1	
i^* 2	
3	KERRVILLE CITY COUNCIL
4	and
5	KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
6	City/County Joint Programs Budget Workshop
7	Tuesday, July 31, 2001
8	12:00 noon
9	City Council Chambers
10	800 Junction Highway
11	Kerrville, Texas
12	
r.~ 13	
14	
15	P R E S E N T
16	
	Kerrville City Council:
17	
	STEPHEN P. FINE, Mayor
18	ANN G. SULLIVAN, Mayor Pro Tem
	NANCY BANKS, Place 2
19	DAVID WAMPLER, Place 3
	TONY ROBERTS, Place 4
20	RON PATTERSON, City Manager
	DANE L. TUNE, Assistant City Manager
21	
22	Kerr County Commissioners Court:
23	FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge
	H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
24	WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
	JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
25	LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 9


2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N	D E X	
July	31, 2001	
		PAGE
Call to Order		3
1. Discussion of Joint Budgeted Items	
Fire Protection		g
Emergency Management		20
EMS		22
First Responder		32
216th Judicial District	Drug Task Force	35
Airport		43
Recycling		63
Library		68
Animal Control		75
Tax Collection		78
2. Discussion of other potential Joint Ventures
Municipal Court 79
Garage Services 80
Road Support 82
Common Dispatch 83
Wastewater Treatment 83
Adjourned 86
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Tuesday, July 31, 2001, at 12:00 noon, a joint
meeting of the Kerrville City Council and the Kerr County
Commissioners Court was held at City Council Chambers, 800
Junction Highway, Kerrville, Texas, and the following
proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
MAYOR FINE: No gavel, I have to use
knuckles. I'd like to welcome y'all here today. This is a
very momentous occasion for the citizens of Kerr County.
This is something that probably should happen at least every
millennium.
(Laughter.)
MAYOR FINE: No, actually, it should be
happening every -- every year, at least once a year for
these Lwo governing bodies to get together like they are
today. Not necessarily eating food together, but having a
meeting and discussing their joint budgets. I'd like --
well, first of all, we need to call the meeting to order,
and so I declare the City meeting officially open. You want
to open yours?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I call to order this regular
-- this special meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners
Court. And, on behalf of the Court, I want to extend my
thanks to you, Mayor, and the City Council, the City staff
for organizing this meeting. I agree with you that it's
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
something that's long overdue and something that we need to
make a regular part of our business practices as we work on
behalf of the citizens of Kerr County. Thank you very much.
MAYOR FINE: I'd like to go around the room.
There's a lot of City staff the Commissioners may not be
familiar with; probably not many of them, but there's some
County staff that the Council members are maybe not familiar
with. So, if we can go around and room and just introduce
yourselves. That way we know who we're talking to, also. I
don't see many citizens at large; I think everybody's pretty
much here because they have to be. Sheila, why don't you go
ahead, start first.
MS. BRAND: Okay. I'm Sheila Brand. I'm the
City Clerk for the City of Kerrville.
MS. SOVIL: I'm Thea Sovil, and I'm the Court
Coordinator for Commissioners Court.
MR. LUCAS: Travis Lucas, Assistant County
Attorney, and pretty much advise this crew down here from
time to time.
MR. MOTLEY: I'm David Motley. I'm the County
Attorney.
MR. BROOKS: I'm Brian Brooks, Assistant
Planning Director for the City.
MS. SEKULA: Mary Sekula, Budget and Insurance
Coordinator for the City.
5
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PATTERSON: Ron Patterson, City Manager.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Kyle, you want to --
MR. YOUNG: Kyle Young. I'm the EMS Coordinator
for the Kerrville Fire Department.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Raymond Holloway, the Fire
Chief, City of Kerrville Fire Department.
MR. KNIPPEL: I'm Paul Knippel. I'm Public
Works Director for the City of Kerrville.
MR. ALLEN: Marc Allen. I'm with the Kerr
County Animal Control.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Kevin Laughlin, City Attorney.
MR. MARTINEZ: Antonio Martinez, Library
Director.
MR. DAMS: Jeff Davis, Kerrville Daily Times.
MS. RECTOR: Paula Rector. I'm the County/
City Tax Assessor/Collector.
MS. CAFFALL: Megan Caffall. I'm the
Environmental/Aviation Administrator for the City of
Kerrville.
MS. PRIEST: I'm Ruth Priest, Chairman of the
Airport Board.
MR. TUNE: I'm Dane Tune, Assistant City Manager.
MR. ROBERTS: Tony Roberts, City Council.
MS. BANKS; Nancy Banks, City Council.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bill Williams,
1
1
1
1:
1~
1`
1F
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
			6
1	Commissioner,	Precinct 2.	
2		COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Buster Baldwin,
3	Precinct 1.		
4		JUDGE HENNEKE: Fred Henneke, Kerr County
5	Judge.		
6		COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Jonathan Letz,
7	Commissioner,	Precinct 3.	
8		MR. WAMPLER:	David Wampler, City Council.
9		MS. SULLIVAN:	Ann Sullivan, City Council.
~		COMMISSIONER	GRIFFIN: Larry Griffin,
~	Precinct 4.		
MAYOR FINE: Stephen Fine, Mayor. And we all
talked one at a time. I was warned if we didn't talk one at
a time, she's going to thump us on the head or throw
something at us. We're going to go ahead and let Ron take
it from here and get into it. Please continue to eat and
sit back, relax, and enjoy the show.
MR. PATTERSON: First of all, I'd like to add
my welcome, and also add my thanks for taking your time to
come today and be willing to do this. As the mayor and the
Judge have already alluded to, I think it's an exciting time
for us. One of the things that the Judge and the mayor and
I had an opportunity to meet Friday to talk about this forum
and how we would put it together and what format it would
work in, and we want it to be as informal as possible. Open
1 discussion, as much feedback as possible. And, also -- I
1
1
l:
l:
l~
1`
lE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2 mean, if you need additional items, you know, drinks,
3 whatever, please feel free, you know, just come and go is
4 what we'd like to be able to do.
5 With regard to the structure and the format
6 of the meeting, what I'd like to talk about, first of all,
7 is -- is from Lhe staff perspective and what we've proposed
8 for this meeting. We want to make it clear that the way
9 that we have viewed this process, and in developing the
~ notebook and in developing the information we're going to
give you, is that we view this as the staff is doing just
that; staffing the budget, preparing it, putting our
recommendations together and submitting those to you for
consideration. Again, these are jointly-funded operations.
Therefore, they need joint input, and they also need to have
joint consideration in the final ending with regard to
approval or nonapproval.
One thing I want to make clear is -
- is that
it's very clear with the -- I think the City staff and the
Council and I want to make it clear to you, is that the
staff does not presume that what we present to you is a done
deal. What we present to you is our recommendations and
what. we feel are -- are credible recommendations, we hope.
But, in the end, some of these come down to policy
decisions, and policy decisions are made by the
8
1 Commissioners and the Council. Therefore, if a policy
2 decision says no, we don't want to go that direction, then
3 it doesn't happen. so, again, I just want to make it very
9 clear that we want this to be -- so you understand from the
5 staff perspective that we're doing this, just as we would
6 with the Council, to both parties; that it's just staffing,
7 it's recommendations and issues like that that we want to
8 put in front of you, and -- for consideration today. And,
9 in addition to that, to talk about how we're going to move
10 forward from here.
11 The notebook is broken out into different
12 programs. What we would like to do is attack each one of
.-. 13 those programs individually. What I'm going to do is
l9 introduce each one of those programs. The staff support
15 person who's here with each of those programs will also have
16 a little bit to say about the programs and the
17 recommendations, and then, at the end of that, what we would
18 like to do is just open it up for -- again, as I, said open
19 discussion and consideration on your part. Once wa t.,,-~., ....
20 that item, we'd like to just go to the next one and the next
21 one, and work right through the notebook. And, again, we'd
22 like to use the format, simply because some of these are
23 grouped together, because we've got one or two staff members
.~.
24 who are solely responsible for one or two programs. Once
25 they're complete, I'm going to release them, and they'll be
1
,.~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,~-. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
able to go about doing their business.
Are there any questions before we get
started, or any concerns about how we're going to proceed?
Okay. Let me do this, first of all. The first program,
and Emergency Management. One of the things I would like to
point out to you before we go too much further is, under Tab
2 in your notebooks, there is a spreadsheet, and this
spreadsheet is simply -- the goal of this was to consolidate
all the programs on one page for you. So, you can look at
what Fiscal Year 'O1, our current year of funding, is;
Fiscal Year '02, the proposed, and then what that change
might be for that fiscal year. At the bottom, it also shows
you what the total budget is for those particular programs.
That budget figure is simply there, not to say a certain
portion is in one -- in one bailiwick and another in another
one. It is simply there so that you can see what the total
funds are for that program. Some of those are shared, and
in some cases, some of those dollars are not shared. But,
again, it's just a matter of being able to look at it and
see what those total dollars are.
I'm going to go to Tab 3, which is the Fire
Suppression and Emergency Management. And, what we have on
the screen is nothing more than a very, very abbreviated
version of what you have in your packet. The bottom line
10
1
,~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
..-. 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..-~
25
is -- is that with the Fire Suppression, as you're aware,
there is currently a contract between the City and the
County to provide fire suppression services in and
throughout the county, which includes the Kerrville South
area. That has been in place for in excess of -- I believe
it's 17 years, if I remember right. The Kerrville South
area program hasn't been in place for more than seven years.
I'm having to check my numbers, make sure I'm right here.
The bottom line is that those programs have been up and
running. We feel they've been fairly successful. What
we're faced with today is -- is that the call volume has
increased quite a bit in those areas. One of the things
that we're taking a look at is -- is that we're trying to
enhance our services in the fire service, not only in the
city but in the county, and in addition to that, the other
thing that we're trying to do is, again, look at what our
funding string will be for that in the future.
With that said, one of the things that we
have looked at is a proposed change to the contract, and
that proposed change would total $25,000 for a year, and
that's both for the current contract that has to do with the
entire area, and then as well as amending the area with
regard to Kerrville South. What I'm going to do is I'm
going to ask Chief Holloway to talk to you just for a minute
about some of the numbers, call volumes, that kind of stuff,
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and then one of the things I'd like to do as well is talk to
you a little bit about on the -- on the fire suppression.
