Travis County Commssioners Court
August 19, 2003
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Items 5 & A.2
Now going back to number 5, consider and take appropriate action on advertisement for elected officials salaries. And also, let's call up, a 2, which is to consider and take appropriate action on request to increase Travis County judicial salaries. Okay?
>> just as background, every year, Commissioners court goes through a process to come to a conclusion on elected officials' salaries. A few years ago, you established citizens committee on elected officials salaries. In the springtime, the court concluded not to have that group meet or [indiscernible] because of the budget issues the court was facing. In response to that you have an advertisement that in essence articulates what all elected officials were actually paid in fy '03. You have to break that down into two parts because the first half of '03 elected officials received one amount and in the second half of '03 a number of elected officials, but not all, received an increase based on actions that the court took or the fy '03 budget. The law requires a public display of what officials all actually received and then what the proposed receipt of resources or compensation that those officials received in the upcoming year. You will see that -- that any advertisement, the proposed change from the current annualized salary would be zero. In accordance with -- with actions that the court took in spring. You have another proposal that the auditor has identified opportunity for the court to make a different set of conclusions than what is in the add and I think -- what is in the ad and I think that's a part of the add-on. But this that in essence sets the predicate for where we are today.
>> question, we do have a proposed something as a starting point. This has -- that these things were salaries through September 31st of '03 and then there's a reference to September 31st in footnote 7, I just remember 30 days hath September, if we can fix that.
>> yes, there is an error in that. Scribner's error. The scribner to your left will correct that.
>> thank you.
>> christian, basically, the Travis County general fund moneys no pay increases for any elected officials.
>> is what this add says.
>> now, this add has been submitted to the chronicle, you may remember that last year you concluded to put the ad for elected officials into the chronicle rather than the Austin paper because of -- for cost reasons. This -- this has been ited to the chronicle, it is slated to appear this Friday. Which starts the clock should you -- and they -- should you make any changes, you have until noon today to advise us to what this ad should contain and the chronicle will make whatever changes up through noon.
>> okay.
>> for those who want to receive a copy of this they can contact our planning and budget office or any member of the Travis County Commissioners court. Okay. Now, there are funds available in a special fund pursuant to a state statute that was passed a couple of years back, pursuant to which we did collect fees because of a lawsuit we have been pretty much holding those fees in reserve.
>> yes.
>> and there's a little bit more background that --
>> yes, thank you, judge. If you notice the ads and what is probably less apparent is that because of state law, state district judge's salaries have been flat since fy '99, so for the past five years, district judges, county court at law judges and probate judges and the assistant judges have received no pay raises at all. And the -- the funding for district judges is somewhat complex. Their salaries are paid from a combination of state and local funds. The state sets its portion, which is currently 101,700 for each district judge without regard to the volume of caseload or the cost of living differentials throughout the state of Texas. The state then allows counties to supplement those salaries based on the administrative duties that the judges perform for the county. Just as a point of information, there are roughly 800 employees that are somewhat or totally supervised by the district judges and so this has a significant impact on Travis County and the things that the Commissioners court wants to accomplish. The state law, however, has capped the supplement that counties could give their district judges. The cost of living issues, especially in counties such as travis, has been add by the state, so we have the result of all of their salaries having been frozen since 1998 for the past five years. With bipartisan support from our legislative delegation, representative jack stick and senator gonzalo barrientos sponsored legislation to allow Travis County to address these parity compensation and market issues for judges. Harris county, tarrant county and collin county also got legislation passed for the same reasons and I would suspect in the next session you will see other urban counties coming forth with relief. In the last eight years, since fy '95, district judges have received significantly less in pay raises than county employees have received. The one can he in the county is if no one is getting a raise, would y would district judges and the judiciary get raises. One of the reasons is that everyone, almost everyone has gotten raises during that period of time except for the judges. Just as a fair comparison, had