8 it's -- I understand we're asking -- we're talking about pay 9 raises and conferences here. You need to get what's mandated 10 by law; I understand that. But, you know, I think there's -- 11 I would -- I'm trying to do everything we can to cut every 12 penny we can so we can give raises this year. And it's only 13 $1,000 or $2,000 we're talking about here, but -- you know, 14 and maybe as -- y'all as a group can get with TAC or some of 15 the associations and see if we can do a local course. 16 Buster's been trying to get that done for Commissioners' 17 training. So, I mean, y'all didn't ask for it in the budget. 18 Only J.R. did. 19 JUDGE BILLEITER: Yes, I did. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You did? 21 JUDGE BILLEITER: We sat through -- budgets came up 22 on the screen, and you asked if I was satisfied with it. I 23 said, "Yes, I am." Y'all had another meeting when I was not 24 here, because I have other things I have to do, when you cut 25 it. I was not here to offer any input. 9-7-11 12 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I don't -- if I'm not 3 mistaken, the other two J.P.'s didn't ask for but 2,000. Is 4 that correct? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is. To my knowledge, 6 yes, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Three and four. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it needs to be the same 9 for all of them. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't disagree. I just 11 don't know that -- if they didn't ask for it, why would you 12 put money in their budget? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, let's -- let's do 14 something. Let's see -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Good plan, Commissioner. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not that big an issue. 18 I just -- I saw it as something that we needed to equal out 19 to make it right across the board. Obviously, that's not 20 going to work, and -- but -- and it doesn't give me heartburn 21 that it's not. I've got a great memory. I'll remember this 22 next year, and we'll -- 23 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: That's right. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, your recollection does 25 leave a little to be desired on occasion, though. 9-7-11 13 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Yes, it does. I 2 think I've been around lawyers enough where that selective 3 hearing thing kind of kicks in. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: It works? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It works. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If we're going to move this 7 along, I mean, I'm kind of -- I kind of go with what Jonathan 8 said. I guess we need to equalize it. I don't -- I really 9 don't understand why we would give 500 more to those that 10 didn't ask for it. They didn't feel like they needed it, or 11 they would have asked for it. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, do you recall? Did the 13 others ask for it? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have any clear recollection 15 one way or the other. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's only two of them 17 here -- oh, Kathy. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: The only real differentiation that 19 we need to make is when we have a new J.P., they're required 20 to have a whole bunch of hours up front, and we need to 21 provide for that. Once they've done that initial -- gosh, 22 what is it, 80 hours? For the first load of hours, and then 23 thereafter, I believe it's 20 hours. But, you know, I can 24 understand where, particularly in the new J.P.'s case, that 25 there may be a desire to get more training under his belt -- 9-7-11 14 1 his or her belt in the early stages in order to try and be as 2 effective as possible in his job. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, if that's the way it 5 needs to be, let's do it. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: What's the consensus here, 7 gentlemen? Go with 2,500 across the board? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine with me. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fine with me. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 11 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: All right. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number 3, Alamo R.C.& D. 13 The reason that I brought that up is because that's the first 14 time I've heard those words in a long, long time, and I just 15 didn't feel like anything was moving. I think you have some 16 information? 17 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Yeah, let me comment on that. 18 And I appreciate, again, not striking that last -- in our 19 last meeting till I had a chance to do a little background 20 information on that. I did visit with George Holekamp, who's 21 the gentleman who's, of course, very knowledgeable of the 22 Alamo R.C.& D. This is a line item in our budget that's been 23 there for a long time. Hasn't been used in several years. 24 It was used several years ago through our -- of course, our 25 COG that we had set up; it helped us with grant requests and 9-7-11 15 1 stuff like that. That's kind of the -- the mechanism that 2 was used back in those times. But in visiting with George, 3 he just said basically, right now -- I asked him. I said, 4 "What would you recommend as far as, you know, us having this 5 on here in our budget any more?" He says it's really -- it's 6 kind of outdated. It's kind of served its purpose right now, 7 where we're at. So, my recommendation would be to strike 8 Alamo R.C.& D. for $1,000 off our budget. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Done. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: That was easier than the last one, 11 wasn't it? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was. 13 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Save 1,000. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number 4, economic 15 development. Want to leave the 25,000 in the budget, or 16 reduce it to 1,000, and put the remainder in Dietert Claim 17 for Meals for -- Meals on Wheels program? Personally, third 18 year in a row, I'd rather zero the thing out. But I 19 understand that there's some other thoughts, and that's fine. 20 I would vote against leaving the full 25,000 there; I can 21 tell you that. And I -- I'm saying this because I just 22 personally don't see what -- and I know -- I saw the new 23 gentleman walk in and sit down in here, and that's good. I'm 24 glad he's here. I just don't see what that group is doing. 25 I don't hear about them courting businesses for Kerr County. 9-7-11 16 1 I know that several years ago, we sat down and helped put 2 together a tax abatement program for them to be able to offer 3 without dragging them through here all the time, and it just 4 -- I haven't heard another peep out of them. I know the 5 Judge sits on the board and keeps it going that way. But I 6 understand that they made their rounds to the government 7 entities that -- that subsidize the program, and didn't feel 8 it quite important to come through here. And so, you know, 9 if they don't want to -- seems to me if they don't want to 10 come through here and play, that's fine with me. I'd just as 11 soon zero it out and go on. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, the -- of course, we 13 did get a report from Mr. Watson on the -- it's a new 14 organization; just really got started this year. It's a 15 newly formed organization. Of course, Commissioner Overby 16 has an extensive background in economic development, and I 17 think he would confirm that, number one, Joe Six-pack on the 18 street doesn't hear much about specific economic development 19 efforts, because he's not supposed to. A lot of those things 20 occur -- those discussions occur privately, because 21 prospective businesses don't want their business on the 22 street. And so, if you don't hear about it, it's probably 23 intentional, until after the fact. The second thing is that 24 those efforts take a considerable length of time, often 25 stretching into several years. So, sometimes when you have 9-7-11 17 1 the expectation of receiving instant gratification, it's just 2 not there in that particular game. 3 The -- I think the issue of economic development is 4 absolutely essential, particularly when you look at the state 5 of our distribution of the tax base. We have, frankly, a 6 very horrible distribution of the tax base. We have these 7 residential -- residence owners that talk about their taxes 8 are too high. Well, they're right. And the reason they're 9 too high is because we don't have the business/commercial/ 10 industrial balance to offset that. And -- and it's 11 absolutely essential we do that if we're going to get a more 12 equitable distribution of the tax base. Now, the K.E.D.C. 13 has proposed in their current budget, which was approved last 14 week, as a matter of fact, that the contributions of the 15 three different entities, other than -- I'm talking about 16 KPUB, the City, and the County -- be decreased this year from 17 25,000 down to 20,000. The primary reason for that is 18 savings from carry-over funds from the prior year's budget. 19 And I -- I appreciate them stepping forward and offering to 20 do that. By my observation, Mr. Watson and his gang down 21 there have been -- they've been exploring a lot of efforts, 22 and -- but, unfortunately, we just don't get instant 23 gratification from -- from those kind of things that go down. 24 I -- I think it's incumbent upon us to stay the 25 course in supporting this new organization, to try and 9-7-11 18 1 demonstrate that we're in the game with them and that -- and 2 that we're going to support them to give them traction. If, 3 for some reason, the effort doesn't work, yes, then we'll 4 look at something else. But I don't -- I don't think -- I 5 don't think we've given it an adequate chance to really make 6 a good judgment on whether or not it's working or not. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I have a -- a different 8 -- a different point of view than both of what I've heard. 9 I'm very -- I agree with you totally on the economic 10 development issue overall. I think it's important. I think 11 we need to continue it. My concern comes much more with our 12 neighbors down the street. They are funding 90 percent of 13 this new corporation, maybe. That's just a rough number, but 14 basically, they're funding it through E.I.C. primarily. 15 E.I.C. has just taken a course that I totally oppose from an 16 economic development standpoint. They're spending, like, 17 $6 million on river trails. That has nothing to do with 18 economic development. And another million on upgrading Main 19 Street, again, to make -- I think to do landscaping on Main 20 Street, which has nothing to do with economic development, in 21 my opinion. And they're going to extend a sewer project out 22 Harper Road, I believe. That may, but I'm curious as to how 23 much those -- the people that are being -- will be served by 24 that new sewer line are paying to get it out there. I 25 suspect none. 9-7-11 19 1 And, so, I have -- my problem is not with the new 2 corporation that we're funding here. The problem I have is 3 that where the rest of their funding's coming from, they're 4 not funding economic development. So, I don't understand 5 how -- you know, I'm looking at the big picture. And my vote 6 here is, I can't support the request of 20,000 -- or 25,000; 7 it's 20,000 now. And the reason is -- is to send a message 8 that, you know, if that's what they think economic 9 development is, well, then they can do it alone. And it's 10 not -- 'cause it's not going to help this community, not 11 going to help the county, not going to help our tax base. If 12 they want to partner with the county, I'll be glad to up it 13 again, if they want a true partner and want to focus on true 14 economic development. But I'd go down to 15,000, just as a 15 statement. Just, you know, that we object to the way -- the 16 direction economic development's going. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: There's a good deal of merit in what 18 you said insofar as what's involved being economic 19 development or not, how they characterize their efforts. 20 But -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the tough thing is, you 22 know, Ray's -- I agree with you; his organization is new, and 23 they're doing, I'm sure, the best that they can. But if the 24 funding's coming from the City, and the City's direction is 25 -- is contrary to our -- or my philosophy, anyway, on where 9-7-11 20 1 economic development's going, they're kind of caught in the 2 middle, and that's just an unfortunate situation, the way the 3 corporation was set up. 4 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Commissioner, I agree with 5 all of your project list that you identified. I feel the 6 same frustration as far as hearing from the community of what 7 folks are talking about as well. I think the -- the new 8 entity, of course, even though we -- it was kind of a -- kind 9 of a verbal agreement that I think the Judge has made mention 10 of, that to give it time to get on its feet and to have the 11 new structure actually work in its place, I think that, you 12 know, reducing the 20 percent off their request this year is 13 in line with what they're doing. But I think the reality of 14 it is that the future growth of this economic development in 15 our community is going to be out in the county. I really do 16 think that the growth that we're going to see in the next 17 several years is not going to be in the city; it's going to 18 be in the county, and I would -- I would hate to see us 19 reduce, and -- our commitment right now, even though it's a 20 verbal commitment. But I think that we need to -- to hold 21 the course. 22 I think the points that you have mentioned are very 23 important; that we convey to K.E.D.C. that we want to be a 24 partner with economic development projects, and -- and not 25 to -- you know, to have more of that insight with them. So, 9-7-11 21 1 I think your points are very much there, but I would like to 2 recommend that we keep in with the 20 percent reduction that 3 they're doing with KPUB, that they're doing with the City. 4 And your point's very important about the E.I.C. They're 5 dropping from 250 to 200, so I would -- I would support the 6 $20,000 level with K.E.D.C. And would I also have Ray -- I 7 think Ray's very open to coming and making quarterly reports, 8 or reports on a -- on the basis that you've been doing, and I 9 would definitely want to have that continue to keep on doing. 10 But I would like to support it at $20,000 for this next year. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I'll go -- I will agree 12 to 15, but I'm not going to agree to 20. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 15? 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And I just don't -- I 15 don't -- I'm with Jon on the deal. I mean, the direction 16 that they're taking has nothing to do with trying to -- to 17 really do economic development. That really makes a 18 difference in this community, in my opinion. And if it's 19 going to happen in the county, it's going to happen in the 20 county, outside the city, and that's going to be done with 21 private enterprise coming in and wanting to do business. I'm 22 not sure that the economic development folks are going to 23 really have a hand in bringing those people in or not. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it will help. I think 25 it's -- I mean, look at what Kendall County's done. 9-7-11 22 1 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Yeah. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it clearly can be a -- a 3 stimulus to bring in some new industries. Certainly, the 4 industries have to have a desire to go into the area. But I 5 think I have -- you know, as some of y'all have heard 6 occasionally, you know, I live in Comfort and come through 7 Kendall County, even though I do live in Kerr; let me make 8 that clear. But I keep up with what they do in Kendall 9 County quite a bit, and they've been very successful at 10 bringing in some businesses, and I think that could come 11 further westward as well. So, I think there's a -- 12 certainly, a huge value to a good economic development 13 corporation. I just want to make sure it's focused in the 14 right direction, and that our partners that are the primary 15 funders of it are also focused on the same direction, 'cause 16 it isn't going to go there without the City's direction as 17 well. 18 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Well, and again, a lot of 19 rumored development. Again, it's rumored till it actually 20 happens. That's -- we can always speculate as to what we 21 want, but everything you're hearing is -- is focused into the 22 county. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I tell you what I'd like to 25 see. 9-7-11 23 1 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I want to encourage working 2 with them. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'd like to hear one time of 4 one business coming in here that economic development had 5 something to do with it. Whenever that happens, I'd like for 6 them to tell us, "We courted these people. They're here 7 because we asked them, and we helped them get started." I'd 8 like to hear that for once. I haven't heard it yet. Have 9 you, Buster? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, I haven't. That's 11 what I'm talking about. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I've moved the furthest; 14 I moved from zero up to 15 here. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fifteen? Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's three of us at 15. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You want to come back to 5, 18 or do we just want to go ahead and launch into that one now? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's set that one aside, 20 for a couple of years. And the other one -- two -- there was 21 another one. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go down to the bottom. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, let's go down to the 24 bottom. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Volunteer fire departments. 9-7-11 24 1 We had attempted to take part of our overall fire budget and 2 allocate $100,000 to be distributed amongst volunteer fire 3 departments in addition to what they were currently 4 receiving, which is $15,000 per department, which is pretty 5 paltry when you look at the value those guys bring to the 6 table for what their responsibility is. But we weren't able 7 to allocate part of our overall fire budget, and so the 8 proposal has been advanced that we find an additional 9 $100,000 and distribute that among our volunteer fire 10 departments, which would increase those departments from 11 15,000 to 27,000, an increase of $12,000. And then the 12 collateral departments that are out on the edges, why, we 13 would increase them from a whopping 2,000 to 4,000. Both of 14 those are actually out-of-county, but they provide 15 significant benefit to in-county; Tierra Linda and Castle 16 Lake down in the southeast corner of the county. So -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, my comment is 18 probably -- may be unpopular, is that I fully support 19 increasing the funding. I'd rather cut it back to 50,000. 20 And I'm going -- the same mind-set, trying to get as much as 21 we can to go up to Item 5, and hopefully next year -- I think 22 it goes back to the same issue. Certainly, the volunteer 23 fire departments do a tremendous job. They certainly -- you 24 know, an increase of 12,000 is still small. But I also think 25 that we need to cut back everywhere we can to try to keep up 9-7-11 25 1 with cost of living for the employees, so I'd rather cut that 2 back to 50,000. 3 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: So, 15 to 21, and then 2 to 3 4 is what you're saying? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, cut it in half. 6 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: That would be a -- a 37 7 percent increase, roughly? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't calculate that. But, 9 I mean, it's an -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, thereabouts. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- increase of not -- you know, 12 it's half of what we had talked about last time. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: 40 percent. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's just not a fair world we 15 live in, is it? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it isn't. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think there's any question 18 but what we -- we'd all like to give them more, because their 19 value is so much more than -- than either one of those 20 proposals. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, you know, I will -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: We need to reach a consensus as to 23 where we're going. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I will go along with that, 25 but I do with -- with some thought of next year's budget, 9-7-11 26 1 doing it again. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe it's too much at one 4 time, but it's sure not for what they do. We can't pay them 5 enough for what they actually do, compared to what we pay 6 others for what they don't do. But I will go along with it, 7 and I will -- I'll take the heat from the fire departments, 8 'cause I have four in my precinct. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm good with it. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: You're good with it? Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I'd be good with that. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, that particular 13 savings, though, do we need to earmark that and move it up to 14 Number 5 now? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've earmarked every one we've 16 done today. So far, my list shows that we're at 91,000. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Das gut. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Number 10, equalizing the department 19 heads; Maintenance, Animal Control, Environmental Health. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see it. I think 21 they're different departments. I mean, I think -- not -- I'm 22 not saying we need to equalize it. They're different 23 functions, different responsibilities, different budgets, 24 different number of employees. And I think that it's a -- in 25 my mind, it's a cop-out by us just to make them all the same. 9-7-11 27 1 They have -- you know, we need to, you know, decide one by 2 one, and that's just how I look at it. I think just -- I 3 just don't think it's right just to say, yeah, y'all are 4 going to be -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How do you propose that you 6 make that decision, though? How do you prioritize them? You 7 had a little list of issues there, number of employees -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think number of employees, 9 budget. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Budget, liability. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Liability, and kind of 12 responsibility. And I think we have to look at it a little 13 bit. I know that with Animal Control, it's a very small 14 department, and they're down an employee right now. And I 15 think you kind of -- that has to come into the -- into the 16 mix as well, because with them down one, that puts a huge 17 workload on the remaining. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And so, I mean, it's not an 20 equal change -- or equal, you know, adjustment. So, I think 21 that you have to look at that at the same time. Either bring 22 in a part-time person, you know, but that's just kind of -- 23 I'm not sure I have the -- the final idea, or an idea even at 24 all as to how you set them, but I just don't know that 25 equalizing them is the right answer. 9-7-11 28 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I agree. I just -- I 2 don't have the answer to how to do it either, but I have the 3 guts to do it. If somebody will show me the proper way and 4 proper criteria to use, I'll be more than happy to make that 5 call. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I'm not sure how much 7 increase anybody's going to get this year, and this would be 8 viewed as a -- this would be an increase. I mean, whether 9 you justify it or you don't, it's still an increase. And so 10 you do it in that group, which I think it should be, but I'm 11 not sure this is the time to do it. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. That may be -- 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's where I am. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That may be true. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And I don't know what Number 16 5 is going to -- what we're going to do with Number 5, and 17 that's probably the most controversial in the community, but 18 that also ties into this -- this one as well, because what 19 about all the other elected officials and -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- and other departments that 22 are not going to see this? Whether -- I mean, I'm not saying 23 that it's not justified. I've been a proponent of, of 24 course, trying to equalize and get what I think is a -- a 25 department that has more liability and puts in, you know, 9-7-11 29 1 lots of hours overtime that they don't get paid for. But, 2 you know -- I don't know. It's just -- it's a tough time to 3 make a decision on anybody getting much of an increase. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm going to suggest 5 that we just do what was in the budget. I can't remember -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Stick with what we got? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Stick with what we got. And 8 this would be one of those things, in my mind, that I'm going 9 to earmark for the month of May, is when I'm going to try to 10 convince these other three guys to get started looking at 11 numbers next year. And that'll be one of those issues that 12 we can deal with beginning in May or June. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree, 'cause, you know, 14 we're still in that -- we're in the economy that, you know, 15 people are angry. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Really? 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And I don't blame them. I'm 18 one of the angry people, too, about the cost of things. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me too. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If you look at government, 21 it's -- 22 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I agree with you, 23 Commissioner. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree with May, because 9-7-11 30 1 that's when we need to get started next year, instead of 2 waiting as late as we did this year. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go up to Item 9 and 5 talk about holidays. We got several different proposals. 6 Let me, as an aside here, mention I have a participation form 7 from a lady that wants to talk about burn ban and county 8 safety. Unfortunately, in this particular agenda, we don't 9 have any agenda item that relates to that. And inasmuch as 10 it is a special meeting, we don't have a public comment time 11 set forth, or it would have, of course, been appropriate 12 during that period of time. So, I'm not sure I'm going to be 13 able to honor that request. Those are, obviously, very good 14 subjects, particularly in view of -- of currently what's 15 going on around the state. 16 AUDIENCE: If I could say something, it really 17 pertains to your volunteer fire departments, and then the 18 perspective that I was unaware that there is a legal burn 19 ability right now. People can burn right now, legally, and 20 that's what I wanted to bring to people's attention. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's some exceptions in the 22 statute, of course, that we're bound by. One are prescribed 23 burns under certain criteria, Department of Agriculture -- 24 AUDIENCE: It's very dangerous. This guy could 25 have burned up Northwest Hills on Friday. 9-7-11 31 1 JUDGE TINLEY: And the other is dealing with 2 individual trash containers with covers on them and things of 3 that nature, barbecue pits, closed -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ceremonial. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Ceremonial, okay. I'm not sure -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What that is? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: -- the degree to which that -- 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Must be for camps. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: But we are bound by the exceptions 10 in the state statute. As much as we would like to change 11 state statute on occasion, we are bound by that infinite 12 wisdom, as it's often called, that the Legislature gives us. 13 And, certainly, our wisdom can't be any greater than that, 14 because otherwise we wouldn't have elected those fellas, who 15 are much, much smarter than we are, of course. Right? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, the -- the exceptions 18 we've got to live with, we don't have any control over. And 19 those are just a couple of them. We can get you the statute 20 so that you can look at those, and be happy to -- 21 AUDIENCE: I was all over town yesterday; I found 22 no one that didn't have a startled look on their face when I 23 said my neighbor was allowed to burn, and they called it 24 legal, when you can see flames from McCullough Ranch Road. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I -- 9-7-11 32 1 AUDIENCE: The Sheriff's Department would not cite 2 him. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If he didn't break the law, 4 there's nothing we can do. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There may be civil action by 7 people, but we can only -- we can't enter into that. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I suspect there'd have been a lot of 9 civil action if there'd been a conflagration out there. 10 Let's get back to our holiday schedule. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Monday we'll have another 12 meeting, and we'll welcome public comments. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's true. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the only comment I can 15 make is, it looks like I'm slowly losing my Texas 16 Independence Day, because of some radical action down the 17 hallway of doing business with the taxpaying public or 18 something. And I'm giving it up. I'm not going to like 19 this; I'll be angry for years. There will be psychiatric 20 bills for my whole family. (Laughter.) And so we got to 21 build some of that in the budget, too. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The real question is Columbus 23 Day or the Monday after Easter, correct? Those are the two 24 things I've heard floating -- what I heard, you know, was a 25 preference for the Monday after Easter from the people that 9-7-11 33 1 contacted me. I have no real preference one way or the 2 other. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Lantz? As the liaison with the 4 employees, what's your feedback? Just bear in mind, whatever 5 announcement you make, the other bunch is going to be mad at 6 you, but that's okay. (Laughter.) Better they be mad at you 7 than us. 8 MS. LANTZ: A lot of the employees have kids, so I 9 feel like possibly a longer Christmastime. Easter, it's 10 particularly up to -- you know, families -- a lot of times 11 families go out of town, so they want that extra day off. I 12 don't know if a lot of employees have taken the Monday after 13 Easter off or not. But, you know, I think we're grateful for 14 whatever we do get. Put it that way. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about -- 16 JUDGE TINLEY: You belong up here. (Laughter.) 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is a -- what about a floating 18 day? Do people like a floating holiday -- 19 MS. BOLIN: Mine did. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- for this year? We can do it 21 one year, and kind of -- 22 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Go from there. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How does that fare, though, 24 with the -- the department heads and elected officials? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two of them nodded yes -- 9-7-11 34 1 three, four. And I see -- 2 MS. LANTZ: A lot of the department heads keep up 3 with their employees so we know that it's a floating day and 4 not a vacation today. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see some no's. Juvenile -- I 6 see Juvenile Probation saying no, but y'all don't get a 7 holiday anyway, do you? 8 MR. STANTON: It's just harder to keep track of 9 holidays that we have to pay salaries and different things. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: He has so many part-time people that 11 he has to juggle around, I don't see how he does it, but I'm 12 not asking. He's doing it, and I'm leaving him alone. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks like the Sheriff -- I 14 mean, doesn't make any difference to him, really, either. 15 All right, I'd go for floating. I saw a lot of nods for a 16 floating holiday this year. 17 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I'd be okay with that. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Fine with me. Let them make 19 the decision. 20 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: One day? 21 MS. LANTZ: Would that -- 22 MS. HARGIS: So, what are we going to do? Floating 23 or Monday? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Floating. One floating 25 holiday. 9-7-11 35 1 JUDGE TINLEY: In lieu of either Columbus Day or 2 the Monday after Easter, each employee has a floating day, 3 and they'll work that out in their -- 4 MS. HARGIS: No Independence Day? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 6 MS. HARGIS: No Texas Independence Day? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. It's a Texas Independence 8 floating day. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: We can call it that. Maybe that 10 will make Buster happy. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I'm a little bit 12 better. This is a little bit better. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Put that on a plaque. 14 MS. HARGIS: I don't have the list, so it's a 15 little hard -- 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Scherwitz? 17 MS. SCHERWITZ: So, are we choosing the original 18 proposed list, taking away Texas Independence Day, adding a 19 floating day? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They have the list. It was 23 presented at the last meeting. 24 MS. HARGIS: You've got them. I didn't get a copy. 25 MR. BOLLIER: Are we able to use this personal 9-7-11 36 1 holiday or floating holiday, however you want to call it -- 2 are we able to use that, like, during the Christmas holidays, 3 after Easter? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Each department controls that. 5 MR. BOLLIER: Okay. 6 MS. UECKER: Is that what we had last year? 7 MS. BOLIN: We had one last year. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Number 8, the differential 9 between the Sheriff and chief deputy. I'm not sure whether 10 our agenda item is going to let us address that policy issue. 11 That -- that will have to be done separately. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: My best information is that that 14 differential exists right now, so we can address that 15 separately. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It doesn't seem like Rusty's 17 real angry today, so we -- I have -- I had a little of that 18 yesterday. I'm going to talk about that in a little while, 19 though. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, he's being quiet, so -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: -- let's don't upset anything. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: He's saving up. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Go right on by that one. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, could we go to Number 7 9-7-11 37 1 next? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, that's where we're going. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It kind of goes into another 4 item that Buster didn't have on his list that I have on my 5 list, is a brokerage fee on our insurance policy. Just to 6 update the Court a little bit, I had a conversation with 7 Kelly -- whatever her last name is -- at TAC yesterday. I 8 called her and I asked her, you know, about, you know, if we 9 had to have a broker, and the answer was no. And she said 10 that a lot of counties do. About 60 percent of them use 11 brokers. 60 -- 40 percent do not. And she says in their 12 opinion, it's up to the County whether they feel there's a 13 value to it. She did make a comment that we're the only 14 county that she's aware of that has a broker and a consultant 15 both, for what that was worth. But she said that if we don't 16 have a broker, the amount that's built into the premium, they 17 would reduce the premium by that amount, which is, I believe, 18 $62,000. So, in my opinion, we reduce our insurance by 19 62,000, unless someone can show me where we have a contract 20 with the broker. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: The -- 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Good point. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I sent some information that 24 Ms. Lantz provided, and also some that -- that we got from -- 25 I'm sure that's the information that you're working from to 9-7-11 38 1 some degree. The statement that we're the only county that 2 has a consultant and a broker is not totally accurate. We're 3 -- we do have a consultant. We have one who has asserted 4 he's a broker. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: And my concern -- and I raised the 7 issue with Mr. Malek, whether or not he was the producing 8 cause of any relationship with TAC under the health benefits 9 program or not. He said he felt like he was. The 10 information that was provided from TAC indicated that their 11 first interest was expressed to them by our consultant, 12 Mr. Gary Looney. He's the one that initiated that 13 discussion. Now, I have no doubt but what Mr. Malek was 14 involved in the matter of obtaining information to provide to 15 TAC so that they could work on preparing the proposal for us, 16 but in my way of thinking, inasmuch as Mr. Malek is a 17 representative of our current broker under our plan with 18 Humana, that he had that obligation to furnish that 19 information to us, or anyone else that we directed him to 20 furnish it to, for whatever purpose we wanted it furnished. 21 And so I -- the fact that he provided the information, I 22 don't see that as significant in establishing a brokerage 23 relationship with TAC. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: With another company. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: And -- 9-7-11 39 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's amazing. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: And -- and, further, it occurred to 3 me that his -- his approach would be, as our current broker 4 in our arrangement with Humana, that he would be doing what 5 he could to obtain a renewal of that contract, because that 6 was the relationship that he was in. So, you know, for all 7 of those reasons, I don't see that he was the procuring 8 cause; that he was obligated to provide the information, and 9 that I don't -- I don't see that he's -- he's justified any 10 commission through any arrangement that we may subsequently, 11 if we strike one, with TAC. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other interesting comment 13 that I had in my conversation with Kelly yesterday was that 14 she was kind of at a quandary as to where we were, because no 15 one has contacted them in some time, which would be 16 Mr. Looney or Mr. Malek. I know they have been in contact, 17 from what she said, with our H.R. department, but I think we 18 need to make sure -- I mean, I'm ready to vote. And I know 19 we can't do it today, I don't think, because of the way the 20 agenda -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yes, we can. I'm fixing 22 to make a motion. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then I'll wait for that. But 24 on the H.R.A. card, which was the item that started this 25 conversation, the first they heard of this was a while back, 9-7-11 40 1 and she said it was -- she believed it was Mr. Malek that 2 brought up the H.R. card -- H.R.A. card; that they haven't 3 put that into any kind of a -- that's not definite right now 4 in the plan. They could do it, but they're not -- you know, 5 it's just not set up into the plan right now, what they've 6 quoted so far. Also, the H.R.A. card -- I've talked to some 7 employees about what's more important, a pay raise or the 8 H.R.A. card, and what I've heard back is pay raise. So, 9 while I like the H.R.A. and it helps, the pay raise helps all 10 employees, where the H.R.A. helps some employees. It's 11 certainly nice, but I would be much more in favor of deleting 12 the H.R.A. and deferring it till next year, hoping we can 13 afford it, and putting that savings, which I think is about 14 80,000, is my recollection from last time, back into the 15 overall budget. So, I look at $140,000 savings, plus or 16 minus, between getting rid of that $62,000 commission and 17 $80,000 H.R.A. card. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, was that at the 500 or 19 the 300 level? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was at 500, I believe was 21 the number I'm working from. And if there is a smaller 22 amount of H.R.A., there will obviously be less of a -- 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're saying zero H.R.A., 24 and -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Zero the broker fee. 9-7-11 41 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- zero broker fee? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's about 140,000 total. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: 260 employees at 500 would be 4 130,000. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, there was -- there was a 6 cost -- you know, but there's also an administrative cost 7 that goes with that, too. Either -- whatever the number is, 8 I'm in favor of doing it that way. If it's -- if it's 9 more -- 10 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Look at it next year? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Look at it next year. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, the actual cost of the 13 H.R.A. wouldn't have been really at 500 for each one, because 14 not everybody's going to use it. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have to fund it, though. We 16 have to fund it, but you do a percentage of the funding, I 17 believe. I don't believe it's 100, but I'm not -- I don't 18 know about that part of it. But I just think -- I'm just 19 trying to cut everything we can. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: You know, on the -- let me switch to 21 the issue of finalizing any arrangements with TAC. I would 22 -- initially, my thinking was we were trying to nail down a 23 number for budgeting purposes. There may well be some 24 additional savings. If it's our desire to pursue our 25 negotiation with TAC, there may be some additional savings 9-7-11 42 1 that we can -- we can generate if we give Mr. Looney the 2 green light to work on that. So, I'm not sure -- I think we 3 ought to defer making a firm decision on that, and give him 4 an opportunity to see if he can squeeze some more blood out 5 of the turnip, as it were, 'cause I think he -- I think he 6 can make it happen. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't totally disagree with 8 that, but I think that I'd rather go ahead and -- I mean, I 9 don't think it -- if TAC was to look at our minutes, they'd 10 see that we're pretty much going to go with them, so why not 11 say we're going with TAC, subject to -- I mean, not even 12 subject; we're going to commit to go to TAC, but there may be 13 some, you know, minor changes subject to Mr. Looney's 14 discussions with them. I mean -- 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, do you really want to 16 go with them before you have a nailed down number? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think so. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we have a quote. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, I know we have a quote, 20 but it's kind of like, "Well, okay, you're going to give me 21 the work, so now you want me to negotiate further on going 22 down on your premiums?" 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Doesn't create much incentive, does 24 it, Commissioner? 25 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: No. 9-7-11 43 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's the only thing. I 2 mean, I realize that -- I fully support going with TAC. 3 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Yeah. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, maybe -- 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- maybe we ought not jump 7 right in the middle of that right now. Except for the issue 8 of our -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Figuring cost. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- non-contracted broker. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: You know, I'd point out that Humana 12 is -- they have -- they have come back with a substantially 13 lower number, and so -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: -- I think we ought to let our 16 consultant do what we hired him to do, and -- and bring to us 17 the best he's able to do in every instance, and then give us 18 the opportunity to pick and choose. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question is, why hasn't Mr. 20 Looney contacted TAC in two weeks? Which he hasn't. I'm 21 ready to go with TAC. I think we have a good quote from 22 them. I think they've been very up front with us. Our 23 consultant has not talked to them for whatever reason. I'm 24 ready to make a decision. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I'd prefer not to, not -- not just 9-7-11 44 1 yet. We can use the numbers -- 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would prefer -- I would 3 prefer to have it on our next agenda. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mind putting it on 5 Monday's agenda, but I want to make a decision. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And get hold of Mr. Looney 7 and encourage him to do -- do his work, and report back to us 8 on Monday. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The direction is he doesn't 10 need to talk to Humana any more. (Laughter.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Jon, you can give him that 12 direction, but I'm not going to. 13 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: We need to hear his report on 14 Monday. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 16 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I'm fine with that. I 17 support that. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is Wednesday, right? We 19 have to put it on the agenda for Monday. 20 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did we -- did we settle on 22 the H.R.A. issue? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure. That's a good point, 24 Commissioner. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I haven't polled anybody. 9-7-11 45 1 If the employees would rather go that route, that's fine with 2 me. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm sure it depends on which 4 employees, but -- you know, and I don't have a -- it 5 doesn't -- I don't really necessarily think we need to take a 6 vote, but it makes sense to me that a pay increase affects 7 everybody, whereas H.R.A. affects those that are using health 8 insurance, which is probably the majority of them, but a pay 9 increase may help more. So, that's just the way I look at 10 it. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you can crunch numbers and 12 come out both ways. You know, if I figure a $500 allocation 13 to someone at the lower end of the spectrum, it's a higher 14 percentage. The upper end, why, it's a lesser percentage. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, is there anything -- 16 here's my question. Is there anything plugged into this 17 budget for H.R.A. at the moment? 18 MS. HARGIS: No. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: No. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So if we were going to do 21 that, we would have to increase the budget to add that in. 22 MS. HARGIS: Well, we have -- we have room in the 23 current budget to either lower that premium -- I mean, to do 24 it, because the premium is less than what we have budgeted. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understand. 9-7-11 46 1 MS. HARGIS: So we have that room. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But that would take that 3 money that the premium was lowered by to fund the H.R.A. 4 MS. HARGIS: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we're not sure that TAC 7 can work that H.R.A. -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They can do it. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, they can. And Ms. Lantz 10 received some information just very recently -- I don't know 11 whether it was yesterday or this morning -- that said they 12 could do that, according to the information she got, at no 13 additional cost. And as those funds were expended under that 14 program, they would bill us. Of course, we're going to have 15 to have room in the budget to fund it, obviously, but it 16 would -- they would bill us for those costs as they're used. 17 Or the carrier would, actually, not TAC. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's just -- that's a way 19 to take a savings and allocate it in some other -- whatever 20 direction we decide. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Let's leave that one open 22 for now as we go up and talk about it. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask one more 24 question -- 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. 9-7-11 47 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- about the H.R.A. Now, 2 are we limiting it to certain things, like the co-pay, or not 3 co-pay, or what? 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It would be toward 5 deductible. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Deductible. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Deductible only. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Deductible only. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That would be my preference. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need to make that 11 official. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Because we do have co-pays, I 13 believe, in the -- in the TAC plan that we did not have with 14 the Humana plan. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, that would be correct. We 16 definitely can't use it for drugs, for prescriptions. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And we can make that 18 an official policy kind of thing, just for fun? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we can design the -- the 20 H.R.A. utilization for whatever we designate. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They just need to remember, 22 whatever we come up with has to be done before the new policy 23 would take -- take effect. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all want to deal with 25 Mr. Malek? 9-7-11 48 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we have a broker; 2 therefore, we don't have a broker fee. Therefore, our 3 premium got reduced $62,000. 4 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: 62. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I thought we disposed of that pretty 6 quickly. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I agree. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: No broker, no commission. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: He's not doing any 11 negotiating for us with them. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go -- let's go to 6, 13 then, retirement contribution, whether or not we reduce the 14 current level of 2.3. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I say yes. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes to the 2.2? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much is the savings? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: About 60,000, isn't it? 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But it still maintains our 22 present level of funding -- percentage funding. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe I don't understand what you're 24 saying. 25 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Let me ask, what do you mean 9-7-11 49 1 by that? 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Jeannie, what did you show me 3 last meeting about the 84 percent? 4 MS. HARGIS: If you went down to 2.2, it would -- 5 that would be the savings. But we're at 2.3 right now. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. 7 MS. HARGIS: So the savings would be anywhere -- 8 and that's an estimate, because we don't know what the 9 salaries are going to be. It can be anywhere from 65 to 85. 10 I think that's kind of what I showed you, that -- so, you 11 know, you just saved the brokerage fee; that pretty much 12 offsets the retirement fee. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you add them together, and 14 you have double. 15 MS. HARGIS: Well, you haven't really gone down on 16 the insurance yet, so that's one thing we have to hold. So, 17 the insurance, I think, is a different issue, because we have 18 to have a bigger number to go in, where then we can have 19 savings at the end if we don't need them. But the 20 retirement -- retirement situation, I mean, you can go down; 21 there's no doubt you can go down, but you're going to have 22 kind of a strange wave on these people's retirement 23 situation. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hopefully we can go back up. 25 We went up a couple years ago. 9-7-11 50 1 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: How long have we been at 2.3? 2 MS. HARGIS: Only two years. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two years. We were at -- 4 MS. HARGIS: We were at 1.9, then we went to 2, 5 then we went to 2.3. 6 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Okay. 7 MS. HARGIS: So, about two years. 8 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: And it has fluctuated back 9 and forth? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: No. 11 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Just kind of been going 12 steady? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We had the 1.9 forever; then we 14 tried to get it up, and we did, and now I think we need to go 15 down a little bit. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have no problem with going 17 to -- 18 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: 2.2. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- 2.2. And there's a 20 $60,000 savings there. We're going to -- where's that going? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I got my list here. It's all 22 going to 5, in my mind. Or helping get 5 accomplished at 23 some level. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Based upon the leverage aspect of 25 how the retirement plan works, I think you're taking 9-7-11 51 1 effectively more than that away from the employees. And I 2 suspect if you're looking at the numbers crunched, given the 3 option of the employees to have it incurred in something 4 specific for this coming year, as opposed to leaving the 5 retirement alone, I'd make book -- give you pretty strong 6 odds that the employees would say, "Keep that part out of my 7 increase for this next year; leave it in the retirement where 8 it's going to do me the most good." 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly the way I 10 would -- for my personal self. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think a lot of people that 12 are struggling right now, which are a lot of our employees, 13 in my mind, they would rather have a little bit more money 14 now. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we leave that option up 16 to them? Let them make that choice? 17 MS. HARGIS: No. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The answer -- 19 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I would support leaving it at 20 the 2.3. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's in the best interests 22 of the employees. And whatever -- whatever amount of money 23 that is, take that out of the mix, if that's the way -- 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let's see what -- let's see 25 where we are before we do that, and then if we need to look 9-7-11 52 1 for other money, we can always go back to it. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Want to do -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- one other one before we go 5 to the COLA? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: What is it? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Airport. I still think -- last 8 time I brought up that I think there's some savings that we 9 can do in the airport budget. I still think there's savings 10 there. I know we can cut 50,000 there and be pretty safe. 11 There's probably -- I suspect there should be more. That's a 12 big question mark because of the situation with the City 13 right now. But half is half, and they'll be responsible for 14 half. And I think that we can reduce that 50,000. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me how you do that. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because there's some -- mostly 17 there's, I think, some items that we furnished on insurance 18 and some other costs that are coming in lower than we 19 anticipated when they did the original budget in April, or 20 projections based on April numbers coming in lower. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, there's going to be a 22 $50,000 savings? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From last year, though. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The projection -- the numbers 9-7-11 53 1 that we used going into -- we provided them going forward 2 were probably higher than they needed to be; therefore, they 3 budgeted based on those numbers. I think we can come down 4 some. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, that almost makes 6 sense. Now, what -- what would the brethren down the road 7 say? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they think there's more 9 than this. 10 MS. HARGIS: Yeah, they -- 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: More than this to cut? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Yeah. They're okay with 13 this, trust me. They want -- they'd probably want to double 14 the cut. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. Well, wait a minute. 16 Well, let's don't jump into this thing too quick, then. 17 That's getting along. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not getting along yet. 19 But I think that both parties agree, I would say -- 20 comfortably say -- 21 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: We can say 50? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 50,000 we should be able to 23 save, and both parties agree to that. It could be more. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. There's 50 more. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where's our new airport guy 9-7-11 54 1 that was just in here? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Ed Livermore? 3 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: He left before the meeting. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other item -- and I 5 don't think I've told Jeannie this. I don't think I'm 6 allowed to touch this one, but what's the difference right 7 now between the insurance budget and the insurance quote that 8 we do have from TAC? 9 MS. HARGIS: I think it's about 150,000 to 175,000. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. But you're not 11 comfortable with us counting on that? 12 MS. HARGIS: No. Because, I mean, we -- Gary's 13 numbers are a little different from what I've calculated, 14 and -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 16 MS. HARGIS: And so -- but they're in that 17 ballpark. In the ballpark, because as you recall, he said 18 there was 150 left. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 20 MS. HARGIS: To use for the H.R.A. card. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 22 MS. HARGIS: So, I think, comfortably -- and we 23 haven't finished negotiating with them. I think there could 24 be a little bit more. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Now we go to Buster's 9-7-11 55 1 Number 5. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that the end of your list? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the end of my list. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do you have some more little 5 zingers in there that you want to -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: So, we get to the bottom line. 10 Should we put up the fence now? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For the beer bottles? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They shouldn't be drinking 14 in here. 15 (Low-voice discussion off the record.) 16 MS. HARGIS: 374. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 374 we cut this morning? 18 MS. HARGIS: 91,000, 133 for H.R.A. cards, and 50 19 for the airport, and then you can take 150 that we know we 20 probably have left in the insurance. That gives us 374. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 374,000. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Then, Jonathan, if you do -- 23 on the -- on the new interlocal between the City and the 24 County, you're increasing revenues of about 30 on the inmate 25 housing, off that, with the difference. Once that's done, 9-7-11 56 1 that would be an increase from current year to next, and 2 that's going to -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd probably leave that one 4 alone till we have signed up deals, because I know that I saw 5 an e-mail requesting a lot of information on magistration 6 yesterday. 7 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: The 60,000 on the retirement 8 contribution dropping from 2.3 to 2.2 is not in the 374, 9 correct? 10 MS. HARGIS: No. 11 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: All right, thank you. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Number 5, COLA. Gentlemen, I 13 put 6 and a half in. I make no apology for it. I think it's 14 totally justifiable. I can understand that if you were to 15 ring up everybody in the phone book and ask them, "Do you 16 support Kerr County government reaching into your pocket for 17 more money in order that the Kerr County employees get a COLA 18 of 6 and a half percent?" I'll bet you there would be 100 19 percent of them saying no. The issue is not whether or not 20 -- or in my mind, the issue is not whether or not the public 21 supports it. Number one, we've got information that they 22 don't have. "No" is not a plan. Never has been. This 23 current year, we effectively, on average, took 9 percent of 24 the pay away from these employees from the prior year, based 25 upon our health benefits plan alone. When we increased the 9-7-11 57 1 deductible, we took an additional $2,400 potentially out of 2 their pocket. A $24,000-a-year employee, that's 10 percent. 3 Higher, it's less. Take the middle ground; it's about 9 4 percent. 5 In addition, since the last COLA, the -- this is 6 just through July -- the C.P.I. index has increased 8.73, as 7 I recall, and I'm asking for 6 and a half percent. If -- if 8 you feel like these employees don't deserve that, quite 9 simple; just tell them they don't deserve it. They've -- 10 they were asked to do some cost cutting this past year. They 11 did it. They've delivered. And I think to say thank you for 12 what you've done, and to demonstrate our gratitude for that, 13 we're going to continue to not put you where you need to be 14 based upon your skill levels, your contribution, your 15 knowledge, your ability to serve the public, that certainly 16 the public demands -- if they don't get what they want, they 17 scream and holler. But when you try and take a nickel out of 18 their pocket, their plan is, "No." 19 Now, I'll tell you, personally, I've had one -- one 20 phone message from a constituent with regard to this issue, 21 and the message was that we should not give any increase to 22 our employees because this individual was not getting any 23 increase. Somewhere out in the private sector, I presume. 24 And if this individual couldn't have an increase, no one else 25 should, because that would be showing favoritism. I -- I was 9-7-11 58 1 astounded by the logic. Makes absolutely no sense to me. I 2 wonder why more folks, other than this one phone message, 3 haven't contacted me saying, "What are you doing? Why are 4 you proposing it?" Remember, it's my proposal, gentlemen. 5 It's in my budget. I'm the one that took the heat. I -- I 6 stepped right up, and I have no problems defending it, none 7 whatsoever. I know it's real easy to be concerned about 8 other pressures, but I think the issue is what's right for 9 the organization. 10 A number of years ago, before we got some of these 11 employees up where they needed to be, we experienced a lot of 12 turnover, and we paid for it. We paid dearly for it. Most 13 of it was in law enforcement. There were some other areas 14 where it occurred. But that turnover costs you a lot of 15 money in terms of retraining, setting up administratively a 16 new employee. That cost alone, according to the last study I 17 saw, just setting them up on paper, $2,500. And when you 18 look at the amount of individual increases that occurred, in 19 most cases, it amounts to maybe, at most, a third to a half 20 of that figure. So, lest you think that that's a real 21 magnanimous percentage number that I'm throwing out there, do 22 the math and you'll find out that it doesn't really amount to 23 much. But it is a demonstration of your commitment to the 24 team, and their worth on the team, and I'd urge to you leave 25 it as it is. I think they're deserving of much more than 9-7-11 59 1 that, but I tried to be conservative, very frankly. Okay, 2 it's yours. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I want to agree with 4 you; I think they deserve much more than that. It just boils 5 down to how much money do we have to give them? That's the 6 -- that's the deal. I just -- quick question. So, we cut 7 $374,000 this morning. How much is the 6.5 salary increase? 8 MS. HARGIS: 579. So, basically, if you give them 9 to them, now you're spending 204,000 to give it to them. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Let me ask this, 11 then. There are -- there are some things that I think that 12 need to be dealt with, and it could be -- we could let it -- 13 we can let it go now and we can add to it my May list, but 14 actually, I think it needs to be dealt with now, and that is 15 the issue of -- we did away with 14's and going to 15's; is 16 that correct? 17 MS. HARGIS: That's correct. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that person that is at 19 the 14 and goes up to 15 will get an increase in pay. Small 20 as it is, but it's -- 21 MS. PIEPER: No. 22 MS. HARGIS: No, there's only four of them. If 23 they were -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They don't get a salary 25 increase? 