In addition to that, the emergency management coordination,
which he will talk about as well. The bottom line is -- is
both of those functions go hand-in-hand with regard to
providing this service. I think a -- a viable example of
that was last year when we had our major fire, we saw that
the emergency management went into play; that stood up, we
said we had the facility up there and running, and it was
going and blowing for 24 hours a day for, I guess -- how
many weeks were we up there, two?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, total, we were there
about two weeks.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Mostly clean-up.
MR. PATTERSON: So, again, it -- it certainly
is a viable program and one that we need. And I'll turn it
over to the Chief for just a minute, and we'll kind of touch
on some of the call volume.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, thank you, Ron. As Ron
was saying, the current fire contract, the $50,000, went
into effect in 1984, and before that it was a per-call
charge. And the problem we got into was, there was a lot of
bickering and fighting. Was this call really -- you know,
should we pay that or not? In 1984, the City Council
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approached the County and said, "We just want to charge a
flat rate, $50,000." And, the -- since that's been in
effect, it hasn't changed at all; in fact, going on 18
years. Then, when the Kerrville South Volunteer Fire
Department went away, the County approached us at that time
and asked if we would cover the Kerrville South area until
another volunteer fire department could be established, and
we said, "Yeah, we can do that." So, we covered it for the
first year with no charge, but we found it was expensive,
and it looked like this was going to go on, and so we put in
a fee of $25,000.
The difference between the two contracts, the
$50,000 covers the entire county, and we are there to assist
the other volunteer fire departments when there's a need, or
if we hear that they're not responding because they're --
the volunteers don't show up, then we'll send a fire truck
out there. The Kerrville South area, that is -- we will
send one truck as a First Responder. If there's a call
comes in for that Kerrville South area, then we will
immediately send a fire truck out there, and it's staffed
with three people. That's the same thing that we send to
the county. Only difference -- I mean, to the rest of the
county. Only difference is there's a delay for that, and
it's usually a call for assistance before we'll send a truck
out there.
13
1
„~- 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2~
One thing that we do that's part of the
contract is that we will -- we cover all motor vehicle
accidents on the interstate, or up and down that area, and
if there's a brush fire, we'll generally send a truck right
away. We -- very seldom do we wait for the County to call
us for a brush -- whether it's a brush fire or a grass fire.
In fact, an example is, this year alone, we made 131
responses in the county. Out of that 131, 43 of those is
First Responder calls. And what is that is, is we send an
ambulance into the county, and if there's not a First
Responder out there to help those individuals, we'll send a
fire truck, just -- you know, we don't send it all the way
out in the county, but within maybe 4 or 5 miles. We did
that 43 times this year already. We've made 31 motor
vehicle accidents, 20 brush fires, and 11 structure calls,
10 vehicle fires. In light of that, most of those calls
were on-duty personnel. We've used about 107 hours of
overtime, and most of those hours -- I think about 40 of
those hours on this house fire we had out here on Harper
Road the other day.
So, what we're looking at, because of the
call volume going up, the equipment is more expensive, cost
of personnel is going up. You know, everything's going up
for our -- for us. And, you look around the county; there's
a lot of homes in the county that are 500,000 to two- or
14
1
,.-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-1 13
14
15
16
17
18
l~
2C
2]
2~
2:
2~
2'
three-million-dollar homes out there that we're having to
cover in Kerrville South area. For that purpose, we feel
like we would like to have an additional $25,000 to help
cover some of our costs. Are there any questions on the
fire suppression part of it?
MR. PATTERSON: One thing, too, to point out,
that with regard to the overall budget, in addition to what
we're requesting from the staff perspective, on the -- the
change in the contract, is in addition to that we're
requesting -- and, again, from Council's perspective to
consider, is that if the base budget goes from about $2.1
million to a little over $2.3 million. And the rationale
for that is -- is that we've got, again, the increases for
salaries, those type things, within the department, and also
the addition of some equipment that we're wanting to bring
online this next year. In addition to that, the other
issues that we've got going are that we would also like to
hopefully, in the future, be able to fund additional
personnel. And right now, we can't add any this year, but
we're hoping that in the next couple of years, to be able to
put some additional personnel online, as well as we're
adding additional equipment.
MR. HOLLOWAY: To add to that, under Senate
Bill 382, which is a -- goes into effect September 1st,
that's a two-in, two-out scenario, which means in the --
15

currently, we can go to a structure fire, and we have two
guys; they go inside of a burning building and they -- they
put the fire out inside. Well, under this new law, they
have to have two guys stand outside in case something
happens to them. So, that means that there has to be at
least four people at that structure before we can even send
people in. And, that's part of the rationale for us going
to have to get additional people in the future. And, if
1710 passes, that's going to -- that's going to require us
to do that, so that will happen a lot sooner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Chief Holloway?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When you make a run
anywhere, county or city, either one, and a -- you go to a
house fire, that's considered a run?
MR. HOLLOWAY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But if you sent two
trucks, is that still considered a run?
MR. HOLLOWAY: That's one. No, that's still
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
lE
1~
2(
2:
2:
2:
2
2
one run.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. HOLLOWAY: In fact, in the city limits,
if it's a structure fire, we send two fire trucks, and we do
I that mostly for manpower.
~ MR. PATTERSON: One of the things, too, that
16
you'll notice -- and, again, with the Sheriff's information
with you, as well, an incident report will show you not only
the incident location and, like, whether it's a structure
fire or not, but also all of the apparatus that were sent.
MR. HOLLOWAY: And people.
MR. PATTERSON: And number of people, as
well. The other thing that we included in the budget, too,
which I don't know if it had been done in the past, was we
also wanted to make sure -- it caused this to be a big
document, but the actual budget document that we submitted
for consideration. In other words, the justifications for
every line item, as well as the summaries. So, what we
wanted to be able to share with you was the exact same
information that we're -- that goes to Council were given to
you, so every line item, on a line-item basis, wYiat's being
justified and why. So, again, that's -- we wanted to make
clear that you're going to -- you've got exactly the same
information now that Council sees, and it's line-by-line.
So, any other questions on --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Chief, you indicated
S you had -- that you respond anywhere in the county, or just
L Kerrville South?
~ MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, now, we will respond --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lE
li
lE
1~
2(
2'
2:
2
2
2
17
the Kerrville South area, all that precinct, we will respond
immediately. Now, the rest of the county, we will respond
if the volunteer fire department requests our assistance,
or -- say, for example, we get a call in Center Point and
we -- we hear them tone Center Point out. After four
minutes, if we don't hear Center Point responding to that
call, then we'll send a truck. And, if -- of course, if
they start -- if they respond, we -- get there before we do,
well, they'll turn us back.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir.
MR. PATTERSON: And if you're turned back,
that's not an incident, correct?
MR. HOLLOWAY: That's correct.
MR. PATTERSON: So there won't be an incident
report if they're turned -- even though they might roll part
of the way and get turned back, we don't consider that one
of the incidents that's used in the numbers, sir.
MAYOR FINE: Does that happen often?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Not very often. Usually, if
we respond, we go ahead to the scene, 'cause they generally
need our help. Part of the problem, and I'm sure that the
3 Commissioners know that, in volunteers are tkiey're kind of a
} dying breed. You know, it's hard to get people to volunteer
~ any more. So, the volunteer fire departments are having a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1E
1.
lE
1~
2(
2
2.
2
2
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
real difficult time getting firefighters to come help them.
Of course, everybody has to work --
MS. SULLIVAN: That's right. All right. I'm
sorry for interrupting you. How many volunteer fire
departments are there in the county?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Six? Seven.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Seven. Four
Commissioners' precincts, but there's seven.
MS. SULLIVAN: Okay.
MR. HOLLOWAY: The -- any more questions on
that part?
MR. PATTERSON: Let me explain, as well,
on -- on the contract dollars, I just want you to understand
that we didn't just pull a number out of the air. So you
understand, what we did was we took -- we took a step back
and we looked at the general contract, and then we looked at
the Kerrville South contract. And we tried to look at
responses to those areas, you know, and what the impacts
were with regard to, you know, what the call level was
within each of those areas. And then we kind of backed into
it and said, Okay, from that perspective, what are the
increases in those areas? And then we applied that, and
that's where the $25,000 figure came from. Okay? The other
figure for the changes in -- in this number, which is the
overall budget, 2.3, that has all of the increases and

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
everything else all wrapped into it for the Council's
purposes. So -- and the equipment that we discussed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ron, is the $25,000
increase in the Kerrville South portion or in the county
portion, or split between?
MR. PATTERSON: It's actually -- the
recommendation is to split that, which would take $20,000 of
that in the general contract, and then $5,000 on the
Kerrville South.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. Again, that's how
we divided up the numbers. Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to make a
comment that I'm certainly in support of it. That's my
precinct. And, not only that; more importantly, that's
where my house lives. And --
MR. HOLLOWAY: But you're in the city limits,
Buster, so it doesn't matter.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm not.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Did you move out?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, you didn't know
that?
MR. HOLLOWAY: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I thought
this was all about.
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HOLLOWAY: We would have jacked it up
more.
(Laughter.)
MR. PATTERSON: All right.
MR. HOLLOWAY: The -- is that it? All right.
The Emergency Management Coordinator position is the -- if
cities and counties take federal funding at all, they're
required to have an Emergency Operation Plan and a
Coordinator, and I have a -- an Assistant Coordinator, which
is my Training Officer, and they will fund part of that.
They'll Fund 50 percent. And, what happens is that the
County will take the other half of that 50 percent, and the
City will pay the other, which ends up being about
25 percent each, and what we're required to do is keep the
Emergency Operations Plan updated. We have to review the
annexes -- there are 21 annexes -- every year. We have to
update them every four years. And the same thing goes with
the plan, itself. The plan is pretty thick. Along with
that, we have to attend certain schools. We have to make
sure that every time there's a change in the law or the
rules that the State -- or actually the feds, and then down
to the State -- makes, we have to keep that updated.