the district judges gotten the average raise of an average county employee, since 1995, the district judges would be at an annual salary of $133,707 instead of the actual current total salary of $11,000 a year. -- $11,000 a year. The -- $110,000. That's what they lost in wages by the state's freezing the amount of money that district judges could get. The parity issues that this addresses, if you look at comparable salaries, the city of Austin, for instance, for their city attorney, in fy '03 pays $134,555 a year. That's 22% higher than the district judge gets paid in Travis County. And those are people that hear cases under district judges. The district attorney for Travis County would the same jurisdiction as our district judges makes $129,537 and that is split between the same amount that the state pays district judges, they pay the district attorney, but they didn't cap the salary of the district attorney and so we have been able to increase the salary of the district attorney, although modestly compared to the city attorney as the cost of living has gone up and we have taken care of the salary market salary needs of other employees in Travis County. Given the state of the economy the judges would never have asked for these salaries to be corrected this year if it meant that property taxes had to be increased to do so or that other programs had to be cut. However as judge Biscoe mentioned, we just received a week ago notice from jim alison who is the general counsel for county judges and Commissioners telling us of a successful resolution of lawsuits based on several fees that counties have been collecting. And one of those fees is a judicial fee. And that judicial fee was intended to supplement judicial salaries. Because we were in a state of litigation, our office deferred the recognition of this revenue for fy '02 and '03 which means that we collected the money and put in it the Travis County coffers, but we did not spend it because if we had lost the lawsuit along with the other I think 56 counties that were filed against, we would have the money to pay back. But we received notice and we confirmed this with the county attorney's office that this money, that this lawsuit is settled and the time for appeal has passed. So right now it is our estimate that we have 521,505 at the end of this fiscal year. We also did not estimate the fee revenue fy '04 for the very same reason. So we estimate that to be $225,000. So the revenue for fy '04 plus the amount of money that we have in hand we estimate to be a total of $746,505. So this money is available to address these very serious parity issues in terms of compensation for district judges, county court at law judges, the probate judge and the associate. Judges. It is difficult to propose any logical argument that would suggest anything other than the district judge should be paid at a level not less than the district attorney who serves the same jurisdiction. It is even more difficult, however, to put forth the argument that district judges should make 22% less than the city attorneys should for the city of Austin. Having said that, there's still the state of the economy. Increasing the district judge's salary at a level that creates parity can be fully covered by the judicial fees with funds left over in fy '04 with no impact on the tax rate or the preliminary budget. The adjudication of cases are -- is a function that only government can do. The adjudication of criminal, civil and probate cases is a critical component of our government. It is a function that only government can perform. It impacts those who are involved in cases as well as those of whose live in this community. It protects those who cannot protect themselves. It is important to all who live in this community if we can recruit and retain quality jurists. We need to be mindful of parity issues in the community to recruit people. I would respectfully ask that the district judges, county court at law judges, probate judge and the assistant judges salaries be increased and use not -- not general fund money or tax money, but money that we got for these judicial fees and are holding for that purpose.
>> so this fee is called what?
>> this is called the judicial fee.
>> and for what purposes might this fee be used?
>> this fee can be used to supplement judicial salaries, the first salaries that need to be supplemented with this fee are the county court at judge at and you fees and anything that is left over can be used for judicial purposes.
>> what assistant county attorney has been looking into this matter? Okay. This is a dedicated fee. That can only be used for --
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> certain judges salaries, is that correct?
>> for use of the judiciary.
>> that's right.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> so use it on roads, to pay for sheriff's deputies, that would be indianapolis appropriate use. -- that would be an inappropriate use. It can only be used for other fees.
>> collects odd a fee, sent over to a comptroller, sent it back, it's sitting in a fund.
>> right.
>> for that purpose forks the needs. Judiciary.
>> we cannot use this fee to supplement salaries of other employees outside of the judiciary, basically.
>> that would be correct.
>> [indiscernible] approved this judiciary fee [indiscernible] 7,465 -- did we post that?