9-7-11 60 1 MS. HARGIS: No. The only ones that did were the 2 ones that went from 14-1's and 14-2's. The rest of them -- 3 and we only had four people in that category. The rest of 4 them didn't; they just moved. They just -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They didn't get a salary 6 increase? 7 MS. HARGIS: No, there was no increase; they just 8 moved. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine. 10 MS. HARGIS: So, there were four people, which 11 probably amounts to about, I think, maybe $1,500, if it's 12 that much. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. There -- there are some 14 folks, though, that get salaries from more than one budget. 15 It could be county budget, stipend from the State, et cetera. 16 Seems like to me there was maybe three different places at 17 times. Those salaries would go up 6.5 percent. 18 MS. HARGIS: Only the salary portion. If they get 19 a supplement from the State, it remains the same. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That doesn't add on? 21 MS. HARGIS: It does not increase, no. Because 22 that's all we get, so that's all they get. It's like Judge 23 Brown is at the top of his, and he -- he will get no -- there 24 is no raise, because he's at the top of what he can get. So, 25 if they get a supplement -- like, he gets a supplement. Then 9-7-11 61 1 -- and that whatever that is -- sorry to pick him out, but 2 that's what his supplement is. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 4 MS. HARGIS: Now, in his actual salary, just like 5 all the rest of us, then he would get an increase, but only 6 on the actual salary. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So, if we wanted to 8 apply the cut that we made this morning to this 6.5, we're 9 still $204,000 short? 10 MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And have you run the numbers 12 just for fun at the 4 percent? 13 MS. HARGIS: No. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you refusing to? 15 MS. HARGIS: No. You know, it's -- 16 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: What is that 500 number? 17 What's the 6 and a half? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 570. 19 MS. HARGIS: It's 144,000 less. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just trying -- trying to 21 see a way that you can do this without the tax increase. 22 MS. HARGIS: There's no "no tax increase." 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excuse me? There's no way 24 to do it? 25 MS. HARGIS: No, sir. 9-7-11 62 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm out. 2 MS. HARGIS: It's not the raise. Even if you gave 3 no raises, we don't have enough money to pay the fire and the 4 EMS cost that we received. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 6 MS. HARGIS: It doesn't -- that's -- that's a 7 substantial amount of money. $750,000 in one year to us is a 8 substantial amount of money to come out of our budget, 9 regardless of what we do. And our -- our debt service went 10 up this year a little bit, because on some of our issues, 11 we're paying the final payment. The final payments are 12 higher, because that's the end of your principal. So, we're 13 at a million, 492 this year. We go down a little bit next 14 year to a million, three-something. So, we got about a 15 $75,000 bump in our debt service fund which we haven't had in 16 the last couple of years. We've been fairly level at 1.3. 17 We're up at 1.4. We do -- we go down two years, and then we 18 go back up again for the final payment on that 2010 issue. 19 It's kind of what we refer to as loaded on the back. We 20 leveled that debt service so that, you know, it would be 21 fairly level, but it's not always level. 22 So, with that increase, and the fact that when we 23 got our preliminary roll, it was higher -- we lost 109,000 24 from our preliminary roll to our certified roll. That's -- 25 you know, if we'd have had the original roll, that would have 9-7-11 63 1 kept us up a little bit more, but then we lost real dollars, 2 109,000. So, the fire cost, even at -- what we're -- we're 3 going to do is really barely covering the fire cost. And 4 we're -- we're absorbing the EMS already in the general fund. 5 And we've given -- you know, and even reducing the volunteer 6 fire departments, it's just a lot of money when we lose a 7 million a year due to over-65, and then we have to pump in an 8 additional 750. We don't have it. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I'm going to ask the 10 question, then. How much increase would it take to fund the 11 budget without any increases in salaries? 12 MS. HARGIS: I haven't -- I honestly have not put a 13 figure to that. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: We're at about a break point, 15 anyway. Let's give the court reporter a little break here. 16 Why don't we take about a 15-minute recess, and maybe we can 17 get some numbers together. 18 (Recess taken from 11:30 a.m. to 11:55 a.m.) 19 - - - - - - - - - - 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if 21 we might. Now, what was the question that we had 22 outstanding? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question was, as I -- it 24 was Commissioner Oehler's question. I'll rephrase it. We 25 took out about $375,000, and that equates, in broad terms, to 9-7-11 64 1 a 4 percent salary increase. However -- and that should, you 2 know, eliminate the need for a tax increase, but it didn't 3 work out that way. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, in terms of the tax rate, it 5 equates to about one and a quarter cents on the tax rate. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's kind of -- we're trying 7 to figure out where -- how all that balance is derived. 8 MS. MABRY: She's running some numbers for you 9 right now; she should be just a couple more minutes. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. I just don't 11 understand, I guess, that you -- you have the -- you have 12 your base budget, and it's -- it's a number, and then you go 13 and reduce that amount out of that number, and all of a 14 sudden your budget can't be funded at your tax rate any more 15 without increasing your tax rate. Seems to me like when you 16 cut out things, that that money goes into a pot on the side, 17 and then you can reallocate that however you wanted to do 18 that without looking at a tax increase. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Commissioner, I -- I think 20 what I said was probably what your -- your bottom line 21 inquiry is. The 370, whatever it is, what does that 22 translate to in terms of the tax rate? And it effectively 23 translates to about roughly one and one-fourth cent in the 24 tax rate. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But why would you need one 9-7-11 65 1 and a quarter cent tax increase if you have cut the money out 2 of the proposed budget and set it aside? I mean, that was 3 money that was already in what was requested. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So why is that not there to 6 reallocate to something else, and leave the base bottom line 7 of the requested budget the same? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: You're talking about leaving the tax 9 rate the same as requested? 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm talking about leaving the 11 tax rate -- if you took and adjusted the tax rate to where it 12 would be your effective rate, which would be a zero, that 13 would fund -- that rate, which would be about a -- about a 14 half-cent increase or less to fund the requested budget. And 15 if we cut funds out of the requested budget and set them 16 aside, we would be lowering -- or not lowering; we would be 17 using that -- 18 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Neutral. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If we reallocate it some 20 other way, why would the bottom line change? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe I'm not understanding the 22 question. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Probably not. It's too 24 simple. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: If you -- if you take that amount of 9-7-11 66 1 money out of the budget that I filed and allocate it to the 2 tax rate, -- 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: -- that would amount to 5 approximately one and a quarter cents. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understand where -- I 7 understand where you're coming from. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What I'm saying is, the 10 budget you filed included all the 6 and a half percent 11 increases. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: It did. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If you go back to the 14 requested budget, before you put in the 6 and a half percent, 15 you cut money out of that, that helps to fund some of those 16 raises without going up on the tax rate. Forget the 6.5; 17 take it completely out and start -- start with it not even in 18 there. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it would give you that amount 20 of funds that you cut in one place to apply somewhere else. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's exactly what I'm -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: No question about it, sure. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what I'm trying to get 24 to. And it's simple math. Maybe it's too simple. But, I 25 mean, we've gone through this exercise of doing all the 9-7-11 67 1 cutting here and cutting there, but then it doesn't appear to 2 have done anything much in the end. 3 MS. HARGIS: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mrs. Auditor, what revelation 5 do you have for us? 6 MS. HARGIS: I don't have a revelation; I wish I 7 did. Here's what I was asked also to do. I took out the two 8 and a half cents, and I took out the raises. And, yes, we 9 can fund it, but our fund balance still goes in the toilet, 10 because we only have 169,000 left. If I put the raises back 11 in at 6.5, and the fire, you know, if I -- if those cuts that 12 we talked about -- keep in mind, I'm not -- you know, the 150 13 out of the insurance and 133, those are variable numbers that 14 I can't put my hand on, so I don't want y'all thinking that, 15 you know, I have concrete numbers there. But if we remove 16 that from what we've already talked about, and the 91,000, 17 which is a good figure, which is what you took off -- the 18 62 -- remember, 62,000 would be reducing the premium, so 19 that's really within the 150 and the 133. So, that only 20 leaves me with 169 to come back left over to put in my fund 21 balance, which is not sufficient. 22 I mean, it's not -- that's also my problem here. 23 We're about a million dollars short of what we should have in 24 our fund balance. You know, all of our sister counties have 25 much larger fund balances. So, even with all of that, we're 9-7-11 68 1 still at a 12 percent fund balance, even if we take the 2 raises out, which is not sufficient. If I put the raises 3 back in with no increase in taxes, we're -- again, and we 4 took the 374 out. We kind of jockeyed -- remember, there's 5 about a $200,000 difference. That leaves me with an ending 6 balance overage of 169,740. If I put a penny in -- 'cause my 7 goal was to put a half a million dollars -- at least a half a 8 million hopefully back into the fund balance. That -- a 9 penny is 292,290, about, because that's what the certified 10 roll is. That -- that gets me to 462. Each quarter of a 11 penny is 73,000, so a penny and a quarter would at least give 12 us -- would pay the raises, pay the fire, and put some 13 surplus back into the account. 14 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: How much surplus? 15 MS. HARGIS: Well, it's not sufficient, but at 16 least it puts a half a million back. And we still haven't 17 cut -- we know we have -- those nine positions are still in 18 the budget. They're frozen, but they're in there. So, those 19 nine positions not being filled for the whole year could give 20 me -- and I'm going to say less than what -- it might bring 21 me a half a million. We need to put a million dollars back 22 in by the end of this year. I think most of you would agree, 23 we need to get that up to $3 million. We're down to two. 24 We're going to start this year at a million, eight, which is 25 not great. 9-7-11 69 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are all those calculations at 2 the six -- 3 MS. HARGIS: Six and a half percent. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Six and a half percent. If you 5 went to a 4 percent -- 6 MS. HARGIS: Four percent is about a $200,000 7 difference. I figured that. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you cut -- so you -- 9 MS. HARGIS: 227,000. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could you do a tax increase of 11 a cent, and give a -- a 4 percent COLA, and still get our 12 fund balance up a little over half a million? 13 MS. HARGIS: We could, but a penny -- penny and a 14 quarter, which is less than $30 -- 'cause last year we did a 15 penny and a half, and it was $30 to the average homeowner. 16 So, that would be probably $20, a penny and a quarter. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean -- 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Go ahead. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it -- 20 MS. HARGIS: And that would be less than at the 21 6.5. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The employees deserve more. 23 I'm not saying that they're not. I'm just trying to figure 24 out -- I also know that the taxpayers are the ones that fund 25 the entire operation, salaries, everything, and they're -- 9-7-11 70 1 what I hear is they do not want a tax increase. 2 MS. HARGIS: We can't avoid a tax increase, even if 3 we pay no salaries, because we don't have enough fund balance 4 left. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if we go with a 4 percent 6 increase and a penny tax increase -- 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: On everybody except elected 8 officials? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. I mean, I think 10 that gets us -- you get down -- I think that goes down a bad 11 road. I don't like that, because I think that -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Elected officials, there's a 13 provision in the Government Code to where they can -- where 14 they can decline all or some portion of their salaries. 15 Certainly, if -- if that's the inclination of any elected 16 official, they're certainly capable of doing that. If you 17 feel that's the right thing to do, well, certainly, I would 18 encourage you to consider it. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- I mean, I think that 20 if you look at the total picture, a penny increase -- even if 21 you go a penny and a quarter, I think that that is a 22 legitimate -- I mean, the fire contract cost -- if we didn't 23 have the fire contract, we wouldn't have to do a tax 24 increase. 25 MS. HARGIS: No. 9-7-11 71 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's reality. 2 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: That's right. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the cost-of-living 4 adjustment -- 5 MS. HARGIS: Would have been -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- is what it is; it's a 7 cost-of-living adjustment. I think we need to try to get -- 8 recoup back what we lost two years ago, but I don't think we 9 can do it at one time. And I'm not in favor of -- I can go 10 with a one-cent increase, and that's as high as I can go on a 11 tax increase. Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: And what are you saying? Is 13 that -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The 4 percent. 15 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: 4 percent? 16 MS. HARGIS: Can I just give you the average? I 17 did one of my employee's salaries, and at 6 and a half 18 percent, the take-home would be 1,200 a year. At 4 percent, 19 it's 600. It's hardly a tank of gas, and it's not going to 20 help, especially if you're not going to give them the H.R.A. 21 cards. You're talking one or the other. You got to somehow 22 give them enough money back so that they can go to the 23 doctor, 'cause we got people not going to the doctor. We've 24 been lucky this year, and if they start going -- if they 25 start falling out 'cause they're sick and they can't go to 9-7-11 72 1 the doctor, it's going to cost us even more money. And 2 that's my big fear. We made it this year, because nobody's 3 gone, but we haven't ended the year either. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, the one thing about the 5 new insurance is going to take care of some of that, because 6 it's going to have co-pays instead of all out-of-pocket up 7 front. 8 MS. HARGIS: If we choose that plan. Remember, 9 there are two plans. One's the same as ours. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know. 11 MS. HARGIS: And the other one is the same -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Buy-up. 13 MS. HARGIS: The buy-up wouldn't be much for an 14 individual, but the buy-up for the families would be probably 15 cost-prohibitive, and that's what's happened to most of the 16 families. They can't buy up. You can buy up on one person, 17 'cause it's like $50, but you start buying up on the 18 families, because of their contribution, then it gets 19 expensive, and they can't afford that. So, that's where 20 they're at. But, you know, I'll put the numbers in wherever 21 you want to put them at, but just -- 22 MS. BOLIN: Can I just make a comment, please? 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm. 24 MS. BOLIN: I only have two people out of my 13 25 that do not own their own home. They all pay taxes. I think 9-7-11 73 1 if you look around the courthouse, most people do pay taxes, 2 and they're going to get hit regardless, whether we go up and 3 don't increase their salary, or whether we increase their 4 salary and go up. They're going to get hit regardless. And 5 their taxes are not frozen. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: You know, that's a good point on the 7 freezing. When we were having all that pressure to -- to 8 accept the City's take-it-or-leave-it offer on the EMS, 9 particularly, and, of course, the universal cry was, "We want 10 Kerrville EMS, and whatever it takes to -- whatever it takes 11 to do that, why, you do it; you just bite the bullet." And 12 they were told, "Well, those numbers they're presenting is a 13 two-cent tax increase." "If that's what it takes, that's 14 what it takes." Now, a large percentage of those folks, of 15 course, were tax-frozen. A large percentage of them. Those 16 are the ones most vitally interested in the EMS issue. 17 They're the ones more likely to have serious health problems 18 and need those services. Now, since -- since the budget has 19 been proposed, even before it was filed, and there was notice 20 of a tax increase, there's been a lot of pressure -- "Oh, 21 don't raise taxes. Don't raise taxes. Don't raise the tax 22 rate." Who's that coming from? Same percentage, probably, 23 from tax-frozen people. They can't have their cake and eat 24 it too, obviously. But it doesn't make a nickel's worth of 25 difference to them, anyway. 9-7-11 74 1 MS. BOLIN: Right. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Those are the folks that have "no" 3 for a plan. I suspect they didn't get where they are by 4 having a plan of "no" all their life. 5 MS. UECKER: Probably the ones that live in 6 Comanche Trace and Riverhill and et cetera. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Or Rusty; he's got his hand up. 8 He's one of those. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I live where? I would like to 10 address a couple of things in regards to the salaries of the 11 employees, and where we were last year and year before, and 12 where we are now. And I -- and I'll be more than happy after 13 the meeting to tell you which employee, but I picked an 14 employee that I have, and I looked -- I asked him, and we 15 went through and researched. What is your take-home pay this 16 current budget compared to what your take-home pay was the 17 year before? Okay. Just his take-home pay equals to $53 a 18 pay period, which is $106 a month, less this current year 19 right now than it was the year before. All right? That's a 20 pretty good sacrifice. That is -- I know some of the 21 Court -- most of the Court took a 2 and a half percent pay 22 cut, which that sounds good, and everybody appreciated it. 23 But every employee, because of health insurance and because 24 of other things, took a pay cut. 25 Y'all have voted in this proposed budget to give 9-7-11 75 1 yourselves that pay cut back, okay. Why shouldn't the 2 employees get that pay cut back? That's before the C.P.I., 3 before a cost-of-living. I agree it's hard on every one of 4 us citizens, and I do pay my taxes too, okay? And I agree we 5 all have to sacrifice some. But the employees should not 6 sacrifice double. If the citizens have to sacrifice some, 7 the employees can sacrifice some too, but not double. Not 8 what, in essence, was a pay cut last year -- this current 9 year of up to $110 a month. And, you know, you have a C.P.I. 10 of -- what is it, Judge, 8 percent? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: 8.73. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And without any kind of COLA, 13 that's a double cut to the employees. Their gas, everything 14 else went up. And I don't care whether you're talking a 6.5 15 or the 4 percent; the employees deserve a minimum of -- the 16 4 percent wouldn't even cover the $110 a month that they lost 17 already. 18 MS. HARGIS: The 6.5 basically covers that. 6.5 19 gives you $50 a month. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What it amounts to, the 21 average Kerr County employee salary is $35,090. A 4 percent 22 raise on that is $25.26 a pay period. Now, you got taxes 23 that are going come out of that, so you're probably lucky if 24 you see 15 to 20 of it. They're still in the hole by over 25 $25 a pay period from what they were two years ago. If you 9-7-11 76 1 did the 6.5, it's $53 a pay period difference on that average 2 employee's salary, and then you take taxes. That gets them 3 even with what their take-home was two years ago. We're all 4 going to pay for some of it, whether we're paying taxes, 5 whether it's in our take-home. The insurance is -- is going 6 to be a great help in changing insurance companies, but it 7 doesn't change the premiums of what the employees' take-home 8 is. These take-homes are before any co-pay or anything else, 9 or any of their insurance costs. It's what came out of their 10 check on premiums, what their take-home was. 11 And I think -- you know, I'll be honest; this last 12 week has been one of those weeks that, as a law enforcement 13 officer, and hopefully as a citizen too, none of us ever 14 expect to have to go through again. We had over a 1,000-acre 15 fire in our neighboring county that their people couldn't 16 help, because they don't have big enough people. I had two 17 trailers out there, and I had four people around the clock 18 out there sitting. Kerrville Fire Department -- true, it's 19 been a rough year with -- with contracts and everything else, 20 but, you know, they were sitting inside Edwards County with 21 an ambulance sitting there, and a two-man crew for 90 percent 22 of that time because of our volunteer firemen getting 23 overheated. They're fulfilling their contract, okay. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The EMS side of it. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The EMS side of it, I'm 9-7-11 77 1 talking about. They didn't have fire trucks out there, but 2 they sure had -- and that's -- those EMS personnel helped us 3 dispatch out of our trailer sitting there, to assist. We had 4 a capital murder in this county that was solved in -- in less 5 than 24 hours. People worked around the clock, okay? We had 6 three major wrecks, some of them pinned in, everything else, 7 that D.P.S., my employees, Kerrville fire and EMS all 8 responded to. Everybody was -- was drug to their very 9 thinnest that they could do. But you know what? There 10 wasn't a single conversation about salaries, about 11 comparisons, about anything else. You -- you don't have a 12 bunch of employees working for this county that -- that take 13 the attitude of entitlement. You have a bunch of employees 14 that work for this county that dedicate their life, 24 hours 15 a day, to this county, and I think we need to at least be 16 fair with the employees. I'm not talking about jumping way 17 ahead. I'm talking about being fair with the employees, and 18 don't make them bear that burden of most of that tax stuff. 19 One and quarter cent tax increase will cover that. 20 You're talking less than 30 bucks -- or 30 bucks -- you know, 21 that's a year, okay? You take -- somebody goes out to eat 22 supper one time -- one taxpayer goes out to eat supper one 23 time with his family in a year and he's paid for that. 24 That's all they're sacrificing. And after seeing what the 25 employees are going through and the harder economic times, 9-7-11 78 1 gentlemen, all that does is put more of a workload on your 2 employees. Thefts go up, lawsuits go up, every business in 3 this courthouse is going to go up. Everything out at my 4 facility is going to go up. Look at the inmate population. 5 Look at everything we're dealing with. Look at what the 6 courts are dealing with. And we're going to make them -- not 7 only did -- did all your department heads cut staff this last 8 year; they all -- all the employees that we had, because of a 9 lot of things beyond their control with insurance and 10 premiums and that, they also took a pay cut on top of it. 11 Make it fair. Six and a half doesn't even come close, but 12 anything less than four definitely will not be in any way 13 considered fair to your employees. Thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's a little passion 15 involved here, huh? I went out there yesterday, and he took 16 me behind the woodshed and gave me a good whipping. And I 17 enjoyed it, though. God, I love that. He's not real good at 18 it, but he did it, nevertheless. But, you know, there's 19 another side to this thing, too. Number one, Rusty, you're 20 talking about how you pay for it. You immediately went to 21 raising taxes. Why can't we cut somewhere? I mean, let's 22 consider cutting some things before we immediately go to 23 raising taxes. But, anyway, I have -- I have a friend that 24 has a small business here in town that is getting to the 25 point where he could maybe add an employee or two, or buy 9-7-11 79 1 some insurance for his employees. Now he sees us raising 2 taxes and paying our employees, and he can't, because his 3 taxes are going to go up, and he's scared to -- scared to 4 participate in the free enterprise system. Now, to me, 5 that's a sad -- that is a sad commentary, because that guy is 6 a part of -- of the industry out there that drive -- that 7 drives everything, whereas we're talking about government 8 employees. And -- 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Buster, if I may respond? 10 With the -- with the -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you asking my permission 12 or what? 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. I will. But with your 14 small businessman, what's his business worth? 500,000? A 15 penny and a quarter tax increase on a $500,000 business is 16 going to be what? Maybe $200, $300? If he can't hire 17 employees just 'cause he's going to spend another $200 or 18 $300, there's a lot more wrong with his business than that. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's none of your 20 damn business to start with. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You brought it up. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I sure did, and I'm ending 23 it too. I don't know. I was going to tell you about a 24 friend of mine. Didn't mean to set off anything, but -- 25 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: No. I'll -- I'll make some 9-7-11 80 1 comments here as well. You know, the last -- first of all, 2 I'll make the comment -- what Rusty said about -- as far as 3 the employees, I've been here only nine months, as far as the 4 county commissioner spot coming in. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seems like years to me. 6 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: It has seemed like a little 7 bit longer than that. My comments, first of all, just -- you 8 know, the nine months coming in, the -- the departments, the 9 dedication of the folks here, the team, I see a lot of -- of 10 folks working together, and I see a lot of just really 11 good -- good folks doing what they need to be doing, and I've 12 been very impressed with that in the nine months of my -- my 13 time being in here and serving this Court. I have -- the 14 last 10 days, really have gone out into my precinct, in 15 Precinct 2; and I've tried to -- in fact, I've spoken at four 16 breakfast groups, a couple of evening groups, and going out 17 and listening to the folks in our community, just to kind of 18 see where they are right now. It's not an easy -- the 19 environment out there, as we all know, is not a good time 20 right now as far as businesses in our community. 21 The comment that Commissioner Baldwin made and the 22 reality of it is out there that -- and hearing other 23 businesses in our community, and talking with the owners, 24 talking with the people, there are businesses that aren't -- 25 some of them are in their third year without pay raises. 9-7-11 81 1 They're laying people off in our community. It's not a good 2 environment out there at all right now. In fact, of the 10 3 days that I've spent out there just visiting with folks, the 4 consideration of pay raises and those type of things aren't 5 in the discussion. It's not about -- it's not -- you know, I 6 agree that the folks here at the county deserve it. I 7 understand that. But when you're out there and you're 8 talking to your general businesses out in the community, it's 9 not happening. 10 I talk about a lot of this with -- my wife has been 11 hearing me a lot over the last nine months, and I always try 12 to make sure there's a cup of coffee or something poured to 13 have her listen. But, you know, there are school teachers 14 that are working weekends. There are school teachers that 15 are working -- I'm just hearing this from her. I understand 16 we are too. We got employees here doing double jobs; I 17 understand that. But the reality of it is, right now, it's 18 -- it's a tough time to try to -- to have pay increases right 19 now. And -- and my -- my deal, again, is it's -- those are 20 my comments as far as where I'm at. I have -- I have not 21 heard a lot of support out there for -- for pay increases 22 right now; not just -- not only here, but as far as the 23 business community and our community. There are a lot of 24 people hurting out there right now. 25 And I will say this comment, and not trying to get 9-7-11 82 1 back at -- I still -- it all points back to what's happening 2 in Washington, D.C. I'm sick and tired of the leadership 3 that we've got, and it's not conveying to business 4 development; it's not conveying to business growth. It's 5 hurting the citizens of this country and it's hurting the 6 citizens of this state and it's hurting the citizens of this 7 community. I want some dadgum leadership to start stepping 8 up, but they're not doing it. And the reality of it is, we 9 are dealing with it at this level. And, you know, I -- 10 there's no doubt about that. I support a pay raise to 11 happen, but I cannot -- in seeing what's going on in our 12 community right now, I cannot -- I cannot support any type of 13 pay raise at this time. 14 JUDGE BILLEITER: Judge, could I say something? It 15 just appears to me from what I'm hearing here that we're in 16 trouble because of the fire and EMS. So, instead of equally 17 distributing that among the citizens of the county, what 18 you're asking is for the employees of Kerr County to pay for 19 the fire and EMS. Is that what I'm hearing? 20 AUDIENCE: Yes. 21 MR. BOLLIER: Exactly. 22 JUDGE BILLEITER: That's just what I wanted to 23 know. 24 MS. PIEPER: Okay, gentlemen, my turn. Y'all asked 25 us to be team players last year, try to cut employees, and so 9-7-11 83 1 I did. Several -- and and several other departments did as 2 well. And in doing that, I went to my staff and I said, 3 "Y'all, we're going to work -- do more with less," and y'all 4 indicated that we would get some kind of an increase out of 5 it, and they were willing to do it. The morale got boosted 6 up. And now, when they hear this, the morale's going to go 7 down, and they're going to wonder why did they ever offer to 8 do this? It's not right. Every time we try to work with the 9 Court, it seems like we just get kicked down. I mean, I've 10 been in office long enough, I know the routine now. And the 11 next time y'all ask me to -- to work with the Court, I'm 12 going to wonder, why should I? If our employees aren't going 13 to get any kind of benefit out of it. That's all I have. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: You know, Commissioner Overby 15 mentioned that the problem is -- actually begins at the top, 16 and I've heard the expression many times over that we take a 17 bad rap because we're compared to those guys in Washington, 18 and their motivation for doing what they do is something 19 different than the good of the country. We don't want to be 20 -- we don't want to be cast -- have our lot cast equally with 21 them. We don't want to be seen as the same as, quote, "those 22 guys in Washington," because their whole motivation for being 23 there is maybe for some special interest, or maybe for their 24 own interest or some reason other than trying to do what they 25 can for the benefit of the country. If we don't want to be 9-7-11 84 1 considered the same as they are, we need to do things 2 differently. And I think -- let's be honest about doing what 3 we're doing. If -- if you're asked to cinch your belt up and 4 be a team player and make some cuts, and if y'all do that, 5 whoever's left will get some additional benefit, although not 6 nearly as much as what you were able to accomplish, and if 7 that doesn't happen, you wonder why -- why that occurs, well, 8 everybody just needs to be honest with you and tell you why. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, Judge, I -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I've -- I had -- let me correct 11 something. I told you I had one telephone call that said no. 12 During the break, I found I had a note out there, and it said 13 no. From a tax-frozen individual. If you give them the 14 opportunity to say no, they'll say no, but is that the right 15 thing to do for the benefit of county government and the 16 services we perform? Not necessarily. They'll say no every 17 chance they get. If you say you'll work for free, they'll do 18 a dance; they'll be tickled to death. Ask them to come take 19 your place? Oh, no. "Well, I can't do that." It's kind of 20 like when we were having the discussion about fire and EMS 21 contract and they said, "Well, you know, do what you got to 22 do to put that in place, and if it takes a tax increase, so 23 be it." And, of course, the vast majority of those folks, 24 again, were over 65, tax-frozen. And so I asked them, "Would 25 you be willing to waive your tax-free status for that to 9-7-11 85 1 happen?" Out of -- I don't know how many I asked; it was a 2 bunch. One of them said, "Yes, I would." All the rest said, 3 rather quickly, "No," or, "Well, I haven't thought about 4 that; I'm going to have to think about that." Well, to me, 5 that was another no. Just do what's right for the team. 6 That's all. That's -- and candidly and honestly say why. 7 That's what you deserve. Not to be told one thing and have 8 it be something else. 9 MS. SCHERWITZ: Judge? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Ma'am? 11 MS. SCHERWITZ: Sorry to interrupt. There have 12 been points made by you, Commissioners, Rusty, Jannett. 13 There's a couple other things that we deal with in H.R. Our 14 customer base -- and it's been talked about before that we're 15 a customer service organization. We in H.R., our customers, 16 so to speak, are the employees. We've talked about 17 insurance. We've talked about pay, talked about doing 18 without, replacing employees and absorbing that extra 19 workload. An additional thing that I don't know that too 20 many people know, other than we in H.R. or the people 21 requesting, this year we have had a major jump in people that 22 participate in AXA requesting loans, or qualifying for one of 23 four hardship reasons. Major jump. One more point I want to 24 share while you're getting your facts together before you 25 make your decisions. One thing we have never heard in H.R. 9-7-11 86 1 -- and they will complain to us. They have never come and 2 complained about taking up the extra slack for not replacing 3 the employees in their department. I just wanted to let 4 y'all know that, in addition to all the other points of the 5 insurance loss, pay loss, take-home pay loss, et cetera. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: And loss of employees in their 7 department which put an additional load on them. 8 MS. SCHERWITZ: Exactly. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's very telling. Tells 10 you that of the team approach, the team effort -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge? If I -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I can move this along today, 14 are we on Item 2 on the agenda? 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're on 5. Oh, you mean -- 16 JUDGE TINLEY: No. On the agenda? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Are we still on Item 1? 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Still on Item 1. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we move on to Item 2? 21 Because Item 2 is what we're really talking about; it's 22 setting the proposed tax rate. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, no, they're separate and 24 distinct, but there's some interplay with them, of course. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 9-7-11 87 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me first ask if there's any 2 member of the Court that has anything further to offer with 3 respect to Item 1 on the agenda? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question. The 5 $374,000, what would happen if you took that and just applied 6 it to salaries only? Have we already talked about that? 7 MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I think so. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. What was the 10 answer? Would one of y'all tell me what happened? 11 MS. HARGIS: That's -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I was afraid of. 13 MS. HARGIS: The total for 6.5 is 589. If you put 14 the 374 to it -- I had that. I think it brought it down to 15 204,000. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 589 or 579? 17 MS. HARGIS: 589. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. I think I can 19 probably -- let me try to answer it. If you -- you could do 20 no tax increase -- and tell me if I'm wrong. You could do no 21 tax increase if you give a 4 percent increase and used the 22 374 to offset that; I mean, pretty close. The problem is, 23 our reserves will go down or stay the same, and we can't 24 function that way. The -- the combination of those two -- I 25 mean, and to get a reserve built up, which we really, you 9-7-11 88 1 know, -- 2 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Need. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- need, you still have to 4 have -- I say a penny; they say a penny and a quarter, you 5 know, tax increase. And the -- and the problem there is 6 that, you know, it's really the cost of the fire -- or the 7 EMS and fire stuff has driven that cost, though it's not -- I 8 mean, you would have to do part of that regardless. Is that 9 more or less -- that's, in a nutshell, where we are. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Basically, bottom line. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, without -- 12 MS. UECKER: Could I repeat something I said at the 13 last meeting, when there was no press, though. But how come 14 it's always the county employees that get hammered by the 15 public? Nobody ever says anything about, you know, assistant 16 butt-wipers at the school or whatever. (Laughter.) All the 17 coaches for every football player. I mean, city employees -- 18 the City Clerk makes more than anybody here in the county 19 does. How come nobody ever complains about that? And I'd be 20 interested to know what that percentage of complainers is 21 compared to the voters in your precinct. 'Cause most people 22 that agree with giving a tax -- a salary increase of some 23 kind, even if it's a little, aren't going to say anything at 24 all. It's only those that oppose it. And what percentage of 25 those is that based on the total people in your precinct that 9-7-11 89 1 do pay taxes? I mean, what happened to the majority? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- Linda, I think what 3 you also said at the last meeting was -- based on 4 Mr. Armstrong in the back, was that the -- the City passed 5 the fire contract to us, and we have to do the tax increase, 6 and they get the money. 7 MS. UECKER: Yeah, and it's not right. It's not 8 fair. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That is a true statement. 10 MS. UECKER: And -- you know, and was that reported 11 in the paper? I didn't see any of that. I mean, so 12 something's wrong somewhere. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, you know, I agree with 14 you. But the reality is, the five of us are the ones that 15 seem to be under the microscope when it comes to doing these 16 things. That's -- and we asked for it, so we can't complain. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, you know, if you really 18 look at the whole picture, you know, you take the money that 19 was saved by the number of employees that we no longer have. 20 That was my hope from the beginning, and we would be able 21 to -- or the department heads and elected officials, through 22 attrition, would reduce staff, which has happened. And in my 23 mind, you take -- you take that money and you spread that 24 amongst the rest of the people that are left. That doesn't 25 create a tax increase. That is savings from what you did, 9-7-11 90 1 and good business practice. That's what I thought we were 2 going to do, and then all this other stuff gets added on top 3 of it. And I -- I fully support the fact that we have to 4 build our reserve back, and we shouldn't give all that money 5 away to other people and make this bunch be subject to the 6 funding numbers. I do believe we have to keep that tax 7 increase as low as possible, where we can say, "Look, this is 8 what we did." This is what the county employees and the 9 staff and elected officials have done. That's what -- that's 10 the money we used to fund whatever raise we decide to give, 11 and whatever percentage. The rest of it comes for funding to 12 the City and to build our reserve back, in my opinion. That 13 is the only way it makes sense to me. I mean, why -- why 14 would we -- why would we go through all this to save all the 15 money, and then give it all to the City, and nothing for 16 here? That's not right. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Employees -- 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What's the incentive? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Employees earned it. They need to 20 have the major portion of it back. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's just -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Now, what -- tell me what the number 23 is of the -- 24 MS. HARGIS: There's nine employees. And, you 25 know, I'm just going to take -- let's say on average, it's 9-7-11 91 1 probably going to be closer to 750,000, $800,000, by the time 2 you put -- 'cause some of them were in the 50,000 range, and 3 some of them were at lower ranges. So, you know, it's not a 4 million dollars, because they don't all make a hundred, but I 5 would say at least -- let's say 65,000 per employee, by the 6 time you have FICA and retirement rolled into that, times 7 nine. And those -- those positions are still in the budget. 8 So, we can totally freeze those for this year, and that will 9 -- that will more than pay for the raises. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That was my other question I 11 hadn't asked, but are those positions still in the budget? 12 MS. HARGIS: Yes, those positions still are in the 13 budget. We didn't eliminate them; we just froze them. So, 14 if I go back and eliminate them, then there -- there's more 15 than enough for the raises. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Now we're finally getting to 17 where I've been trying to get this whole day. 18 MS. HARGIS: I was not told to eliminate them. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm trying to understand why 20 there was not more money that we had to reallocate for -- 21 MS. HARGIS: I was not told to eliminate them. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: We had a number of positions that we 23 eliminated, and that -- that's an additional number on top, 24 correct? 25 MS. HARGIS: The nine positions that were 9-7-11 92 1 eliminated? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: The -- 3 MS. HARGIS: The nine that I know of? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, no, not the ones that are 5 still in the budget. The ones that have been deleted from 6 the budget. 7 MS. HARGIS: Those have come off. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: This year, and -- and proposed in 9 the -- in next year. Now, how many do you have there? 10 MS. HARGIS: That are proposed for next year, I 11 think it's nine, but I have to go back and count. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: No, I'm talking about the ones 13 through attrition who were deleted from the budget entirely. 14 MS. HARGIS: The only one that we've deleted -- we 15 deleted the D.P.S. And I don't think we deleted any -- 16 MS. MABRY: I believe there's probably three or 17 four. 18 MS. HARGIS: Three to four that we totally deleted. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think I had five that we 20 didn't fill. 21 MS. HARGIS: But yours are still in the budget. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: All five? 23 MS. HARGIS: All five. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. Then let me put -- put 25 it to you this way. I have five that are still in the 9-7-11 93 1 budget. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mine average at least 50,000 4 salary, which equals about, probably, with roll-ups and 5 premiums and health insurance -- 6 MS. HARGIS: 70,000. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- 70,000, okay? We're 8 looking at 200 and what? After the -- 9 MR. ODOM: 350,000. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No -- well, but after the -- 11 MS. HARGIS: 350? 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- 374, you're looking at 204. 13 You permanently cut three of my positions, and you got 14 210,000, and every employee can get their 6.5. And we'll 15 make it work, because that's what it means to the employees. 16 You take three of those that are right at 70,000. That will 17 still leave me the jail clerk I've got to have; we're getting 18 grounded in there with the population. And then leave me the 19 civil officer, because we are hurting there. You permanently 20 cut the other three out of my budget, and you'll gain your 21 210,000, and the employees can get their 6.5. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that math work, 23 Mrs. Auditor? 24 MS. HARGIS: It was $204,000 difference between the 25 374 -- 9-7-11 94 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 204, and what did he just 2 add in? 3 MS. HARGIS: He just gave 210, so you're to the 4 good $6,000. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we have 6,000 left over 6 for barbecue? 7 MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm. Keep in mind, though -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all have a problem with 9 that? 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: None whatsoever. 11 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: So, what's this do to 12 reserves? 13 MS. HARGIS: Still don't have enough for reserves. 14 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: You know, and is there enough 15 to take care of the other portion of that fire expense? And 16 the reserves, what does that do? 17 MS. HARGIS: I mean, the -- you know, I mean, 18 basically, I'd have -- I have to go back and punch it, but 19 when I put the raises back in at -- at no tax increase, you 20 know, our reserves came down, and -- and we reduced the tax 21 rate to what it is today, you know, reserves came down to 22 two million, which is 11 percent. So, if we put -- you know, 23 it takes a lot to bring it up. A half a million will only 24 bring it up a percent. And we can't do it overnight, but we 25 need -- I mean, the court order says -- court order says -- 9-7-11 95 1 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: 25 percent. 2 MS. HARGIS: -- 25 percent, and we're -- we're 3 getting lower every year. When I first came here, it was 18 4 percent. 5 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Is that a state order? Is 6 the 25 -- 7 MS. HARGIS: No. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Comptroller. 9 MS. HARGIS: Comptroller recommendation. 10 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Comptroller, thank you. 11 MS. HARGIS: But even in reading some of the 12 literature, that because of this GASB-54 stuff that we're 13 going through, some of the recommendations say at least three 14 months worth of -- of current operating budget, which is -- 15 because you've got that three-month lag of your tax rate. 16 You don't want -- you know, we don't have 14 million like 17 Gillespie County has, and they only have a $12 million 18 budget, so they have more than a year. But they've levied 19 their effective tax rate, which is greater than the -- the 20 same tax rate as they had before, for the last 20 years, and 21 we haven't done that. You know, they -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Years ago, they said -- 23 before the 25,000 -- 25 percent -- 24 MS. HARGIS: Percent. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- came, it was three 9-7-11 96 1 months. That's how you figured it. 2 MS. HARGIS: Three to six months. That's kind of 3 always been the rule of thumb in the accounting world, that 4 you want at least a three- to six-month reserve. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 6 MS. HARGIS: And we've got a $22 million budget, 7 so, you know, you need at least three to four million 8 dollars, and we're down to two. And the problem is that our 9 cash flow kind of stops between September and December, and 10 -- and that's a real problem. And -- and, you know, 11 unfortunately, we were coming into the year with a pretty 12 good picture, because we had changed insurance. We were -- 13 you know, we had absorbed our losses there. The first 14 quarter, or the -- well, the first -- basically, the first 15 two quarters of this year, and then we got hit with the 16 additional money for the fire and EMS, and that pretty much, 17 you know, set us back. And so -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's talk about the fire 19 and EMS just for a second. I was reading the newspaper 20 article the other day of how -- I don't know. We talk about 21 it costing us a million dollars, or 800,000 or something; I 22 don't remember. A lot. And the newspaper article, I guess, 23 factors in all the other stuff; Animal Control and the 24 airport and all that -- I don't remember exactly how you did 25 that back there. But it wasn't anywhere near $700,000. It 9-7-11 97 1 was a hundred and -- $143,000. And it just -- it just 2 appears to me that we're not being real honest with our 3 numbers there. Do you agree with that? 4 MS. HARGIS: Well, we've been absorbing the Animal 5 Control cost, all except for, I think, 10 or 15 percent the 6 last two years. They haven't really paid any significant 7 amount on the Animal Control. On the airport, we took the 8 entire amount of the airport last year. They paid nothing. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, do you want to try to 10 answer my question? 11 MS. HARGIS: Here's the real -- if we want to 12 compare just fire to fire, we were paying 375. We're now 13 paying 950. To me, that's my budget number. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that. I 15 understand that. But every -- the amount of money that comes 16 out of our budget that goes over to the City for everything, 17 is it $900,000? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: For fire and EMS. 19 MS. HARGIS: Fire and EMS is $950,000. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so how did we come up 21 with 171,000, whatever it was? 22 MS. UECKER: You didn't, he did. 23 MS. HARGIS: I don't know how he came up with it. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you want to explain that? 25 Or -- 9-7-11 98 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I can tell you, probably. 2 I'm guessing. I don't want to speak for -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're pointing to Letz? 4 MR. ARMSTRONG: The Judge. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Judge, okay. I'm just 6 trying to figure out how it works. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: He looked at all the contracts, 8 and -- and he netted all those out. But what wasn't a part 9 of that consideration, I don't think, was the fact that this 10 year the airport's a wash. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it wasn't a wash last year, 13 and I'm not sure that went into the equation. Now, there -- 14 obviously, in some areas we gained some ground. In others, 15 we lost considerably. Whatever figures I gave him -- I 16 assume I gave him all of these. Maybe not. He did some 17 addition and subtraction, I guess, and netted those out. Of 18 course, he took the 200 -- 19 MS. HARGIS: The 200,000. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: -- from the airport -- I mean the 21 library off of that. 22 MS. HARGIS: Library. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: That, of course, was a benefit to 24 us. 25 MS. HARGIS: No, we're not paying the 200 for the 9-7-11 99 1 library. But -- 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But we are furnishing 100 3 percent of Animal Control, which they're not even giving us 4 credit for. 5 MS. HARGIS: No, and we paid 350 on the airport 6 last year; they paid nothing. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Look at what Road and Bridge 8 has furnished. Look at what Road and Bridge has furnished. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, I know. There's no -- 10 yeah. 11 MS. HARGIS: But the effect on my budget, 12 regardless of what Mark comes up with, when I add and 13 substract the numbers, I was paying 375, and now I'm paying 14 950. Plus I just -- we just lost a contract with them that 15 was worth 100,000, so now we're at a million, 50. And a 16 million, 50, even if I take off the 200,000, is $850,000 that 17 goes to the City of Kerrville. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Leonard, is your 19 paving program back in? 20 MR. ODOM: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 22 MS. HARGIS: And that's the other thing. We did 23 without that last year to be able to make it last year. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what I was trying to 25 get to before we moved -- I wanted to move to the next agenda 9-7-11 100 1 item is today is not the end of the discussion. Today we're 2 setting a proposed tax rate. And, to me, I'd recommend we 3 move down this, let the Auditor put in the numbers that we 4 did change today so we can come up with some hard numbers. 5 Because we're kind of -- we're -- it's a moving target. And 6 we could vote on a proposed tax rate, and as long as we don't 7 go above it, I believe we're okay. So -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we can reduce it, you know. 10 And -- we can reduce it. And, you know, from my standpoint, 11 I can go along with whatever this is, whichever one. I'm not 12 sure what rate's on there. 13 MS. HARGIS: Two, two and a half, two and a 14 quarter. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: 2.5. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two, two and a half -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: 2.25 is what I have -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: -- plugged in there. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's -- we got three 21 options. 22 MS. BOLIN: 2.5, 2.25, and 2.0. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I could vote for one of 24 those today, and then with the idea of -- I'll probably -- or 25 almost certainly not vote for one of those next time around. 9-7-11 101 1 But I think it gets us down the road, and it gets -- you 2 know, we can look at some things. We can get a -- maybe the 3 insurance number again, hopefully by Monday, a few other 4 numbers, and -- because, I mean, we got to move down the 5 road. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you not ready to make a decision 7 on some of these things that we're kicking around at this 8 point? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I just -- I think that we 10 need some more discussion on it. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think that we just -- but 13 we need to vote on a proposed tax rate today. Otherwise, we 14 have to do another -- otherwise we're going to start having a 15 real problem on not having a budget by the first of the year. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. I understand. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's where I am. And I 18 really think -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Is everybody comfortable with that? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think that since the Tax 21 Assessor has furnished us three options here, it's simplest 22 to go with one of those options. Otherwise, we'll have to 23 recess; she's got to go back and do recalculations. We got 24 to have the language just right, correct? 25 MS. BOLIN: Yeah. And if we don't go forward today 9-7-11 102 1 and set our public hearing dates -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: That's not an "if." 3 MS. BOLIN: That's not an "if"? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Don't worry about it. Don't waste 5 your time there. Okay, are we through with Item 1? Let's go 6 to Item 2, then. Consider, discuss, and approve by record 7 vote a proposed Kerr County 2011 tax rate; set date, time, 8 and place of first and second public hearings on the tax 9 rate. 10 MS. BOLIN: Right. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we're -- you're talking 12 about adopting one of these -- one of these, and when are you 13 going to bring it back? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll, we're having it at 15 the -- we're having a hearing. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: 16th and the 21st is what we've got 17 plugged in, if I'm not mistaken. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're meeting on Monday. 19 MS. HARGIS: You're not adopting; you're proposing. 20 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: You're proposing. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would say Monday would be the 23 next swing at this at our regular Commissioners Court 24 meeting. 25 MS. HARGIS: We won't meet the publication 9-7-11 103 1 deadlines. We have to do the publication today. 2 MS. BOLIN: You can discuss your budget, but the -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can do the proposed -- I'm 4 saying we do the proposed now, and then we talk about it 5 again Monday. And Tuesday and Wednesday, if we need to. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Decide what we're going to do 7 on Monday about -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A final. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- a final. I agree. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have until -- we have 11 between now and the final date to do a final. What's the 12 final date? 13 MS. HARGIS: 29. 14 MS. BOLIN: 29. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have from now till the 29th 16 to meet as many times as we choose and come up with a final 17 number that can get three votes. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Gentlemen, the dates that we have 20 plugged in for the first and second public hearings are the 21 16th and the 21st. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 16th is at 9:30? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: 9:00, I've got down here. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Friday? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: And then the 21st also at 9:00. 9-7-11 104 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a Wednesday? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 3 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Both 9 a.m.? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry, the 16th is an 6 Independence Day for somewhere. We can't be here. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's not Texas Independence 8 Day, is it? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I'm ready. Let's do 10 this thing. Which one are you going to choose? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't care. Which one are 12 you going to choose? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to ask the Auditor 14 to go back and work these numbers, and let's get something a 15 little more realistic than just pulling one of these off, so 16 you better grab one. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. With respect to Item 2, do I 18 have a motion from any member of the Court? Do you want your 19 budget done by -- tax rate adopted by October 1st? 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let's see here. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Don't everybody get bold at once 22 here. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What's the matter with you, 24 anyway? 25 MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, can I recommend 2.5? 9-7-11 105 1 JUDGE TINLEY: That's 2.5. That's 2 and a quarter. 2 This is 2. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. Okay, we're -- I'm 4 going to make a stab at this. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I will move that the proposed 7 property tax rate be increased by the adoption of a rate of 8 .4643, which is effectively a 3.38 -- 3.3384 percent increase 9 in the tax rate. The breakdown of this total tax rate will 10 be as follows: Maintenance and Operations, .3839; I & S is 11 .0482; Lateral Roads is .0322, for a combined tax rate of 12 .4643, this being a proposed. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion. Do I hear a second 14 to the motion? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. 17 Discussion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising 18 your right hand. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need a record vote. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, excuse me. We do need a 21 record vote. Let's go down to Commissioner 1. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Precinct 1 votes aye. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 2? 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Precinct 2, no. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 3? 9-7-11 106 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aye. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 4? 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Aye. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner -- myself, County 5 Judge, votes aye. Anything further on that agenda item, 6 gentlemen? Let's go to Item 3; to consider, discuss, take 7 appropriate action to adopt new election precincts and 8 polling locations. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I bet we can wring two hours 10 out of this one. 11 MS. BOLIN: I hope not. You're taking me to 12 Buzzie's today. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, no. 14 MS. BOLIN: Okay. We did not do any commissioner 15 precinct changes on this, but we did some moving around of 16 polling places -- I'm sorry, of precincts because of 17 population. Each of you got a little map. It's got the 18 previous lines drawn on it, and the new lines drawn. 19 Precinct 404, we expanded to include a portion north of 20 Interstate 10 that was in Precinct 410, and a portion of 21 Precinct 405 off of Beech Road. That's the little green 22 area. Precinct 406, we moved Cypress -- a portion of Cypress 23 Springs that was in 406 into 405. Precinct 416, we moved 24 part of 406 into 416. In Precinct 2, we created a precinct 25 that would be River Hills and Comanche Trace because of 9-7-11 107 1 population issues in 215 and 211. In Precinct -- in 2 Commissioner 3, we eliminated Precinct 320 and merged a 3 portion of it into 303 -- wait a minute -- yeah, into 303, 4 and then we moved a portion of 303 off of -- by Comfort off 5 Cypress Creek Road to Precinct 308. 6 And all the Commissioners have looked at this and 7 approved their individual areas, the changes. By eliminating 8 Precinct 320, we will no longer have Cypress Creek Community 9 Center as a polling place. And we've got a couple of 10 locations for Precinct 220, which is the new precinct, which 11 would be Faith Christian Church is what we're requesting to 12 be approved today. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move approval. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 16 approval. Question or discussion? These changes are made in 17 large measure because of anticipated overpopulation in a 18 given precinct within the next 10 years? 19 MS. BOLIN: Correct. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: So, it's -- you're doing a 21 preemptive strike, as it were? 22 MS. BOLIN: Yes, sir. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: And the estimated cost to go through 24 this procedure, estimated from lawyers in Austin, is plus or 25 minus $8,000? 9-7-11 108 1 MS. BOLIN: Correct. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other question or 3 comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 4 your right hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. 9 MS. BOLIN: Thank you, gentlemen. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, we will go out of open 11 or public session for purposes of going into executive 12 session. It is 1:03 p.m. 13 (The open session was closed at 1:03 p.m., and an executive session was held, the transcript of which 14 is contained in a separate document.) 15 - - - - - - - - - - 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It is 1:14, and we are back 17 in open or public session. Does any member of the Court have 18 anything to offer with respect to the matter considered in 19 executive or closed session? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we 21 accept the offer of L.C.R.A. Transmission Services 22 Corporation for the settlement offer presented, and authorize 23 the County Judge to sign same. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second to 9-7-11 109 1 accept the offer as presented. Question or discussion? All 2 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Anything 7 else to come before the meeting at this time, gentlemen? 8 Seeing nothing, we'll be adjourned. 9 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 1:15 p.m.) 10 - - - - - - - - - - 11 12 STATE OF TEXAS | 13 COUNTY OF KERR | 14 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 15 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 16 official reporter for the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 17 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 18 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 8th day of September, 19 2011. 20 21 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 22 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 23 Certified Shorthand Reporter 24 25 9-7-11