My job as a Coordinator is not really to tell
anybody, you know, "You have to go do this and you have to
do that." My job is, if it's in the county, it's the
1
~.~ 2
~ 3
i
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
Judge's responsibility; he's in charge of that. If it's in
the city limits, the mayor is in a charge of that. And if
it's in the city limits of Ingram, the Ingram mayor is in
charge of that. So, we have to kind of work together, and
my job is to try to make it all come together, to coordinate
it all.
annex, but he's not -- when we have an emergency, he's not
in charge of the Sheriff's Department, he's not in charge of
D.P.S. He just is there, a person to go -- contact person
that's in the E.O.C., Emergency Operation Center, to go
through and say, "we need more law enforcement." If he's
tapped out, then he'll get with the Sheriff or the D.P.S.
sergeant. And, so, part of this is in -- and the reason
that, as you can see, our -- our total budget is $20,000,
and, we're asking -- the City pays $4,280 and the County is
$3,720. So, basically, this is a -- just something to kind
of keep us going and get -- a good example was the county
fire we had last year -- last September. That was a joint
effort between many, many agencies, and not only city and
county, but state and some federal agencies. And,
eventually they will come down here and meet with the
volunteer fire departments and see about funding some of
their expenses. I just talked to them last week, and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
22
they're really snowed under. This Houston deal set them way
back, and they're just having a real tough time. Fact is,
they haven't even paid all the brush fires from 1999. So --
but they say, you know, they haven't forgotten about us.
Are there any questions on that portion of the budget?
MR. PATTERSON: Those two rates that you see
there that are shown for both the City and County are not in
-- those are flat, from last year.
MR. HOLLOWAY: No change.
MR. PATTERSON: There is no proposed change.
MR. HOLLOWAY: In fact, there is a plan that
-- that's the entire Emergency Operations Plan right there.
MR. PATTERSON: If anyone is interested in
it, I've got copies available of the Emergency Management
Plan.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Very, very exciting reading.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. About three weeks
after I got here, I think, Raymond came in one day and goes,
"Oh, by the way, you got some responsibilities in here. You
need to read it." So, it's interesting. Any questions on
that? Okay, we will press forward. We know y'all have
another meeting, so we're going to try and keep on track
here. The next one is under Tab 4, which is Emergency
Medical Services, Medical Director, and First Responders.
what you'll note is, as I said, we tried to lump these
23
1
~., 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.~-~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
together as they related to each other, as well as
responsibilities. With regard to the EMS, let me point out
that we do currently have a proposal on the table, and our
proposal that we want the Council to consider is that we are
looking at the proposal to add an additional transfer crew.
And, for those who are not familiar with that term, the
bottom line, is -- is we have our EMS crews, which are those
individuals who are called out of the fire station to go and
respond to a critical incident. Then we have the transfer
crews, which are those individuals who actually will take an
individual from, let's say, our hospital to San Antonio, or
vice-versa, to be able to transport them for additional
care.
One of the things that we have discovered is
-- and that we're realizing is that the call volume on the
number of transfers is going up, and it's beginning to tap
into our emergency medical services. So, our proposal is --
is that we will add an additional transfer crew. That
transfer crew will then alleviate some of the burden on the
EMS. They will be able to stay in-house, in town, and to
serve the city and Lhe county instead of handling transfers.
The idea there is -- is that we plan to seek a grant to fund
the ambulance, and then in addition to that, the equipment
that goes on board. Right now, this year, we put a new
ambulance in service, and the way that we have written our
24
1
,~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~.~ 13
14
1J
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,--.
25
bid specifications was -- is that we would get a trade-in
allowance back on that. Our game plan would be -- under our
proposal would be that instead of giving them the trade-
in -- that's a value of $15,000 -- that what we would do
is -- is we would hang onto that old ambulance, okay, the
trade-in ambulance, and we would put that over to the side
as a reserve ambulance.
One of the things we do not have today is we
don't have a reserve ambulance. So, the idea would be -- is
keep that trade-in, not give it to them. Pay the $15,000,
keep the trade-in, keep it equipped and ready to go. Ther
get the grant to buy another ambulance, which puts a --
another ambulance in service, so we have a new ambulance in
service with transfer, and we have a backup ambulance, based
on this plan. If we get the grant, we would not need to see
any rate increases for EMS services this year; however, next
year there would need to be an
Okay. In comparing those fees
still reasonable, even with an
plan, when the EMS service camp
be an increase once a year for
happened is we're way down the
increase after the first year,
increase in those fees.
to other agencies, they are
increase. The original game
online, was that there would
five years. Well, what's
road, and there was only one
and no additional increases
have been applied, so it's been stagnant for many, many
years with regard to that rate for the EMS service.
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So, again, with this game plan, we think we
can go another year with no increase, and increase our
service by adding an entire ambulance and a crew to be able
to help with the transfers, the idea there being that in --
in Fiscal Year '03, then we would apply an increase at that
point in time of approximately 10 percent. That program, we
feel, is reasonable. We feel like, again, our -- our rates
would still be reasonable, and it does twofold things for
us. One, it alleviates the burden off the EMS crews, which
leaves them in town to service us for what we need them for,
and then also creates a -- the ability to have additional
runs for the transfers. But, it actually does a third thing
for us; it also then creates a backup for us. We now have a
backup ambulance which, again, we don't have today. So,
that -- that, in essence, is what we're trying to do. The
Medical Director is my -- am I misstating something?
MR. HOLLOWAY: No.
MR. PATTERSON: That's okay. The Medical
Director on that one, the bottom line there is there's been
some recent negotiations, and that position now -- the total
on that is $25,000, versus a higher rate, as it was in the
past. So the 11,3 split that we would do would actually be
less than was funded last year, and the remainder of that is
picked up -- I have an agreement within the city of Ingram,
so that covers that. So, we've actually got a reduction
1
.-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
r.,, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
there, a small one. The Medical Director is required as
part of the EMS program. We are required that, if we have
an EMS program or a First Responder program or anything like
that where we have medical responses, we have to have the
Medical Director on board and available for that. The
Medical Director is a physician who handles those services
for us.
The First Responder program, that program, as
you're aware of, is responding out into the county, someone
who can actually get there first. The idea of First
Responder is to provide at least EMT-level medical care to
that person until paramedics arrive. This program, I
promise you, saves lives and is a very good program. In
this program, one thing I want to point out is there's
actually three pieces to the budget, and that is, there is
the -- the base portion of it, which is the entire EMS
budget and all the support that comes out of there, you
know, the changing out equipment on the First Responders,
the response of the EMS crews and the paramedics and all of
that. Then there's a second piece, which is this portion of
the EMS Coordinator, a quarter paid by the County, remainder
picked up in EMS budget. And then there's the third piece,
and that's the equipment that's needed for those First
Responders, which the County would consider in their budget.
So, that's how it's broken into the three
1
.--. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
~,
25
z~
pieces, and I think even staff -- it took us a while. We
finally got it squared away. We now fully understand that
there's three distinct pieces to that. What I will do is,
I'm going to let the Chief and his able EMS Coordinator
speak to these issues in a little bit more detail.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Under the EMS program, the
only thing I might like to say different or additional to
what Ron mentioned is there's no tax money that goes into
that program, talking about the EMS part of it. That's all
the user fee, which means if we never come pick anybody up
in this room, it will never cost you a penny for us to run
EMS. If we come pick you up, then that's where the charge
comes in, and that's how we pay for this service. When we
took over in 1994, we had no idea where we were going to go
with this. We were a little bit scared that we weren't
going to make it, and that's the reason we decided we would
raise the rates 5 percent each year for five years. We also
thought that if we were lucky, we'd get about a 60 percent
collection rate. We've been consistently over 70 percent.
Right now, we're right at 80 percent, which is pretty
unheard of in the EMS profession. Most of the fire chiefs
that I talk to that deal with this, they say they get 50 to
55 percent on their collection rate, so we're doing real
well. And I think part of that is because no tax money goes
into it.
1
~, 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
.-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
28
We also -- under this, we were able -- we
have been able to hire three additional people. When we
took over EMS, we started with 15 people. We found that we
needed some relief in there, because of the turnover and --
and time off, and so we hired three additional people to
that budget. And, even at that, we were able to stay ahead
without raising the rates, so we haven't raised the rates
since 1995, and we're not really planning on doing that till
next year. And we're not sure what that rate will be,
depending on what we recover with our transfer crew. What
we'd like to -- the perfect scenario would be to have two
emergency ambulances in this county at any time. That
almost never happens. very seldom, I mean. We usually have
one ambulance in the county at any given time, and the
reason for that is we're having to take transfers back and
forth to San Antonio. And, it's not only our transfer crew,
but it's our emergency crews, and they rotate in and out
taking transfers back and forth to San Antonio.
So, the reason we're proposing to add another
transfer crew is to try to keep those emergency ambulances
in town as much as possible. Also, the -- the crew that
we're going to hire, they will be certified and have the
ability to make emergency calls for us when we're out, so it
will actually give us four emergency ambulances in the city
and county sometime during the day. Now, those transfer

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
29
crews work 8:00 to 5:00, five days a week, whereas emergency
crews work 24-hour shifts.
The Medical Director -- what happened with
the Medical Director is, we negotiated the salary. It
started out at $30,000 a year, and we negotiated that down
to $25,000. The -- on the First Responders program, the
reason for the increase in the salary that we're requesting
for the Coordinator is that when we took over in 1994, that
figure that y'all have been paying was put in there based on
that -- his salary in 1994, and that hasn't changed --
hasn't increased, even though the salary's gone up. So, for
-- since I guess 1994, the -- the salary portion of that
one-fourth has stayed the same for the County, but his
salary's gone up quite a bit. And I'm going to turn -- and,
of course, Kyle met with y'all last week and talked to y'all
a little bit about the First Responder program. I'm going
to turn that over to him, unless y'all have any questions.
Questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the grant y'all are
seeking, when will you know when that grant's going to come
through, and what's the plan if it doesn't come through?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, we're hoping -- we
should find out something next month. And, if the -- if the
grant does not go through, then we'll have to raise the
races 10 percent this year.
,~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the plan is to add
that transfer crew regardless?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then hope you can figure
out -- I mean, I support that, 'cause I think it's really
important.
MR. PATTERSON: Assuming that we get approval
in our budget, what we would -- again, as he said, what we
plan to do would be that, even without the grant, move
the -- move this rate increase that's out -- actually out
here in '03, shove it up a year and go ahead and do it.