>> the amount in the fund right now through the end of fy '03 is $521,505 $21,505. And then we would estimate next year that we would collect another $225,000, so the total available through fy '04 which we will be certifying in the next revenue estimate will be $746,505.
>> 505.
>> right.
>> okay. So -- so projected revenue for '04 would -- would -- would be there -- what I'm trying to do is look at -- look at the amount of money and then I guess as far as the amount of money that will be paid to -- strictly just the fees and I guess the judiciary fees are there.
>> yes, sir.
>> on an ongoing basis, continued basis, want to make sure that this happening is because I think -- how are we doing it before, before the state of Texas and -- capping this particular salary at 101,700, Travis County I guess will -- is responsible for I guess about $9,300 of that. Total. To make it $111,000.
>> how is that 9300 by Travis County being paid now.
>> we paid that out of the general fund like we do all salaries. So there's nothing in the law that says you cannot use general fund money to compensate the judiciary. But what the state did do is say to assist counties in that, they assessed a judiciary -- judicial fee. But if there were no judicial fees, there would be nothing stopping you from solving this parity issue, however, to do that, you would have to -- to take money that -- that would be competitive for other programs whereby using this money it was intended for the judiciary.
>> okay.
>> well, I guess my point, though, is that -- is that this judiciary fee, that we are looking at now, -- of course it's not general fund money to begin with.
>> it is not, we deposit it in the general fund, but it is not generated by property taxes.
>> right, by property taxes, right. What I'm trying to figure out here now is --
>> no, sir.
>> to -- general fund --
>> to supplement or salaries of our district judges.
>> no, we do not.
>> I'm just hoping this will continue to be the case because I really am not really supportive of going to the general fund to cap this, but if there is an alternative to deal with it, then, of course, it's something that I can consider. And if that fee is always -- my question next is how do I know that this fee will always be there?
>> the fee, give guess we never --
>> will always have money for us to continue to pay the salaries every year for our district judges, regardless of what Travis County does.
>> had there not been -- lights say the state had not capped and frozen those salaries for five years, let's say that had not been the case. I think a fair statement is that this Commissioners court would have given raises to the judges in the same manner that they did the district attorney, county employees and other elected officials. So county money is appropriately spent on judicial salaries and would have been. The only reason that it didn't happen is the fact that there was this cap from state law. The reason that -- therefore they have got significantly behind. Not a little bit hyped, but significantly behind other comparable types of public sector jobs. This -- I think it would have been an appropriate request to pay this out of the general fund and have this corrected had this been a good year.
>> right.
>> but it hasn't. So what happened is it was just fortuitous that at this particular time we got money that's appropriate for that. But ongoing, the fee should be providing about -- about 225,000, $250,000 a year, the judicial fee, so we would also have that money to use on judicial salaries.
>> why is that fee generated, how -- [multiple voices]
>> it is a --
>> revenue for the judicial fee --
>> it's attached to criminal and civil filings. So on certain kinds of court cases there is a fee. The fee is assessed and sent to -- these things are complicated, sent to the state of Texas, they send a certain percentage of that back to the counties that participate that charge the fee. Some counties decided not to charge the fee. But this Commissioners court did vote to charge that fee when that fee was enacted, I don't remember exactly when that was. The lawsuit started about two years ago.
>> I remember the lawsuit.
>> it has been our policy, our office's policy to -- to that you are in stable financial condition, if there is a lawsuit regarding money, that we hold on to that money and don't distribute it in the event that the lawsuit is lost, so that we don't have to go into the general fund or increase taxes to pay back money. So that's what we did, that's why we have got it. It was just very good news that this was solved a couple of weeks ago.
>> okay.
>> the fee will be charged until the legislature repeals the legislation?
>> yes, sir, yes.
>> actually, it does have a -- there is an issue about a repealer date.
>> on the fee?
>> no.
>> the fee is okay.
