1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Budget Workshop 10 Monday, July 22, 2013 11 11:00 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 TOM MOSER, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X July 22, 2013 2 PAGE 3 1. Review and discuss FY 2013-14, individual department budgets 3 4 2. Review and discuss FY 2013-14 employee 5 insurance programs, including group employee health benefits and voluntary supplemental 6 insurance programs 4 7 3. Review and discuss FY 2013-14 requests for additional personnel; review and discuss 8 compensation for department heads and individual employee compensations and other individual 9 increases not mandated by the current policy; review and discuss changes or additions to step 10 and grade schedule and restructuring department(s) 10 11 --- Adjourned 29 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Monday, July 22, 2013, at 11:00 a.m., a workshop of 2 the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the 3 Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, 4 Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me now call to order a 7 Commissioners Court workshop scheduled for this date, Monday, 8 July 22, 2013, at 11 a.m. It's a bit past that time now. 9 The items to be considered are budgetary matters. The first 10 one is to review and discuss fiscal year 2013-14 individual 11 department budgets. This was on our last agenda, and I think 12 we pretty much got through it, but I've been requested to put 13 this on the agenda again by Commissioner Moser, so -- 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: -- I'm going to throw it over to 16 him. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Thank you, Judge. 18 (Judge Tinley left the courtroom.) 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: As I and the other 20 Commissioners for the first time saw this -- saw the 21 departmental budgets as proposed or as drafted last time, and 22 not having an opportunity to look at that, I said I had a 23 hundred questions. Well, I do have a hundred questions. 24 I've got answers to 50 of them. I have another 50 or so 25 questions I would like to ask each one of the department 7-22-13 bwk 4 1 heads as I move forward, so I want to pull this agenda item 2 right now, but preserve it and put on it the next workshop. 3 So approved. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next item is review and discuss 5 2013-14 employee insurance programs, including group employee 6 health benefits and voluntary supplemental insurance 7 programs. Dawn, is that yours? 8 MS. LANTZ: Yes, sir. 9 (Judge Tinley returned to the courtroom.) 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or Auditor. We're on the 11 second item. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I already called it. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: You called it? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, great. We're in the insurance 17 game now, okay. I think we've got some more definitive 18 figures. What you're receiving, gentlemen, relates to 19 different plans that TAC has made available to us. 20 Ms. Lantz? 21 MS. LANTZ: TAC has given us some more plans that 22 we may choose from. Currently, I believe the Auditor had 23 given you a sheet of what we're currently on. The current 24 plan is the 1400-NG, and during our last budget workshop, we 25 had talked a little bit about possibly upgrading or doing a 7-22-13 bwk 5 1 buy-up to Plan 1300-NG, which would lower our deductible by 2 $500, from $2,000 to $1,500. And with that, I think after 3 speaking with the Auditor, we have possibly enough funds to 4 do that if the Court is willing to go ahead and do that 5 buy-up plan. If not, I would recommend we stay where we're 6 at. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is Plan 1200? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Plan 1200 is a buy-down of the 9 deductible by $1,000. 10 MS. LANTZ: 1,000. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me short circuit, if I might. 12 Plan 1300, which would buy down the deductible $500. 13 COMMISSIONER MOSER: 1300 is 500. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: And that would reduce the deductible 15 to $1,500. It's currently $2,000. The cost of buying down 16 $500 is 94,000 to 95,000. You have a more definitive figure 17 than that? Of course, we've got a variable number of 18 employees in there. On Plan 1200, which is a buy-down of 19 $1,000, you're talking about a cost of $196,500. 20 MS. LANTZ: And I think with the new insurance 21 rules going into effect, I think -- I would hate to buy down 22 all the way to the 1200, and then we not be able to afford 23 it, and then we have to turn around next year and say, "By 24 the way, we're going back to the 1400 plan," because of the 25 changes in the laws and the increases in the medical costs. 7-22-13 bwk 6 1 I think, reasonably, we can do it to the 1300 and still be 2 safe. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: The Auditor and I have looked at 4 that, and we believe there's sustainability buying down $500. 5 I -- I don't think we can justify the cost of buying down 6 $1,000. Pretty big chunk. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I totally agree with you. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Pretty big chunk. But -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We only can do what we can 10 afford. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Exactly. Well, exactly. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we can only -- what we 13 think we can sustain. It doesn't help to jump back around, 14 so I think you need continuity or consistency. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: We got to have the sustainability, 16 and that's what we looked at when we were analyzing this. 17 MS. LANTZ: And that's what we are with TAC 18 currently. We're consistent, and they see -- you know, as 19 long as you don't hop around. And this is what Kelly 20 Kolodzey gave me, and she made the same recommendations. She 21 wouldn't recommend going to the 1200 because of the fact -- 22 MS. HARGIS: 1300. 