Because, again, I can't -- for that increased amount, I
think we get a lot of benefit. And that is, again, we keep
those emergency crews in town, we have another transfer
tech, and we end up with a backup ambulance that we've never
had. So, to get all that benefit for that change, I think
that's why I think this program is really, really
beneficial.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I mean, I think
it's one of the things, with the county growing as fast as
it is, to have another crew available -- because the county
calls tend to take a lot more time, and to get another crew
available I think is desperately needed right now.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yeah. The only other way to
do it would be to subsidize it. I don't think anyone wants
31
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do it would be to subsidize it. I don't think anyone wants
to do that. Before we took over EMS, the previous
company -- you know, we were paying $37,000 each, City and
County, to help subsidize them. It went up every year.
Buster was around, I think. Every year he'd come to us
wanting more money. We haven't done that.
MR. PATTERSON: The -- I think the total
change here on that, I think, if I remember right, is
about -- about $3,600 change with regard to -- because of
this change right here on the salary item here. When you
add those two together, that's about a $3,600 change here,
and then to make this program work, that program is about --
about $269,000, almost $270,000. And again, though,
remember that if we get the grant, we can absorb that
$270,000 in -- in the current fee schedule. If not, we'd
shift that over and put the 10 percent on it, and we can
still absorb it in the fee schedule.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have one request,
Chief. Now that the Commissioners Court is clear that we
pay for a quarter of the First Responder salary and half of
the Medical Director's salary, as liaison between the
Commissioners Court and these programs, I would request that
we be more involved in the processes of hiring and firing --
or not necessarily firing, but the hiring of these -- like,
the Medical Director. I understand there's one coming up
32

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
possibly soon.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That we'd get a little
more involved in that and be a part of the process.
Sometimes these guys are interested in knowing about that,
and when I don't have anything to tell them, the Judge is
pretty mean about that kind of stuff, and so I -- that's
just my request, is that we -- we become a little more
involved and keep that relationship.
MR. PATTERSON: I think what we do here is,
just like we did in hiring this gentleman, that, you know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kyle.
MR. PATTERSON: Kyle, yeah. That what we do
is, again, have that invitation to come to the -- to the
interviews and that kind of stuff. Yes, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Great. Great. Thank
you very much.
MAYOR FINE: But you've also got to be there
when we fire people.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're the nice guys on
this thing.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Fact is, what I was going to
say, Buster, I'll send you a list of names and y'all can
fire somebody. Only kidding. I'm only kidding.
MR. PATTERSON: Don't make Kyle nervous.
33
1
~-. 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
r
2S
MR. YOUNG: To go along a little bit with
talking about medical care in the county, you -- you can't
provide proper medical care without your First Responders.
These guys and ladies, they get up at 2:00 or 3 o'clock in
the morning, respond to a call and save lives. If the
county people had to rely strictly on Kerrville EMS, as wide
as our county is and the response times, the death rate
would greatly be increased. The First Responders -- I have
about 20 to 25 First Responders that are equipped and ready
to go, and that do a wonderful job in the county. They save
lives. All of our guys are very, very happy with the
program. I've met with them, we've addressed some of their
continuing education needs. I'm going to be instructing
them and getting those brought up to speed and to where
everybody will be current.
The one thing that we are requesting in the
budget is another $1,500 for equipment. I have four
personnel that are certified that are willing to help and
assist in areas in the county where we are shorter on First
Responders. They're ready to go, but they don't have
equipment, so that's why we're requesting that increase in
that line item. In several areas of the county, we have a
lot of First Responders. I never have to worry about an
ambulance going out there; I know there's going to be
somebody there to help them. In other areas of the county,
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it's not as comfortable a feeling for me when they go out
there, because there's just not that many people.
Additionally, we had discussed later on next
year, year after it, putting on a class possibly for more
EMS and getting more people online to help respond. You can
never have too many First Responders in a -- especially in
an area like we have. It's a great program. They save
lives, and I think the $1,500 would supply the equipment for
four First Responders. The equipment consists of a bag, 0-2
regulator, some sort of a pager or radio, and some supplies.
Currently, the First Responders are getting the supplies
from the City of Kerrville. We supply them if they have a
-- they come in, they've used the C-collar, then we'll just
give them another C-collar to put back in that bag. They're
sundry items that are -- oxygen masks, things like that, we
supply them. But, that's the increase there; the $1,500 is
for equipment.
MR. PATTERSON: Any questions?
MAYOR FINE: There's been some discussion
about some additional AED machines.
MR. YOUNG: We would really like to see AED's
there. They are expensive. There are several grant
programs that we can look at to purchase those. They are --
most of the ones that I'm aware of are either matching
grants, but there is grant money out there that -- that
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
zs
funds them wholly, and that will just take some research in
applying for them. I would love for every Sheriff's car to
have an AED, every police car to have an AED, and every
First Responder to have an AED. I think that would be very
beneficial, but it's a -- it's a very costly item.
MR. PATTERSON: As we said, we are going to
look into grant funding. Raymond was telling me this
morning that, on another item that we've been working grants
on, we've got a couple of items that we are going to be able
to fund. I have grants that are above and beyond equipment
that's in here. So, again, that would be good, you know, to
continue to seek that. We've been very successful in P.D.
grants. It's just the fire service, there's just not as
many of them and you've got to search under the covers a lot
harder to find them, but we're looking. Thank you. Are
there any other questions on fire, EMS, or anything? 'Cause
I'm going to kick these gentlemen loose. They've got some
other commitments.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thanks a lot.
MAYOR FINE: Thank you, guys.
MR. PATTERSON: Appreciate it.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Thank you.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay. Then I would ask that
we go to Tab 5, which is going to be the 216th Judicial
District Narcotics Task Force. This one is pretty
1
.~+ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,~
25
36
straightforward.	The -- it	is a	grant	program,	and	the
bottom line is --	is that --	that	the	City and	the	County
many people you got participating in the program and paying
those salaries and benefits. I'm going to let Dane speak to
this one for a moment; he's got a little bit more
information on it for you, and we'll kind of go from there.
MR. TONE: This is a relatively easy one. At
the tab here, 5, that first sheet gives you the information.
There's four counties; there's Kerr, Gillespie, Bandera, and
Kendall, and there's five cities, Kerrville, Ingram,
Fredericksburg, Bandera, and Boerne. The Task Force was
established in December of '87, so it's been around for
quite a while. By the way, the grant you're looking at
here, this budget, actually both entities have already
passed this one. This is not one that's been in question.
It went into effect June 1st of this year and will come back
up next year at that time, so these numbers are pretty well
frozen, 'cause both of you have voted on them.
You'll notice, on the City of Kerrville, our
portion is $37,126. That's up; last year the City was
responsible for $32,564. Kerr County's is $38,837. That's
down from $39,803 last year. That's $966. You'll notice
that there's a total grant match of that $184,784, and
37
1
.-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
~--.
25
that's from all the different entities. And, the two
numbers I just gave you are Kerrville's and Kerr County's.
The grant, itself, is down. Last year's grant was $682,579,
and that is because of funding from the State; it was
downsized. Both of the entities are -- or all of the
entities are simply paying for salaries and benefits of
their employees that participate in the grant, so we're all
handed this thing together.
It is interesting to note that -- if you look
at the last sheet, some of those, you'll notice that this is
very labor-intensive. The personnel -- 81 percent of the
entire budget is people out on the streets, so there's very
little on operation and maintenance and very little on
capital. It's just a lot of people out there. Your front
sheet, I won't go into it. It will show you the amount of
drugs seized and the arrests made and the cases made. So,
this will not actually come up again until next spring with
the grants y'all will be looking at again whether to fund
for another year, but these do have the budget numbers that
are dropped in for both entities to accomplish the next 12
months.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dane, does all of the
cities and counties in the 216th District participate?
MR. TUNE: As far as I know, yeah, I guess
that's right. Now, I believe it has, in the past, been
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
larger; there were some extra counties in there, but I
believe all these counties do participate at the current
time. It has changed over the years, though.
MR. PATTERSON: I think the -- the C.J.D.
actually, I think -- I stand to be corrected on this, 'cause
I'm stepping out a little bit, but I believe that that 216th
District was actually redrawn some time ago. That pushed
some of the communities or counties out. Whether they were
picked up somewhere else or not, I don't know. I -- you may
be familiar with it.
MR. MOTLEY: I think the 198th was redrawn.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay.
MR. MOTLEY: I believe it was the 198th.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay. So it was a different
one redrawn.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Kimble County was a
participant until about three years ago, and then I think
they dropped out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's -- yeah, that's
it. That's what I was thinking.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Kimble County dropped out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They weren't a part of
the 216th District, though.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They were just kind of
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a sideline.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. Anything else on
this one?
MAYOR FINE: How are the -- the participation
levels set? As far as -- I mean, obviously, the City of
Kerrville and Kerr County are the bulk of the --
MR. TUNE: Yeah. If you look at the last
sheet, you'll see how it's -- all the sources are matched,
and basically that's all we're doing. We're matching to the
State on the grant. Now, I guess what you're asking is who
decides --
MAYOR FINE: Who decided we paid and how
much?
MR. TUNE: We probably --
MR. PATTERSON: There is a -- there is a
formula basis based on the number of participants from the
various agencies. Now, what that exact formula is, I can't
tell you off the top of my head, but I'll be glad to get it
for you.
MAYOR FINE: But don't they all benefit
equally, as far as the resources of the task force?
MR. TUNE: Well, they operate as one, in that
sense. I know we're the -- the grantee, and what we do, of
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
course -- the function of the City, besides this, we manage
all the books and vest the money and do all that, and -- as
far as the City, because we set the grant for the entire
group. But, how -- you know, how many -- how we've done
which officer and that kind of stuff, we'd probably need to
ask the Chief or ask the task force.
MR. PATTERSON: Well, and part of it is, too,
is they're going to look at seizures, where they happened,
those type of things. Again, you could make an argument
that we all benefit equally, 'cause the whole region is
better.
MAYOR FINE: Right.
MR. PATTERSON: But I believe, if I remember
right -- and, again, I stand to be corrected. I'm fumbling
a little bit with this one with regard to the formula, but
if I remember right, you know, they're going to look at the
areas where seizure occurred, you know, and how many people
are involved with regard to those agencies. And, why
they're not all exactly equal, I can't tell you for sure,
but I can find out for you.