>> no. It's the cap that -- that -- what the legislature, when we testified on this, the legislation allowing us to increase the cap is sunseted in four years. And the chairman of the judiciary committee said he wanted to do that because they were somewhat embarrassed that the state of Texas did not take care of this. He was very hopeful that at least in two legislative sessions the state of Texas would. I mean, those were pretty much his words.
>> there's a little unsettled issue in that historically the county had contributed $10,000 the state simply would have reduced its contribution by the same amount.
>> yeah.
>> that's right, judge.
>> we thought that had been clarified, but maybe not. How do we deal with that issue?
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ... The raises be effective October schlapper but in a that I do not distribute that in the paycheck until we get a response from the attorney general. So if that response would indicate that if we pay them more, the state of Texas pays them less, then we would hold our supplement at $9,300. But if the attorney general opinion came favorable to us, and we are hopeful that it will, then we will bring that back to October 1 and I will distribute that in their paychecks. The judges are very amenable to that. Are not under any; pay money the state of Texas would pay nor do they want money to the a.g.'s opinion. That is clearly understood and the intent of this proposal.
>> well, that can be part of the motion.
>> yes, exactly.
>> we think there's agreement on that too.
>> yeah.
>> and I guess whatever possible legal hurdles there are, john -- john? Whatever possible potential legal hurdles there are, if there's agreement by the judges that basically Commissioners court would authorize this pending the outcome of this little -- determination of this little gray area.
>> if you want to make the motion based on the condition that the auditor has just laid out and I was talking with the district judge that they can draft their affidavits to draft around that problem as well, that may solve the problems. You don't have the difficulties with other elected officials' salaries -- with the district judges, you don't have the same as with other elected salaries.
>> before we get a motion before us, is there anybody else who wants to give comments on this? If so, please come forward.
>> I would like to say on behalf of the district judgees --
>> taking care of the issues that come before them and being very much aware of constituents who come before you will treat them very, very well. Fairly, constitutionally.
>> in terms of a motion that I hope to be putting forward in a moment here, I think this will help us right an incredible wrong that I think has occurred within our judiciary. These district judges were promise understand the last legislative session they would get raises if there was money in the state budget. And lo and behold we get to the second year of last year's biennium and there is no money. They have been strung along and that is why we went to the legislature to see if we could increase our supplement, and we were not the only urban county to do this. I think judge dietz gave a very eloquent discussion of what is justice in Travis County and it starts at the top in terms of the quality and the -- everything, in terms of the ethics and the conduct of our judges. We are so blessed in terms of the criminal and civil judges who choose to serve on our behalf. And there's just one more point I want to bring up. Susan brought up what city of Austin pays their city attorney. They are paying their police oversight monitor, again, an attorney brought into a very special position, they are paying their oversight monitor $120,000 a year. #- thousand dollars less than what we pay our -- $9,000 less than what we pay our judges.
>> more.
>> it's just -- it's overdo and I'm happy to make a motion at whatever point we get to it.
>> before we take that motion, I have a question. Susan, I guess have we had a record of the revenue coming in with the criminal, the fines and the fees on the criminal and civil cases to suggest that this appears to be a steady stream of income or revenue coming in to satisfy this particular request that we're dealing with this morning? Has that been a suggested -- i've got to be real cautious on what we do.
>> sure. The revenue --
>> because it will cost -- if the revenue stream doesn't pay for itself type scenario, pay for itself, I have no problem with things like that. But I do have problems with rash kheting things up and the money is not there and we then have to go to the property taxpayers and say, look, this is what's happened. This is the reason why we have to do this and this is the reason your taxes are going to increase based on this. This is what I'm staying to stay away from as much as possible. What I'm trying to do, those things that pay for themselves, the revenue stream is there, I have no problem with that. And I think everybody can understand that type of scenario, especially in the economic tough time we're in right now. It's because of those [inaudible].
>> the money that we have now, the money that we will get in '04 and the money we will get in '05 will totally cover those without any supplements from general fund.
>> okay.