23 MS. LANTZ: Or, excuse me -- no, 1200. The lowest 24 one, buy-up, because of the cost where it could be driven up, 25 and then we'd be forced to go back to something that we 7-22-13 bwk 7 1 started with. 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And that was the 3 recommendation of TAC to do that? 4 MS. LANTZ: Kelly. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Want to -- in the -- I'm 6 talking, we don't want to go 1200. 7 MS. HARGIS: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And in the state, other 9 counties, what's the experience, or what is -- what are they 10 doing? Do you know that from TAC? 11 MS. LANTZ: Everybody's plan's different, because 12 they're within the pool, so they're basically -- they do 13 whatever they can afford. But some of them -- 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah, I understand, but what 15 percentage are at -- is at our deductible versus what's being 16 proposed versus others? 17 MS. LANTZ: Other counties have up to a $250 18 deductible. 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. But do you have any 20 idea how many are -- how many at are $1,000? 21 MS. LANTZ: That I don't know, sir. I -- I didn't 22 pool that recommendation. I know a lot of them are 23 grandfathered in, and we're not. So -- 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: But you don't know the 25 percentage of the deductible versus the County's? 7-22-13 bwk 8 1 MS. LANTZ: No, sir. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The City's at 1,500? 3 MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm, yes. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And so this would get us to -- 5 Plan 1200 would get us to -- I mean 1300 would get us -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To 1,500. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: -- to 1,500. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is the same as the City. 9 You can only do what you can afford. It's good to look at 10 comparisons, but you got to figure out whatever -- 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And that's what I'm doing. 12 The City's at 1,500. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On deductible. I'm not sure 14 what other benefits they have; it's a different plan. 15 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is that -- you asked for 17 total cost. Does that deductible apply to families? 18 Children? 19 MS. LANTZ: Family could go -- family would go to 20 4,500, compared to 6,000 right now. So, individual is 15 and 21 family is 45, so we're still decreasing that 6,000 way down 22 to that family coverage. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 24 MS. LANTZ: Everything else will stay the same, our 25 prescription program. The only thing that's going to change 7-22-13 bwk 9 1 in this plan is the deductible. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I support making that 3 change at this point, subject to whatever the final numbers 4 come out -- 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree. 6 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we have an agenda item that we 8 need to come back to that we're going to need to take formal 9 action on, because without a special meeting, we won't be 10 able to consider the matter again. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Inasmuch as they want our response 13 by August the 8th. 14 MS. LANTZ: August 6th. And it's because we are 15 starting our new calendar year in October. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right. 17 MS. LANTZ: So -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm willing to go with that, as 19 long as -- long as we got the money to do it. It'll sure 20 help the employees; I know that. That's sometimes better 21 than a raise. 22 MS. LANTZ: And as far as our supplemental, I 23 believe that's on there as well. I've heard there's very 24 slight changes, and it's going to be in our voluntary life. 25 I believe it's going to go up slightly, but it's no cost to 7-22-13 bwk 10 1 the County; that will be to the employees. So, other than 2 that, they're going to -- our basic costs are going to remain 3 the same under the voluntary supplement insurances that we 4 have. Any other questions? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: We good? Good on the middle item? 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to the third item on 8 the workshop agenda; review and discuss fiscal year 2013-14 9 requests for additional personnel, review and discuss 10 compensation for department heads and individual employee 11 compensation and other individual increases not mandated by 12 current policy. Review and discuss changes or additional 13 step and grade schedule and restructuring departments. Now, 14 we've still got the MGT thing out there that's pending. It's 15 not specifically focused on salaries; it's focused more on 16 uniformity of classification and so forth. What I have 17 proposed in the budget as it now stands is that all 14's be 18 upgraded to 15's. The 14's, as you know, are the lowest 19 grade that we have, and under current -- current situation, 20 it may well be that some of those employees are eligible for 21 public assistance. I'm proposing that all 14's -- and 22 this will -- there's some in Road and Bridge; there are some 23 in most all of the clerical positions that are within our 24 organization. Do we have any out at Animal Control, any 25 14's? 7-22-13 bwk 11 1 MS. FEGENBUSH: I don't believe so. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I know we've -- there's a -- there's 3 a number that we have. We've got several in the County 4 Clerk's office. 5 MS. HARGIS: Tax Assessor's office. We're getting 6 you that list. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 8 MS. HARGIS: We're getting the list. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many employees total? 