MAYOR FINE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Population has
something to do with it, too.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir, I believe
population, I think seizures. I think, again, number of
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
people participating. I think there's -- all of that fits
in, but I would have to check into it for you for sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, I think it's
a lot simpler than that. I think, you know, like, the City
of Bandera chooses to maybe or maybe not have a person on
the Task Force.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: County of Bandera may
have one, and Boerne might have one, and Kendall County have
one representative on the task force. We choose to have two
and three, and you all choose to have three and four. It's
just the way --
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- way it's worked
out.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. I mean, it all does
come down to the agency deciding they can opt in and out.
You don't have to participate.
MAYOR FINE: I guess my point was, they're
still getting the same benefit of the Task Force, whether
they have one person involved in it or four, and yet these
two agencies are paying the bulk, when the other agencies
will get the assistance from everybody else who's involved
in it. I mean, it seems kind of like if they're not
participating as much, they should be paying more instead of
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
paying less.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes.
MAYOR FINE: 'Cause we're going to be sending
our guys over there to assist them. And -- but yet they
send them home and they still are -- they're still writing a
little check.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would bet, though,
Stephen, that the majority of that -- that's probably done
in Kerr County and Kerrville. I bet we have the lion's
share of the work and the efforts probably done here. I
imagine Boerne -- I mean, just 'cause I-10 corridor is where
a lot of it seems to happen, the seizures, Boerne. You
know, I don't know that anybody gets a free ride.
MAYOR FINE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it might be good to
take a look at it as to how the funding is decided.
MAYOR FINE: Yeah.
MR. PATTERSON: What we will do, the staff
will -- we'll do a -- a staff report on it and tell you
exactly how that's done. We'll get that back out, both to
the Council and the Commissioners --
MAYOR FINE: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: -- so you know. Have you got
that, Dane? We'll do that, get it to them. Okay? I
apologize at my fumbling on it a little bit.
43
1
,~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~-.
25
MAYOR FINE: That's fine.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay. Anything else on that
one? We'll try and get that staff report out to you by the
first part of next week. Okay. The next item, the airport,
which is under Tab 6. As you're aware, again, this one is a
jointly-funded project, a project that is fairly large in
scope. And I mean that in terms of the complexity as well
as the dollars. It is a -- it's a major undertaking. What
I've given you up here is just a very quick summary of
impacts with regard to '02 and '03, and the reason for that
is -- is that there are some commitments that would be made
in '02 that would linger over into '03 and have additional
fiscal impact. Megan's going to talk to you a little bit
more about that in just a moment. The bottom line is -- is
that we're at a point where a decision needs to be made, and
that decision is, what else do we want to do at the airport?
Do we still want to continue to see it grow? You know,
issues like, you know, do we want to put more apron out
there, ramp area? Because ramp area generates revenue. Or
do you want to not do that? I mean, the bottom line is --
is that these two agencies need to have a philosophical and
policy discussion about that, and where we want to go in the
future.
Again, I think that, with regard to the fact
that with the current grants we've got under way, with the
1
.-~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
fact that we know the E.I.C. is looking at putting the sewer
infrastructure onto the airport -- and, again, that's
preliminary, but they are considering it. And, in addition
to that, the fact that we are now trying to get ourselves
squared away on being able to be more proactive when we are
approached by users, that there may be some potential for
additional revenue to help offset some of these costs. But,
you take all that said, you still have the issue of -- even
if you get a 10-to-1 -- $10 to $1 grant match, you still
have that dollar match. And if it's a big-dollar amount,
that ends up being a big match. So, it's something to
consider.
I'm going to let Megan talk a little bit
about the operations in general, talk about some of these
specific projects. Some are safety-related, some are not.
Let her describe that for you, and then we'll talk a little
bit more about it and the policy questions. Megan?
MS. CAFFALL: I'd like to just tell you where
this grant came from. Scott Aviation Division in Austin
programs our airport various improvements, and 11 years ago
the airport accepted a grant for a 1,000-foot runway
extension, which puts our main runway into 100 foot wide,
6,000 feet long. That classifies us as a transport airport.
Along with bigger runway, we got bigger aircraft. And, in
the last three years, we've been reclassified as a bigger
45
1
1 ~., 2
~ 3
i
4
5
i 6
1
7
8
9
~ 10
i
~ 11
i
~ 12
13
~ ,-. 14
i
r 15
i
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
aircraft airport, and with that came bigger safety areas.
The first year, the $308,000 is for the
engineering for the work on the second-year grant. The
$650,000 is for the property acquisition to correct our
safety areas and runway protection zones. So, out of this
grant, on the other item on Fiscal Year '03 is the overlay
of Runway 12/30. Three years ago, we had an overlay on that
runway -- that's our main runway -- and we were hoping to
have 7 inches of asphalt by the time we were through.
During that construction period, we had base failure on over
25 percent of the runway, and we now have only 2 inches of
asphalt on that -- on about 25 percent of our main runway.
Our airport facility directory of what the F.A.A. gives the
pilots so they can look at whether they can fly their
aircraft into Kerrville lists our main runway as
25,000 pounds, single-wheel weight limit, which, if you want
to do the math and do a dual tandem, is 50,000. That's
right at what we say we're getting now, not what we are
being reclassified as. So, we really need to do the
46
1
,.._, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-.
25
additional asphalt on the main runway, because we still
expansion, $700,000 for the extension of the ramp apron.
And that's to put approximately -- extend the ramp from
where it is now down towards Mr. Brinkman's hangar, which
will give us the opportunity to lease more or build more
hangars on the airport to generate -- to do ground leases,
so other people can build hangars and generate more airport
revenue. Also bring in more based aircraft and some fuel;
indirectly that will increase our airport revenues. So,
these two year's grants are Aviation Division's way of
helping us correct what deficiencies we have and to try and
help us get ahead with developing the airport. Do y'all
have any questions?
MR. PATTERSON: There's a lot of technical
terms. But, I mean, the bottom line is -- is that, as she
said on the engineering, that engineering sets up the
following year, is really what that does. And the property
acquisition, where it talks about for runway protection
zone, is what RPZ stands for, the bottom line is -- is that
the longer your runway, or not -- even if you don't even
extend the length of the runway, but if you have an
instrument approach system that allows a more precise
97
1
..~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
,~+
2`
approach, that zone gets longer, and what happens is it
grows outside the property line. What the F.A.A. requires
you to do is come in and say, Okay, well, you have to have
control of that property, so nothing goes up, or there's no
safety issues underneath it, you know, all of those kinds of
things.
So, again, as -- not only as the airport
physically grows; as the capacity of the airport, in terms
of larger aircraft or the instrument approach, as that
increases, you also get these increased protection areas
that you have to have. Now -- you know, so the question
comes, do we want to continue to move forward and have
additional aircraft be able to land there? Because, again,
your restrictions -- it says can they be larger, then you
allow more aircraft. And if more aircraft are allowed, then
can you base more aircraft? Those are the -- all of the
philosophical questions and policy questions to ask. But,
again, all of that -- again, '02 sets up everything in '03,
with the overlay. The overlay, to make it in very simple,
simplistic terms, is it needs more asphalt on it to hold
more weight, because you got heavier aircraft to be able to
go in. And, everything's load-rated, as they call it.
The marking of the runway, again, those are
just simply markings on the runway for the aircraft to use.
The ramp apron is the one, too, that you get into a -- if

48
you add additional apron, you can put additional users out
there. Again, that question is, do we want to expand that
user base? You know, again, it's a policy question.
Relocating the entrance road --
MS. CAFFALL: That one, our entrance road now
is in the RPZ for landing on Runway 30. It's just one of
those things that happens, where we got reclassified as
having larger aircraft, that area got bigger, and the
airport entrance road is in it now. We do have enough
property that the airport already owns to just move the road
back, but it does need to be moved.
MR. PATTERSON: And then the other question,
beyond these two years, is stop here? Or do you continue
forward? Again, this is all stuff we would like some
dialogue on.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
27
2L
2;
2'
2.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ron, to get started, I
mean, it seems to me that every time we upgrade the airport,
we get bigger planes, we get upgraded to meet -- you know,
so it's never -- I mean, the more you upgrade, the more it
needs to keep on going and going and going.
MR. PATTERSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I guess -- you know,
I don't know that much about the airport. I mean, Larry and
Bill, I think, are our liaisons on the Airport Board. You
know, I don't really have any good feel for where we need to
49
1
i^ 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
lE
1~
2C
2'
2:
2:
2~
.-~
2.
go as a County/City operation on the size of that airport.
To me, you don't need to keep getting bigger and bigger and
bigger unless there's an economic reason to do so. And I'd
have to really rely on -- I need more information before I
can even give an intelligent dialogue.
MR. PATTERSON: I can tell you from -- from
my experience, the -- without additional hangar space,
without additional ramp space to put those hangars on and
access to them, and, quite frankly, without finishing out
the infrastructure on the airport, which is the sewer line
and those kinds of things for all the potential users -- you
take those out of the picture, you take those off the table
and you say, "Well, we're not going to have ramp space and
we're not going to have the sewer and we're not going to do
those." If you don't go that route, you probably are
wasting	money	. Because,	again, if you	want	to	grow	the
airport,	you	want to grow	the economic	base	to	the	airport.
That's what it's all about, and what it can bring into
Kerrville and Kerr County. So, I woula say tnat -- you
know, I'd love -- I think if the decision's made we want to
continue to -- I'm not going to say grow it, but at least
establish some sort of a base for economic development out
there, I think those other items have to happen as well.
MR. WAMPLER: I think -- to maybe carry
Jonathan's comments a little further, 1 think I've -- I
50
1
,~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
2]
2:
2:
2~
2
agree with him, in that I believe that the airport is
potentially a	strong asset	for	the City and	the	County, and
it's one that	we obviously	can	't neglect.	But	I'm a little
bit -- well, I'm ignorant with regards to airports in
general, what they can do for a community, other than
provide a base for economic activity. So, I guess what he's
saying and what I'd like to see is some sort of a plan
written out or presented in a fashion that could say, Well,
here are some potential benefits with potential dollar
impacts on the community. What are costs that we put into
the airport and what will we receive in terms of economic
improvement? Before we decide that we want to get bigger,
have more apron space, for instance, or more hangars. Now,
I do understand from talking to you that, you know, that may
be attractive for people who have airplanes parked, say, in
San Antonio or Austin, from a cost standpoint, so we could
see more planes and see more activity. But what, really,
would that be in terms of impact for the City and the
County? I think that's -- is that what you're saying?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MR. WAMPLER: Just kind of a plan. Not to
say that I would ever be against doing all these things;
just that I don't know what the benefit is, really, other
than to say that we -- you know, we've got a better airport
than we had previously.