>> from then on what we get is we're estimating if files go up, we'll get more, if filings decrease, it could go down slightly, but the revenue stream is roughly $225,000 a year. By '06, hopefully the economy has somewhat turned around. You have not been considering raises last year or this year for most county employees. It is my contemplation that in '05 you might and that raises might be paid out of the general fund. So I think these two tight years, there's no question that we've got enough money right now and the money contemplated to come in in '04 and '05, which we consider to be very tight years, that you can pay these without increasing taxes to do that. Ongoing we'll get $225,000 a year.
>> okay. So for this particular request for the district judges that we'll be receiving, the adjustment, and I think that's very well necessary and deserved, how much would that be?
>> it depends on --
>> in other words, how much --
>> Commissioner, it depends on what you aproof and when you make it effective. That's what it --
>> this is a p.b.o. Question perhaps. If,.
>> the auditor's letter suggests a two-step, two-year increase. 10,000 in '04, 10,000 in '05. The auditor's letter suggests the total cost in '04 would be within a dollar of $274,000 annually. And that in '05 it would be a few dollars over 600,000 annually.
>> which would include both years.
>> which would include both years. So you would then -- the proposal -- the auditor's letter suggests with data that the right salary is $131,000. The auditor's letter suggests a two-step process to move that 10,000 in '04 and 10,000 in '05 to bring it to 131 in '05. That annual cost is just slightly over 600,000. And the auditor is correct that there is sufficient resources in the general fund as a result of this money being held to pay for that in '04 and '05. What would happen in '06, it would be part of the target budget for the civil courts and it would be a part of the ongoing salaries, which means you would have an income stream that would definitely partially offset it.
>> and the understanding is this is a dedicated type of fee which can only be used just for the judges and for no other --
>> for the judiciary.
>> it's not exactly correct. What -- we're saying it can be used for that. Here's the exact wording. It's can be used for court-related purposes for the support of the judiciary. So that could include -- I mean, it could include pay increases for their law clerks or bay lives. It's the supporting of the judiciary, but the only thing being requested now is the judiciary.
>> anything related to the judiciary.
>> anything related to the judiciary. That's a fact question. It can often be a fact question, but the only thing presented to you just now is just the elected district judges. I think district judges -- what was your proposal?
>> district judge.
>> county court at law judge.
>> and the reason they are all included is that they are all tagged by law. So when the district judges could not get a raise, the county court at law judges didn't get a raise and the probate judge did not get a raise, and the assistant judges did not get a raise, the associate judges. So what happened is all of our judiciary, while we were in an extremely booming economy and people were getting raises here at the city of Austin and throughout our economy, these people got nothing. Because of that [inaudible]. So the whole judiciary has been frozen for five years.
>> it might be what we have before us is '04.
>> yes.
>> exactly.
>> where you have the budgees process this time next year for '05. What's recommended is 10,000 increase for district judgees, 10,000 for county court at law judges, $1,029 for the associate judges. There's six of them. And there's another category of associate judge where the increase recommended is 881.
>> right.
>> is part of this proposal and I guess the district judges have agreed to set the associate judges' salary at 75% of the district judges full salary?
>> they have.
>> is that what we're asked to consider today? Is there a motion?
>> yes, and judge, I just want to just take slight I hope improvement in terms of what the auditor is trying to move forward t. Judges have been waiting for five years and rather than doing this over a two-year period, that's what happens a lot of time and I would like to get this to happen in two phase, but to happen over this fiscal year, not next. So my motion would be that I would move pursuant to the authority granted in house bill 2402, that Travis County will pay its district judges a salary supplement in the amount of $19,300 effective 10-1-03, and 29,300 effective April 1st of '04. That's six months apart in terms of these bumps. These market increases will be over and above the statement payment appropriated by the legislature for their fiscal year '04 and '05, and are intended to increwes the overall salaries of the district judges and not to reduce Texas. Should there be an attorney general's opinion that the controller must reduce the state portion as a result of the Travis County supplement, the supplement will be reduced back to $9,300 while the issues involving house bill 2402 are resolved. As required by the government code, the salary of the probate judge would be set with this same motion at the same amount received by the district judges including supplements received by the district judges in fiscal year '04 and '05. The salaries for the county court at law judges would be equal to the salary paid by the state and exactly $1,000 less than the annual salary including the supplements received by the district judges in fiscal year '04 and '05. The district judges set the salaries of the associate judges and this motion is to include funding for salaries for full-time associate judges, not to exceed 75% of the total salary of district judges including supplements. And I would also include in the motion that the appropriate changes be made in the ad that needs to go into the newspaper, and that appropriate footnote be added that says the source of this revenue is a judicial fee and not general fund property tax revenues.