11 MS. HARGIS: We've got it right here. I didn't 12 total the employees, to be honest with you. Road and Bridge 13 is on the top, and they're spread out. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Did you get one, Cheryl? 15 THE CLERK: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Say one more time, why -- why 17 go from a 14 to a 15 as the minimum? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: To upgrade our -- our salary 19 schedule. If you'll check those 14 classifications, they're 20 -- they're pretty low paid, and we presently have some in 21 there that would presently qualify for public assistance. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Mm-hmm. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: At 14. They may also at 15, but 24 they're a little closer to being out of the woods at 15 than 25 they are at 14. 7-22-13 bwk 12 1 MS. HARGIS: Some of the things on this list are 2 not the 14's to 15's. Please note if it doesn't say "14 to a 3 15" on the side, that's not -- these are just requests. So, 4 you've got a block of them in -- you've got some in Road and 5 Bridge, some in the County Clerk's office, is the first one. 6 The next one down would be the Tax Assessor's office. And 7 then on the last page, County Clerk, records management, and 8 then the Sheriff has a few. So, only the 14's to 15's. 9 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And so the total going through 10 all those departments -- 11 MS. HARGIS: The total is the total of all the 12 requests, not the total of the 14's to 15's. 13 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right, and that total is 14 125,000. 15 MS. HARGIS: For all the requests, yes. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: That's what I'm saying, for 17 all the department -- all the requests. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is the -- I guess the 19 percentage to get -- I think I know the answer -- from a 14.2 20 to a 15.2? 5 percent? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: 5 percent. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 5 percent. 23 MS. HARGIS: Yeah, in order to them move them up to 24 a 15, it's 5. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it doesn't make any 7-22-13 bwk 13 1 difference what it is; it's just 5 percent, as long as it 2 keeps the same grade? 3 MS. HARGIS: Yes. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Keep the same step number, just move 5 them up one complete grade. 6 MS. HARGIS: It's pretty minimal. If you consider 7 the level of the steps that we're looking at, it's 1,000, 8 1,200 a year, most of them, so it's about 2,400 an employee. 9 So -- 10 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And so what -- and I 11 understand what you said, Judge, but what prompted this 12 request? Just, I mean, other -- 13 MS. HARGIS: Thirty-three -- there's 33. 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Huh? 15 MS. HARGIS: There's 33 people. I wanted to answer 16 that question. There were 33 people. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 18 MS. HARGIS: I'm going to let him answer that. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: What prompted the request was that 20 when you look at salary levels for the type of personnel and 21 the skill levels that these personnel have, I think it's -- 22 number one, in comparable -- in comparable employment, either 23 within our organization or outside of our organization, it 24 needs to be upgraded. I'll give you an example of you've got 25 a lot of clerk positions in the County Clerk's office that 7-22-13 bwk 14 1 are 14's. Your comparable level position in the District 2 Clerk's Office are all 15's. Skill levels are essentially 3 pretty much the same. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: But -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Why -- why has this occurred? Well, 6 apparently a few years ago, I think we had some 14's in the 7 District Clerk's Office, and we got rid of them up there. 8 Why we didn't do it in the County Clerk's office, you know, 9 it didn't happen. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And the reason it 11 didn't happen that year was -- and I don't know if it lasted, 12 but there was a reduction in personnel, total, for that 13 office. The problem when we do those -- that's one of the 14 reasons I wanted the reclass -- to relook at classifications, 15 because we do those things and then we forget, and then three 16 years later -- I'm not saying we did or didn't do it, but 17 three years later, we hire another person 'cause they need 18 more staff, and all of a sudden, you've kind of gone 19 backwards -- or I won't say backwards; it's not fair. So 20 that's what I think the classification study looks at to make 21 sure people are paid comparable throughout offices. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. And that would be a 23 neat thing to have that classification study completed, but 24 that's not compatible with our schedule. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it is. I think we can 7-22-13 bwk 15 1 still wait. This is more informational. At this point, I 2 think we don't have to make that decision. We have -- you 3 know, we're going to get it in about the first week of 4 August? 5 MS. LANTZ: Actually, I received an e-mail, and 6 we're going to get a preliminary draft of the classification 7 recommendations today. So -- 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We'll have them before we 9 finalize. 10 MS. LANTZ: Then that will be brought up to the 11 Court to look at. 'Cause I did e-mail Mark Carpenter to see 12 where we stood right now, because I knew these proceedings 13 would be happening. So -- 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, I think it's -- you 16 know, look at that at the same time. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And see if there was really -- 19 you know. Yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. This is -- I got you. 21 All right. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: That document, the recent document 23 that you were given also includes, in addition to the -- all 24 14's to 15's, it includes other requests for individuals, be 25 they department heads or other employees, that the department 7-22-13 bwk 16 1 head has requested for a particular employee. A lot of those 2 are denominated "educational increase." There are some 3 Commissioners Court orders dealing with educational 4 increases, and the degree to which some of those conform to 5 that policy is something, I think, that has to be looked at. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Longevity plays into some of 7 that, right? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, those -- longevity is 9 mandated. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: And so these are not any that fall 12 under the longevity policy. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. But that does 14 increase the bottom line in the budget. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah, sure it does. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That was my point. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely, yeah. Now, to be able 18 to tell you as we sit here right now, I don't have it in 19 front of me. The Auditor may. The total amount in fiscal 20 year 2013-14 that are attributable to education -- the 21 longevities, you don't have that available? 22 MS. HARGIS: No. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Some of them come in at different 24 times of the year. And -- 25 MS. HARGIS: They're on their anniversary dates. 7-22-13 bwk 17 1 They are included already in the salaries that we have, 2 because those are automatic. So, that's the only portion of 3 the salaries that we have -- have changed, unless there were 4 some that we felt that -- you know, that should be 5 considered. But those -- mostly it's just longevity. As you 6 recall, I don't put the salary increases in until you approve 7 them, and then we hit the line items. It's too -- too 8 detailed to do that each time. But there are other requests 9 on here that you can see moving people up that the Court 10 needs to consider. Anything that doesn't say -- like, if we 11 could start -- Road and Bridge had two; one up, one down. 12 So, we basically made that one, because there's -- there's no 13 increase in salary there. On the second page, the first 14 three items for your consideration. Then on the Maintenance 15 Department, those are all requests. Justice of the Peace are 16 all requests. County Attorney's got two requests. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the J.P.'s, I'm confused. 18 Is it the J.P. increases or constable increases? 19 MS. LANTZ: Constables. 20 MS. HARGIS: The constables have requested an 21 increase. 22 MS. LANTZ: And that may fall under the education, 23 Jonathan, under court order, so that's why that's -- 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I couldn't hear you, Dawn. 25 MS. LANTZ: On those, that is listed under the 7-22-13 bwk 18 1 court order for education increases, so that's why those 2 requests were -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: At least two of them are, 4 apparently. 5 MS. LANTZ: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll come back and review that 7 one later. 8 MS. HARGIS: I think the education needs to be 9 reviewed, and also, those are elected officials, which I 10 don't think fall under the guidelines of the court order. 11 Those are only employees. And, again, the County Attorney 12 has two requests on two of his employees. And then on the 13 next page, there's one in the -- in the jail, and then the 14 Treasurer has asked for an increase. And the Judge is asking 15 for the two increases in Human Resources. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: You recall there was a part-time 17 person in that office up until this year. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 19 MS. HARGIS: We do have hers. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. Whoever put this 21 together, this is good. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the Auditor's staff that did 23 that. 24 MS. HARGIS: We try to keep up with it for you as 25 the requests come in. And, again, these are -- we do have a 7-22-13 bwk 19 1 bulk line item for 14's to 15's in the budget currently. We 2 do not have these other requests. This is up to the Court -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 4 MS. HARGIS: -- on these other requests. So, I 5 would -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the -- 7 MS. HARGIS: -- appreciate those as quickly as 8 possible, though, so we know how to see where we are in the 9 budget. I have for each of you -- 10 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Jeannie, let me ask you a 11 question. 12 MS. HARGIS: Just a second. 13 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Where you show a total of 14 125,000 -- 15 MS. HARGIS: Okay. Just a second, Tom. This is a 16 copy of the capital as it stands today. And then I went to 17 school, and that's dangerous, so I gave you a little table of 18 the average over the last -- over five years of every 19 department, and then underneath there is a graph of every 20 department. More paper. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Here you go, okay. Now, your 22 question, Commissioner Moser? 23 MS. HARGIS: Road and Bridge is a separate 24 department. 25 COMMISSIONER MOSER: My question, on the hundred -- 7-22-13 bwk 20 1 where show you a total of all of 125,000 -- 2 MS. HARGIS: No, that's on Fund 10 only. 3 COMMISSIONER MOSER: What? 4 MS. HARGIS: Fund 10 only. Road and Bridge is a 5 separate entity to itself. 6 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Well, I'm asking you -- 7 MS. HARGIS: Yes, that is Fund 10. 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Let me ask my question. 9 MS. HARGIS: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Of the 125,000, that's a total 11 of what? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: It's a total of the difference 13 between what they're making today. 