51
1
i-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,~.
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
2]
2~
2;
2<
2.
MR. PATTERSON: Right. Well, I think, too,
that part of that -- no argument about the plan. I think
the plan also has to include, if you're going to look at it
from that perspective, which I think you should, what's
going to happen in and around -- not only in, but around,
for instance, the proposed business park? What kind of
impact would the airport have on it? And what kind of
impact would the business park have on the airport?
Vice-versa. Even though they're not on airport-proper,
there's certainly some synergy there, being located -- you
know, located that close to it, being able to bring -- you
know, if you have a manufacturing facility, being able to
bring parts or supplies or whatever in and literally run it
across the road instead of trucking it in. Sometimes that
can be beneficial. But, again, that's something to be
looked at.
MR. WAMPLER: I've got a quick question.
Megan, on the overlay on the Runway 12/30, you said that we
thought we were going to get 7 inches, but because oĢ
failures we only have 2. Is it that they laid /, but the
base failed and now we only have 2? Why did we end up with
less overlay than we thought we were getting?
MS. CAFF'ALL: When they brought the equipment
in to the put the overlay on, the trucks broke down the
existing asphalt and water came up througYi the runway, so we
52
1
.-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2;
2~
~--.
2`
ended up having to take all that off, rework the base, dry
it, send it off to be tested. We did all kinds of testing
out there, doing underground radar, falling isometer tests.
We did all kind of testing, and ended up -- you know, all we
had to put back on it was the overlay. I really would just
like to make sure that I make myself clear. When the runway
was expanded 10, 11 years ago, that's what caused us to be
reclassified, so the bulk of this is not making the airport
bigger. We're dealing with what we have right now. And the
ramp expansion, that is making it bigger. And I think that
it also would be appropriate for the City and County to meet
with Aviation Division, as far as they do have us in the
plan, in a 5- to 10-year period, to extend the runway
another 1,000 feet. I mean, that's at the point where I
think we really need to have a discussion on, do we want to
do that?
MR. PATTERSON: She's hitting the nail on the
head. I mean, the bottom line is -- is that the decision
that we're living with today, in '02 and '03, that's here;
it was actually made a long time ago, probably before most
everybody here. And what happens is -- is that you see a
delayed impact when this happens. Now -- so, with that
said, I mean, these particular issues in '02 and '03, these
are	things -	- and, as	she	said,	without	the	ramp, are	things
we	need to -	- really	need	to do	to take	care	of that	
53
1
.^-~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~,,, 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
2C
21
22
2~
2L
~~
2`
decision long ago. And she's, again, hitting the nail on
the head. This idea, though, of extending it again, all of
these things and this study you're talking about and all
that, better look at it real hard, because, again, you're
going to be another 5 or 10 years out from that decision and
doing the same thing. This stuff happens, and when that --
even though that runway gets punched out, the way the F.A.A.
and TexDOT rules work, you're 5 and 10 years out before you
actually start seeing some
have to do, so you have to
Now, as she said, as well,
that's -- that's a matter
and, you know, create some
out there?
of the impact on things that you
look at them very carefully.
the -- the ramp expansion,
~f, you know, do you want to try
additional opportunities or not
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Megan or Ron, can we get
an update where we are with the T-hangars? I know they're
there -- I mean, they're going in, you know, where that
revenue or projected revenue is going into this. As I
recall, it was supposed to help defer, you know, some of the
costs out there, or additional -- you
MS. CAFFALL: We're pl
85 percent occupancy and revenues for
going to open bids on the paving next
on having these up and going October
sooner if we can.
know.
inning, Jonathan, on
next year. We're
Monday. I'm planning
-- by October 1, maybe
54
1
i-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lE
li
lE
1~
2(
2-
2:
2:
2
,~-~
2
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The revenues projected in
the '02 -- in our '02 budget?
MS. CAFFALL: Yes, sir.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes. Let me tell you, in
terms of the '02 budget, the philosophy we took when we put
it together. We took 85 percent occupancy rate on the
hangars, okay, which is up from 60 percent on our original
projection, because we have a good list of potentials out
there. The other thing that we -- we did was we also
assumed that there's no Mooney revenue, okay? Because
there's a question mark there. If those happen and things
get squared away out there with that operation, as well
as -- let's say we hit 100 percent on October 1. Then these
numbers actually get better, okay? But, again, really and
truly, if you take out these projects, the airport is
running on its own. As far as operationally, it's making
money, okay? So, from that perspective, that 47,9 is being
offset substantially by the additional revenue, okay?
So, again, from that perspective, it's a
matter of, you know, if you just stop today, can you
continue to run and are you doing okay? Are you running in
the black? The answer is yes. Okay? What these numbers
are directly attributable to, I mean directly, is future
expansion.	And,	you	know, issues --	not just expansion, but
also taking	care	of	reclassifications	that happened a while
55

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1S
2C
21
2L
2;
2'
2`
back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay?
MS. SULLIVAN: Could you answer me about
what -- on that first page of Tab 6, removal of an
entitlement grant for that year under the '02 -- the last
paragraph.
MS. CAFFALL: Well, this year there's grants
that come to us, like this one, that are -- that we're
programmed into. There's other money that I go out and
pursue getting. This year we're saving a good bit of money
by using the entitlement grant for the T-hangar paving, but
it -- there's a 3-year grant award. They give us $150,000,
and all this is subject to being -- the State funding this
for the next two years, where we get $150,000 for the next
two years. And, that costs us, in the airport budget,
$16,667 to match that grant, so these budgets are to the
bare bone. I took that out. And turning those grants down
won't -- won't hurt us. They'll just let us apply -- that
money will actually go towards -- it will get rolled into
the grants. We won't get penalized for not taking it, but
this year it saved us a good bit of money. So --
MR. PATTERSON: Bottom line is, we're trying
to reduce our grant match obligations by removing that.
MS. SULLIVAN: Yes.
1
,~-• 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
„~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
MS. CAFFALL: Take it out. One of the things
I was going to use it for, if we could afford it, was an
economic impact study, but there -- there's some other areas
where we get a little bit more generic, but AOP has some
things that we can get to that can give you a pretty general
economic impact statement of what the airport does for the
community.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: As we look at this, I
think it's important -- it is a policy decision on what is
the airport -- what do we want the airport to be when it
grows up. And, as a part of that equation, the airport,
facility-wise and capability-wise, is probably just
approaching the point where, sometime in the future, 5 to 10
years maybe, maybe less, maybe never, we might actually see
commuter service established. Which has a far, far bigger
reaching impact on Kerr County and the City of Kerrville
than the absolute monetary value for somebody sticking up a
business across the highway and trucking their stuff or
whatever it may be. So, taking that longer-range view, I
think, is important at the same time.
Now, obviously, it's a policy decision. Do
we ever want to pursue that? I keep saying I think we do,
because who knows what this community's going to look like
10 years from now, what the population will be, what the
infrastructure will be, what the travel requirement and
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
travel demand would be? And I think if we keep a strategy
alive in that policy that says we can accommodate commuter
air service into the airport at some point, should we opt
for that, would be a good thing. Now, if we can't afford
it, we can't afford it, so we don't do it. But I wouldn't
lose sight of that. And, to me, it's probably the biggest
advantage of having a viable, all-up, total facility
airport. And we can't get there with what we have right
now. We could get there in 3 or 4 or 5, 6 years, 10 years;
I don't know. But, I hope we don't lose sight of that
possibility.
MR. PATTERSON: One additional comment to add
to that, too, is that in looking at the airports around us,
most of them are landlocked or have other issues that
probably won't allow them to even get to that opportunity.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's correct.
MR. PATTERSON: Whereas this one does have
that opportunity on the horizon. I believe that our Airport
Chairman would like to maybe make one statement.
MS. PRIEST: Yes. I just wanted to say that at
one time -- I don't know how it is now, but at one time, over
300 airplanes brought in hunters. And there's a lot -- I
understand also there are a lot of campers that come in by
airplane. An airport is extremely important to your cities.
Most of you know that Austin has taken over Bergstrom. Well,
~.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1/
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
now they're planning -- they need another airport downtown.
So, you can see that airports are very, very important to the
city, and we need to back this program definitely and
continue to improve that airport.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ron, I have a
question with regard to the grant for property acquisition
on the runway protection zone. And, the question
specifically is, to what extent will this apply to any
property that we might need to acquire for -- contiguous to
the high school, Catholic high school?
MR. PATTERSON: I believe that's totally
outside of the runway protection zone.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Outside of it?
MR. PATTERSON: As a matter of fact, I think
by -- I was going to say it's almost a mile.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. And even -- I
stand to be corrected, but I can go back and look at it. I
think I remember even looking at what that RPZ would be with
this discussed extension, and it's still even outside of
that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: So, even if you did the
extension in the future and you did the new RPZ, you would
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
still be outside of that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good enough. Thank
you.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ron, isn't that area -- I
think this is what you said right there. It's important, if
you know that runway -- the extension is a possibility, need
to make sure that that land is protected now.
MS. SULLIVAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's a lot
cheaper to figure out a way to budget for it in the next
five years than it's going to be to wait for a building to
be built out there, wait and figure out what to do. If
there's a possibility of really expanding that, that's
something we may really want to do.
MR. PATTERSON: Part of that gets you down
to, as she was discussing, if we sit down with TexDOT
Aviation, if we want to come -- get a meeting together,
bring them in and do that, one of the things we'd have to
do, though, is begin the policy question of do we want to
make that happen? Is that something we want to happen?
Then go ahead and get in the funding cycle with them, and we
plan for it and they plan for it, so it -- when it -- we
know what's coming and we don't get caught.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What David was saying,
1
,.-~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
just get some sort of a packet of potential in the future
and have another scheduled meeting just to discuss the
airport by itself.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I believe what we need to do
is to go ahead with what's outlined here, including
expanding the ramp, and then take a significant pause and
perhaps come together and jointly fund the economic impact
study, to include the commuter service opportunity. And
hopefully, by that time, the decision will have been made on
the water and wastewater infrastructure, so we'll be in a
position to have the airport pretty much up to snuff and
then say, okay, where is the economic impact and what are
the opportunities for moving forward on different scenarios?