>> second.
>> let me make sure I understand because I think you just lost me and my vote.
>> I'm happy to --
>> what i've been looking at and what I said makes sense was increase the district judge about 10,000. So you are recommending --
>> 10,000 now, yes, sir. See, right now we're already paying 9300, so to add 10,000, that's the 19,300 figure. That is to talk about the entire supplement.
>> but you've got another 10 coming in April 1.
>> rather than next October 1.
>> I disagree with that.
>> okay.
>> the 10,000 makes all the sense in the world to me because the district judges have been waiting. We have not been increasing their salaries because of state law. We took the initiative to go through the legislature in having the state law changed. This is a judicial fee, and john's interpretation is a little broader than I knew before today. I think that a $20,000 increase in '04 during these times is unacceptable and I will vote against it.
>> so in terms of -- judge, I'm just trying to get --
>> may I --
>> -- a friendly. Would it be friendly if the second supplement is effective 10-1?
>> no, ma'am. It would be friendly in our budget process, look at the judges at that point. Today we're looking at '04. We're not even committing to anything but buildings. And if we could build them all in '04, we would probably do it. My commitment is $10,000 increase for the district judges, county court at law judges, probate judge for the reasons stated today. This is all have I heard up until today. In my view, the justification is the judges have waited five years and we real have I been in a bad position to help them. Every time we give them a dollar, the state would reduce its contribution by a dollar so we never wanted to substitute a Travis County fee for a state budget. This gives us the opportunity to basically supplement the judges' salary and that is what I think we ought to do.
>> i'll second that motion, judge.
>> well, I'm happy to adjust my motion if that's what's going to -- what it's going to take to get --
>> may I assuage maybe a little bit of court, and that is since this arose last week, i've been in communication with all of the county court at law judges and the probate judge and the 16 district judges. We really do suggest that we do it in the $10,000 increment. Commissioner Sonleitner, we're certainly appreciative of your sentiments, but given the state of what's going on, I think anything larger than the 10,000 would be just untenable, especially since we're not in the position to really adequately compensate other deserving employees of Travis County, and while we appreciate it, we would really suggest what the county judge suggests.
>> that's why I seconded the motion.
>> I still have a motion on the floor that I'm listening to friendlys and it is extraordinarily friendly as the county judge suggests that we look at the 10,000 now, and I'm happy to change my motion to be in the amount of 19,300 effective 10-1-03, and that's where the period would end in my motion.
>> to clarify, can you withdraw the first one and just -- is that okay?
>> sure.
>> withdraw the first motion and restate the motion.
>> restate the motion that will pay district judge aes salary supplement in the amount of 19,300 effective 10-1-03, period.
>> just adding 10,000 to the 9,000 plus we're already doing.
>> yes, sir. And there are references here related to physical year '04 and '05 because the state budget does not have the same years we do. When we talk about those years, it's to cover the legislative term '04, '05. We're not newscasting about anything -- -- not talking about --ly consider that a friendly change.
>> [multiple voices]
>> of the attorney general --
>> the rest of the motion stays the same.
>> the way your motion is is different than the auditor presented it. Your motion is phrasing it it begins October 1 no matter what. She was offering to hold the money in escrow until the opinion came in.
>> the rest of the motion stays the same.