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: But just for -- 15 MS. HARGIS: For the people for these requests. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And then on the next two 17 pages, you have another total of 109,000, so help me 18 understand. 19 MS. HARGIS: That's 14's to 15's. 20 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Those are only 14's to 15's? 21 MS. HARGIS: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Got you. 23 MS. HARGIS: And that includes everyone. So, the 24 bulk of the increase is the 14's to 15's. 25 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 7-22-13 bwk 21 1 MS. HARGIS: We did this -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Road and Bridge has a separate tax 3 rate. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah, got you. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: So, they're carried separately on 6 Page 1. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 8 MS. HARGIS: Keep in mind, about -- what was it, 9 three years ago? -- we took all the 13's to 14's trying to 10 equalize our system, and we still are a little bit behind 11 there. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I gather from what Commissioner Letz 13 said a little bit ago, he would like to digest and 14 incorporate whatever study results come back with what he's 15 looking at on this summary that includes all these requests. 16 And without -- you've got half of the package now, but you 17 need the other half, right? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Based upon that, it puts us in a 20 position of maybe not being able to go forward on the 21 workshop any further today, but rather take that up at a time 22 after we have the study information. Is that what I'm 23 hearing? 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Or unless you say, "Yea, 25 verily," contingent on. This is going to be -- you're 7-22-13 bwk 22 1 looking for a budget request that you'll make, so you put 2 this in. We'll still have an opportunity, after we get the 3 other -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely. You'll have an 5 opportunity up until the last moment -- 6 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: -- to change anything in the budget 8 which I file. You certainly will. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Going back to the 10 first page for Road and Bridge, the first group in the box 11 are the 14's to 15's, correct? 12 MS. HARGIS: Yes, except for -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Except for the last one? 14 MS. HARGIS: -- that last one. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The second list there, there 16 appears to be an increase. What is that? Is that just a 17 requested increase from Len? 18 MS. HARGIS: No, I think that was just -- James did 19 the 2.5 down there, and probably didn't mean to print that 20 off. 21 MR. ROBLES: Some of those people in the bottom are 22 admin. Those that -- 23 MS. HARGIS: But you're not changing any 14's to 24 15's or anything of that nature. 25 MR. ROBLES: Not on the bottom, no. 7-22-13 bwk 23 1 MS. HARGIS: The bottom one, I think, was just to 2 see what the 2.5 was. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that's -- so that's really 4 not -- kind of not part of this, okay. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So that was just for -- 6 MS. HARGIS: Just for accounting purposes. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Thanks. 8 MS. HARGIS: So we'd know what the number was to 9 make sure it was correct. 10 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. So, we can -- we can 11 sort of forget that. 12 MS. HARGIS: "X" out that. Keep in mind, when we 13 put these totals, they include retirement, salary, 14 everything, so it's the total cost. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And just going back, you know, 16 to just make sure I understand, Road and Bridge has a 17 two-point -- the bottom group has a 2.5 percent increase if 18 that was to happen. The first group's a 14 to 15 change. 19 But if we were to give a two and a half percent -- 20 COMMISSIONER MOSER: COLA. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- increase, COLA, those people 22 would not get the COLA; they would just get the step 23 increase? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: No, that would not be the intent of 25 a COLA. 7-22-13 bwk 24 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So the COLA would be another 2 two and a half percent on top of the number that's listed 3 here? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: These individual considerations are 7 individual considerations. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, the -- okay. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Earned or acquired separately and 10 apart from a COLA. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The idea would be that if you 12 gave an increase anywhere, they are given first, and then the 13 COLA's put on top of that? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I just want to make sure 16 we're all on the same page. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we as far as we can go 18 right now? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so. Now, where are -- 20 what are these other things that were handed out? 21 MS. HARGIS: Okay. The green sheet that's on the 22 top is -- is taking each department from 2009 forward. The 23 first three years are actual numbers. The fourth year, which 24 is the current year we're in, is an estimated number, and 25 then the budget. And then you've got the average of all 7-22-13 bwk 25 1 those years on the side. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is for capital? 3 MS. HARGIS: No, that's for just regular budgeting. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Total budget, Fund 10. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER MOSER: She's looking at trends. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: First three columns; actual, 9 estimated is Column 6, and Column 7 is budget requests. 10 MS. HARGIS: It's just a trend analysis so you can 11 see, and the graphs are providing you with the same data. 12 Commissioner Moser had asked for some of this, so we came up 13 with it, and we wanted all of you to have it. And it's a 14 pretty interesting trend that we have actually decreased 15 since our 2009 level. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Is there a chart in here for 17 overall county? Or is this just by -- 18 MS. HARGIS: By department. 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could you do an overall -- 21 MS. HARGIS: We can do an overall. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd be interested to see that. 23 COMMISSIONER MOSER: It would be -- 24 MS. HARGIS: I'll do an overall. But also, in 25 addition, you -- the second set of paper that -- that's 7-22-13 bwk 26 1 clipped is the capital. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is capital? 4 MS. HARGIS: That's as of today. So, that brings 5 you up to know where we're at on all the different capital 6 issues. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Mm-hmm. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: You ought to be able to digest that 9 in an afternoon, shouldn't you, Commissioner Letz? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Might take two. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it possible -- I know it's 13 possible; let me rephrase that. I would like to see a -- go 14 back to a little bit of what we used to do before on capital 15 accounts, that we had a specific list of all the increase -- 16 whatever the purchases are going to be for the year, capital 17 items. Granted, it's going to come out of some of these 18 accounts on this page, but, you know, it used to be that we 19 knew that it was a separate -- Road and Bridge had a summary; 20 he was going to buy a maintainer for $112,000, kind of a line 21 item. As opposed to technology in here; there's a balance of 22 $420,000, which is part of that four-year plan, three-year 23 plan, whatever that plan was. But I'd like to see a list of 24 what each department is planning on buying this year. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: You're talking about proposed 7-22-13 bwk 27 1 capital acquisitions for 2013 and '14? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Proposed to take out of the 4 remaining balance. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but line item by item. 6 And I don't mean every computer. If you're going to buy, you 7 know, 20 computers, put 20 computers. 8 MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. I have a list for I.T. 9 ready. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 11 MS. HARGIS: We don't have too many of those that 12 are remaining. And then the -- of course, the Ag Barn is 13 just that amount of money. You've got the volunteer fire 14 station. Some of those are just, you know, locked in. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, it's a better -- will 16 give me a better check on things, like I know we -- 17 there's -- the Taurus we approved earlier is coming out of 18 these funds. And, you know, which is a good use of it, and 19 it's just a matter that -- but we need to technically, in my 20 mind, have a car purchase for the courthouse in our budget. 21 I mean, we did and we didn't. It's 'cause we started doing 22 three-year capital budgeting versus annual, and I'd like to 23 see what the -- I'd like to go back to annual on 24 expenditures. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: The proposed capital expenditures or 7-22-13 bwk 28 1 requests for this coming budget year, yeah. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And which one of those 4 they're coming out of. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 6 MS. HARGIS: There are no capital requests, other 7 than one in -- in Fund 10, and that is for the Extension 8 Office to repair the kitchen, and that's the only capital 9 item in Fund 10. And then -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- 11 MS. HARGIS: -- the rest of it's coming out of this 12 money. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I want to know where we are 14 with this money. 15 MS. HARGIS: Yeah, we'll do that. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I want to know what he's doing 17 with his $400,000, with what we have left over or earmarked 18 for that. And -- you know, and we probably need to have that 19 broken out for the term that we were -- 20 MR. TROLINGER: I do. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- allocated. I know he's got 22 it; I'd just like to get that all on one document so that we 23 can follow, because we did some -- well, we're buying -- 24 doing three years at a time or four years at a time, some of 25 our capital purchases and budgeting that way, which has been 7-22-13 bwk 29 1 very helpful, but it's just -- I lose track. 2 MS. HARGIS: They're all sticking to the original 3 plan, so all I have to do is pull from it, each one. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we as far as we can go 6 for now? You got anything further? 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: No. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I will adjourn the workshop, and I 9 will reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting. 10 (Workshop was adjourned at 11:46 a.m.) 11 - - - - - - - - - - 12 13 STATE OF TEXAS | 14 COUNTY OF KERR | 15 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 16 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 17 official reporter for the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 18 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 19 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 26th day of July, 2013. 20 21 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 22 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 23 Certified Shorthand Reporter 24 25 7-22-13 bwk