But, I personally think that we need to go ahead with this
'02 and '03 program, because it gets us to where we should
be, given the configuration of our community today. And
then we'll be in a position, I think, we can get some
professional assistance to look at whether we want to take
it to the next step, and whether that next step puts us at
vanguard or simply keeps us even with where we ought to be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree, Judge.
MR. PATTERSON: There are some awesome firms
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
personally for a while, and, I mean, it's -- there's several
very good ones who can really nail it down for you.
MS. CAFFALL: We did not budget for the
entitlement grant this year. We don't have to spend all the
money, but we can defer next year off to the year after,
just say we're going to spend it the year after, and always
reserve the choice of just taking money if we want to come
up with ten cents on the dollar.
MK. PA'I"PERSON: How much of it was that
entitlement grant this year?
MS. CAFFALL: $150,000.
MR. PATTERSON: So -- and then our match --
MS. CAFFALL: 150 in 2002.
MR. PATTERSON: So our match is 2002?
MS. CAFFALL: $166,667.
MR. PATTERSON: $16,000? That's total, so
then that would be split?
MS. CAFFALL: Right.
MR. PATTERSON: See, the -- the bottom line
is -- is you can take the $16,000, if you decided that you
wanted to go ahead and get that done ASAP, and split that.
That would put another $8,000 -- well, $8,500, basically, a
piece on the 47,9.
JUDGE HENNEKE: By "getting that done," what
do you mean by --
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PATTERSON: Getting the study done that
you made mention of.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: And, again, we can pursue
that or we can hold off to next year. Just understand that
basically it's $150,000. And we've got the $16,000 we'd
have to come up with to match, and we'd split that -- or
$17,000, really, and then you would split that. So, you're
talking, you know, again, $8,500 a piece approximately on
top of either -- either on top of this number or that number
to be able to go ahead and make that happen. So -- okay?
So, again, we can just -- we can wait and look at that next
year, or -- do you want us to look at it this year?
MR. WAMPLER: My opinion is we can wait.
We've got a lot to do right here.
MR. PATTERSON: Well, by the time '03 gets
here, as the Judge pointed out, we'll know --
MR. WAMPLER: Right.
MR. PATTERSON: -- what's funded, what's not,
what's in place, and we can give that to a consultant. I
would recommend wait till '03.
MR. WAMPLER: Mr. Griffin's point was well
taken. I mean, what does the airport want to be once it
grows up? That's kind of -- you know, we -- I just -- you
know, economic impact is a concern, but I'd just like to
63
know what -- do we have a consensus with regard to
direction? Is it going to be solely a private use,
industrial-type facility, or are we going to try to
accommodate commuter traffic? What's really going to be the
focus?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
27
2~
2:
2~
2'
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the right
question to ask.
MR. PATTERSON: We'll try and get some ideas
together again, try to put the Airport Board in, I think, as
well, get all the input at one time. Might be good, or at
least get representatives to come. Okay? Anything else on
the airport? All right. Community recycling. This is --
this program is funded out of our Landfill Fund. The bottom
line is -- one thing you might have asked; you might have
said, "Well, how come these numbers for the total budget
are, like, $60,000 more than what you're showing on the
summary sheet?" And the reason is -- is there's -- there's
a fee we have to pay to T.N.R.C.C. that transfers out of
that fund that we have to pay them for basically taking care
of the recyclables and that kind of stuff, some fees that we
have that --
MS. CAFFALL: The Airport Fund -- back on
your sheets, the Airport Fund balance doesn't show up
correctly.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, the Airport Fund
64
1
r-~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2?
29
2`
balance is shown in your book -- it's, like, a little over
balance does not show three -- two or three -- three
MS. SEKULA: One.
MR. PATTERSON: The last project that's going
to occur, so that fund balance will actually be more like
closer to $11,000, 'cause there's a $200,000 project
outstanding. So, I just wanted to make sure you didn't walk
away thinking that $200,000 balance was coming forward.
It's more like 11. Okay. Thank you, Megan, for reminding
me of that. On the recycling center, on that, what we have
here is pretty straightforward, and I'm going just let Megan
discuss this very quickly.
MS. CAFFALL: The recycling center is a joint
effort between City and County. I guess, for those of y'all
that don't know, we lease the half a block from the County.
Their maintenance building was on that property, and six
years ago we leased it from them and opened the recycling
center there. We've done about $75,000 worth of
improvements to that building, building a drive-through and
the surrounding concrete, and then just this past couple of
months, completed a $40,000 addition to it, which doubled
the size of the building. We have an outstanding facility
there that we get recognition for across the state. It
65
1
.-~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.^~~
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
2]
2L
2;
2~
2'
provides an opportunity for the county residents to recycle.
As opposed to using the landfill at Boerne, they have a
place where they can recycle now.
We have two special events a year that we
budget for, two hazardous waste collections that are open to
all county members. In the last year, those collections
went up from 25,000 to 35,000. We got more participation,
we got more stuff, and we consider that it's money well
spent to pull those hazardous wastes out of the waste stream
and let people dispose of them properly. We also collected
almost 1,000 tires, and those were a tremendously expensive
item to get rid of. We also had one unbudgeted special
collection last year, our computer recycling event, and we
got statewide recognition for that. We pulled a lot of
computers out. I don't know if we're going to be able to do
that on an unfunded basis. I was waiting for the other shoe
to drop the whole time on that. You know, we sent two
30-yard containers to San Antonio.
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. CAFFALL: But in previous years, the
County has contributed $10,000 towards the operation of the
recycling center, and this year, mainly because of this cost
increase in our special collections, and also because
recycling materials revenues are down again, we're asking
for a matching contribution of $7,500.
66

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
21
2~
2;
2~
2`
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, you're proposing two
special events again?
MS. CAFFALL: Oh, yes, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Which were --
MS. CAFFALL: We have the recycle paint
collection in the fall, and a hazardous waste collection in
the spring. And it's not a well-known fact, but we take
hazardous materials at both collections. Paint is the
number one item that we get at both collections.
MAYOR FINE: Explain what hazardous wastes
you take.
MS. CAFFALL: We take pesticides, herbicides,
household cleaners, paint, paint-related solvents, cleaners,
just anything that -- that you can't put in your -- in your
trash or that would harm our landfill if it were put in the
landfill, liquid waste. Then we take tires, batteries, and
fluorescent light bulbs, things like that.
MR. PATTERSON: Questions?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Could we get a cash flow or a
balance sheet on both the airport and the recycling center?
Say, on this -- cash flow or balance sheet on both recycling
center and the airport on a quarterly or a semiannual basis?
MS. CAFFALL: Sure.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, that shouldn't be a
problem. The -- just the balance -- the balance sheet.
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1°.
2C
21
2L
2~
2~
2`
MS. CAFFALL: Revenues, as opposed to
expenses?
MR. PATTERSON: We'll give you a balance
sheet that shows both the cash in and out. Does that give
you enough data?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think so.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay.
MS. CAFFALL: The only portion that's going
to look funny on the recycling side is the -- the operation
is heavily subsidized, and I don't know how we're going to
split out our surcharge revenue that we apply towards that.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. 'Cause basically, what
we do, our surcharge revenue we get off the landfill stuff
goes back into the fund on a percentage basis, so I don't
know. We'll figure out how to show it, but --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thanks.
MR. PATTERSON: -- it's interesting, because,
as I was explaining, when you look at these overall sheets,
you kind of qo, "Well, that number doesn't match this
number." Well, you got to back out this fee and then you
got to put in this revenue, so it's kind of -- but that's
the way we're supposed to do it, and it is legal. I want to
be clear on that. Okay. Any other questions on the
recycling center? Thank y'all.
MAYOR FINE: Thank you.
68
1
~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C
21
2L
2.
2~
2`
MR. PATTERSON: Okay. Library services. On
this particular item, what -- this is under Tab 8. What I
have done here on the screen is just simply taken and break
down three basic areas that we'd like to touch on. There's
a lot of information in the packet with regard to service
levels, number of patrons served, technology, et cetera.
And, Antonio is here and will be able to answer most of
those questions, but also give you some additional
information which is not shown up here. But, the bottom
line is -- is that just to touch on a couple of things.
One is the proposal to add the -- what we're
calling the Outreach Program, and that program would be
to -- to circulate materials available at the library out to
county residents by adding a van and a staff person to be
able to take -- and take those materials out of the library
and drop them at those specific locations where they can
pick those up. Now, the idea being -- and, again, I'll let
him get into more detail, but they'll be able to either
online make reservations or telephone reservations without
having to even come to the library at all. Be able to do
that from home. The idea being that the overall program is
shown at a little over $60,000. The van, which is projected
at about 38, would be offset by contributions that we
currently have on-hand that we would like to use against
that, leaving a funding requirement of 22,5.
69
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
i--.
25
And, in addition to that, basic services --
again, it's very straightforward. The bottom line is there
that our costs are going up with regard to personnel. Our
buying power on the books, et cetera, are all just increases
that we've got. One of the things that the City -- or the
County, in terms of our overall contributions into that have
been level for two fiscal years; that's one of the reasons
also that we would like to take a look at this and make this
recommendation for next year. Facilities in general, just
as an update, the Phase I on the History Center right now
should be completed this year. In addition to that, one of
the things that happened -- and, Antonio, was this last year
or the year before that that facility was done?
MR. MARTINEZ: June 1st of last year.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay, last year. What we
would like to propose is that we really need to take that
facility plan off the shelf and take a real hard look at it.
One of the issues that we need to take a look at -- and I've
had an opportunity -- I've read about 75 percent of the
study. I'm still reading the rest of it, but part of what
was in that study took a look at things like adding onto the
balcony area, stuff like that, to add square footage. Not
just enhance, you know, services inside of what's there
today, but add square footage to the facility so that
here's additional shelf space. And that's what we're
~o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
running into. What we would like to look at this next year
is take a real hard look at that, take a look at not only,
you know, what can be done, what's in those recommendations,
but then also take a look at funding sources for that.