>> should there be a attorney general's opinion that the controller must reduce as a result the supplement will be reduced to 9,300 while issues involving house bill 2402 are resolved.
>> that means starting October 1 they are going to get the pay. That's the way I understood the motion.
>> and we are saying --
>> they won't be delivered --
>> right, they will not.
>> until the a.g. Has declared it.
>> we may get that before year end, but we may not.
>> and the judges are in agreement with that and will evidence the agreement in a manner satisfactory to legal counsel.
>> until we get a favorable attorney general's opinion in in the county, we don't believe is authorized to spend those moneys for [inaudible]. And up until that time that the attorney general tells the comptroller that the comptroller will not reduce the salary by whatever supplement, at that time then we believe the county would be in a position to supplement our salaries.
>> it would be effective October 1, but we would hold the money pending the a.g.'s opinion.
>> you made reference to a footnote.
>> yes.
>> well, I do think the footnote ought to make reference to the source of funding.
>> I have language that you wanted to offer.
>> see, we also have a whole lot of footnotes here. I'm not sure all of them are necessary, but if you find space and can still include them, it's fine with me.
>> we are overfootnoting, I understand that.
>> we are becoming a footnote conscious Commissioners court.
>> do you wish to give directions the the county attorney to reduce the footnotes wherever possible?
>> we need to reduce the footnotes enough to make space for this.
>> you don't have to reduce them to do that, you just make print sizes.
>> just change the font size.
>> I'm already having a hard time reading that.
>> if there is any footnote here that any member of the Commissioners court does not want to have in the ad, it can be taken away. None of the footnotes are legally required. Therefore, it's just what people on the court over the years have felt was important to let the public know, and so tell me if anything in here is no longer important and we'll pull it out.
>> I think it's very appropriate. [inaudible] judicial and not to impact the property taxes out there that folks are really hollering and screaming about, I think it's a very appropriate footnote.
>> I'm not saying we should -- I'm saying if there is anything in 1 through 7 you would like the see removed, i'll be glad to remove it because there's no legal reason it has to be there.
>> we say some things in three or four sentences when half a sentence would do.
>> okay.
>> that's where I would go. If you make one line so we identify the source of funding for these increases, I'm happy as far takes county judge.
>> that one line would be, these increases in '04 will be paid from revenues set aside and generated by judicial fees.
>> right. There you go.
>> works for me.
>> Commissioner Daugherty?
>> well, judge, I appreciate your comments, and I think that is reasonable and I think this community would be appreciative of that. Although, I will say that I would -- have been very inclined to support the original motion because I think what people are afraid of is that if you don't really commit to it, you know, next year you all don't get it. And I will tell you that I think that this is appropriately put together. I think that it was put together that the fee was put together for the purpose of taking care of the judiciary. And, you know, I'm perfectly happy to do the 10,000, but I will tell you that I'm just as supported I have of you resting assured that next year I'm going to feel the same way. I mean the money is in the account. It doesn't affect the ad valorem taxes which, as everybody knows, that probably is key to my thinking. And so I'm comfortable with that. But I do think that this is the better way to couch it, but I think that you can look forward to my support again next year for the same thing. Thanks.
>> anything further? My vote next year must be earned. And before the end of this budget process, if there is money sitting there that we can use for legal purposes, my inclination would be to look at it. Now, whether or not we use it is another matter. Any more discussion? All in favor of the motion with all the different clarifications, footnotes, et cetera? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you all. Thank you, judge.
>> that does it for 5 and a-2. Part of that question also was to go ahead and place the ad. Was that in the motion?
>> I know exactly what to put in the ad. It will appear on Friday.
>> you will pick that up. We don't need to add or do anything in addition?
>> do we need this?
>> with the change -- move that the ad be posted in 5 to pick up a-2 also. Favor? That passes by unanimous vote. You have funding for that already, don't you, christian? Funding for the ad?
>> yes, sir.
Last Modified: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 7:52 PM