With that said, I'm going to let Antonio
speak to some of these in a little bit more detail, and then
I'll kind of summarize it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Ron, I don't mean to be
obstreperous here, but we have a 2 o'clock bid opening,
so --
MR. PATTERSON: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- we're going to have to
push these last very quickly.
MR. MARTINEZ: I'll make mine very short. We
presented the Outreach Program to County Commissioners in
May. There's really nothing different from that
presentation, so I'm really not going to go into any detail
on that. I'll be glad to answer any questions. As Ron
said, the idea is to keep existing automated capability,
online reservation system, telephone call, and to bring
materials out to people who need them out in the county.
Any questions on that one? I'll skip ahead to other things.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you determined
where the point of delivery on --
MR. MARTINEZ: No, sir. We would look to you
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for advice on that. We would ask you to advise us as to
what are the best places to go. You know, as we said at the
May meeting, perhaps precinct offices, perhaps other
locations that you know are good, high-traffic, and easy to
get to locations.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you contemplating
5-day delivery service?
MR. MARTINEZ: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are you
contemplating?
I MR. MARTINEZ: One a week.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Once a week?
MR. MARTINEZ: Once a week.
MR. PATTERSON: Well, once a week, but there
may be five or six locations, so the idea would be is get as
many locations as possible, do it once a week, and if the
demand is there, actually add to that and do additional
drops per week. We'd like to do it as a pilot program.
MR. MARTINEZ: Definitely. The location we
would ask for your advice on. As far as particular
services, in the past two years, what's happening at the
library is that we're seeing our in-house usage going up
dramatically. And, that's one of our big problems. As Ron
mentioned, we'd like to see within the existing building
envelope to create more public areas. We don't have enough
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
room for all the people that are coming in. We're seeing
between 400 and 500 people a day coming into our doors, and
that's a pretty dramatic increase of usage of the building,
heavy traffic. We're very heavily used every day. As far
as facilities, we did present last Tuesday to Council the
economic improvement money. We do have that building plan
developing. The bid process is about to start. But, again,
as Ron said, we do have that study we concluded last year,
presented to Council, and it's very detailed as to all the
shortcomings on that building. One of the key questions to
ask is, how much money do we want to spend on that whole
building? And some people are asking me, When do you want a
plan to build a new library? Those are policy questions,
but in my opinion, we do need to invest some in maintaining
the current building. Questions I can answer?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Questions? Comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quick question. Is --
what do you call it, the History Project? History
portion --
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that 100 percent City,
or is that joint City/County also?
MR. PATTERSON: No, sir. That, we've gotten
-- the City is actually operating it, and we've gotten
contributions that are actually paying for the enhancements
73

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that are going on in all of that, and right now there are no
County funds on that particular project, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's going to stay a
separate item than the airport? I mean -- not the
airport -- than the library? I hope it is from the airport.
MR. PATTERSON: I mean, it's open for
discussion. You know, at this point in time -- I mean,
currently, with this budget you see in front of you, yes,
sir, it's separate.
MAYOR FINE: Do you want to get involved?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so.
MR. PATTERSON: And we actually have -- so
you know, we've -- for accounting purposes and budget
purposes, we actually have a separate fund established for
that, so the Library Fund and that History Center Fund are
completely separate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: The moneys do not mingle at
this point in time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thanks.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
MS. SULLIVAN: Antonio, is there problems
with the enlargement because we have a circular library?
MR. MARTINEZ: That is a problem.
Definitely, right. It's hard to develop a round space out,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
you know, past the envelope of the current building.
MS. SULLIVAN: Yes.
MR. PATTERSON: One thing I will say, though,
from reading the study --
MS. SULLIVAN: Yes?
MR. PATTERSON: From what I can tell so
far -- you know, like I said, I've read 75 percent of it,
not 100, but I will say that so far, from what I see in that
study, is it possible? The answer is yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But is it -- does it make any
sense? I mean, you do have a library that's either 300 or
400 percent over capacity today. Can you expand the
capacity of that building --
MR. PATTERSON: That much.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- that much?
MR. PATTERSON: That's --
JUDGE HENNEKE: And have any future, as well?
MR. PATTERSON: That's the question. I don't
know. I'm hoping in the end, when it gets to the summary,
it tells me some of that. So --
MR. MARTINEZ: My feeling is that the
possible expansions addressed currently don't do much for
future.
MR. PATTERSON: We may have to look off-site.
But, again, I think we owe it to ourselves to pull that
75

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
thing back and take a good, hard look at it, though. 'Cause
I'm not sure we need to really digest this, 'cause there's a
lot of good recommendations in there. Some of it, though,
we just need to figure out, do those recommendations answer
the long-term question? And, we don't know right now.
MS. SULLIVAN: Is that the review that you're
reading?
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, ma'am. It's quite
lengthy.
MS. SULLIVAN: Yes.
MR. PATTERSON: And some of it -- I hate to
keep calling and go, "What do you mean by that?" Which I'm
getting there. Are there any other questions? Okay. The
next two, just very quickly, I kind of combined them, 'cause
they're -- they're not real substantial with regard to huge
programs. But, Animal Control; again, the City participates
in that through a contract, in the control function as well
as the shelter function, on a formula basis of 90 percent of
what the -- what the budget is. And, from -- from the
budget that was given to us, what we've been able to
determine is -- is that there's an overall budget of 140.
With our participation, it's $66,000 this next year, which
is an increase of about a little over $22,000, almost
$23,000 with the overall budget. That assumes that -- if
the County wants to increase that budget. So, again -- now,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
76
if y'all choose not to raise the budget, based on the
request, you know, obviously, that will impact what the
participation level will be. So, again, pretty
straightforward.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Marc Allen is here in case
any members of the Council have any questions --
MR. PATTERSON: Oh, excellent.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- regarding the operation or
-- or anything regarding Animal Control. So, if you think
of --
MR. ALLEN: I can tell you, under Animal
Control functions, that --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Marc, stand up.
MR. ALLEN: -- that contract is really great,
because it gives the City better coverage, and it also gives
the County better coverage. I mean, that way we've got
three officers in the city all the time, and actually three
officers in the county, so that contract has just been
great. I mean, it -- overall, it's wonderful.
JUDGE HENNEKE: As far the division of, you
know, the City's participation, the contract -- actually two
contracts; one for the facility, one for the operation.
They're very detailed as to what we charge you all for and
what we don't, what offsets you get. You know, there's a
specific provision in there for so many dollars for city of
~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ingram's participation in animal control. There's a
specific provision in there for offset for the sewer
services that are provided by the cities. So, it's -- just
have to work the numbers.
MR. PATTERSON: Well, and the summary sheet
that was provided to us, that you gave us, shows all of
that, the total cost and the break-out. And that's
actually, I believe, included in your packet.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
MR. PATTERSON: I think -- yes.
MS. SULLIVAN: Could I ask the Judge and Marc
a question? Do you accept animals from outside the county?
MR. ALLEN: We try not to.
MS. SULLIVAN: Oh. 'Cause that -- I heard
that you were having trouble with the capacity; it was
because you accepted animals --
MR. ALLEN: We don't accept a whole lot of
them. Once or twice a month, somebody from --
MS. SULLIVAN: Is that all?
MR. ALLEN: -- from another county will show
up. If we tell them no, we're not going to take it, well,
they're going to end up dumping it right down the road;
we're going to end up chasing it anyways.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And there are ways to make it
an accounting animal. You realize that if you walk out the


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
78
door --
MS. SULLIVAN: I understand that. I
understand.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. PATTERSON: So the Council knows, our
budget today that's -- that's prepared and for submission to
y'all does include this increase, so it's already built into
this. Okay. Anything else on that? All right. Tax
collection.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, Paula Rector's here;
again, the City/County Tax Assessor/Collector, if anyone has
any questions about tax collection or the process.
MR. PATTERSON: It's pretty straightforward,
1 percent of projected taxes -- or actual taxes, actually.
So, it's -- it is what it is. It's pretty straightforward.
No? Okay.
MAYOR FINE: You do good.
JUDGE HENNEKE: A compliment and a free
lunch. What more do you want?
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. PATTERSON: With regard to potential new
programs, I've just got a little summary here, and the Judge
and I talked the other day and there was a couple of other
issues. I don't know -- I think we've got time to go into
those with y'all. Ur if y'all want to try and do something
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
79
separate on this? Or if you want me to just very quickly
gloss over them?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we have
time.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do a real quick gloss, if you
would, please, Ron.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Really, just the -- I think
the first two are the ones that really have --
MR. PATTERSON: Those are the real --
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- need to be touched on.
The third one is mandated by the Legislature.
MR. PATTERSON: That's right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So it's one that we have to
come together on.
MR. PATTERSON: well, the bottom line is --
is that there's been some discussion about the combination
of municipal county courts, being able to perhaps get in a
situation where we don't -- we don't have to have a
stand-alone municipal court; that that could be rolled into
a function done on a county-wide basis. And, again, there's
been some preliminary discussions that -- the Judge and I
have had some conversations, and one of the things that --
that this would do is, obviously, potentially have some
economies of scale for both of us, primarily for the City,
80
~-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
quite frankly, in terms of being able to get out of that
business. So, again, that's something that's being looked
at. We've got to do some number-crunching and that type
thing. But, again, it's something being looked at for the
future. Is that short enough?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone -- anyone have any
questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have some major,
major, major questions that this day there's not enough time
to go into. So --
MR. PATTERSON: There are a lot of issues
like this one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- I really would like
to revisit this.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir, okay. Yeah, 'cause
there's a lot of jurisdictional questions. I mean, there's
a ton of things to go through on it. Okay. Garage
services. On that particular item, one of the things
that -- the County has bid their maintenance services on
their vehicles. One of the things that we're now looking at
is -- and the Judge has provided to us now a list of all the
vehicles, save and except the heavy equipment in the Road
and Bridge area. Okay. This would be cars, light trucks,
that kind of stuff, and our staff has taken a look at that
to say, okay, you know, could we bid on that and what would
81
1
,^'^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-.
25
that do? The idea being that, you know, we do a cost-plus
basis of some sort and be able to do something that would be
reasonable for the County, perhaps even cost savings, and
beneficial to the City. So, we're looking at it. We got
the numbers the other day, and we're looking at building a
cost model right now. One of the things we don't want to do
is -- is that, in our system, we have the ability to look
at -- if we take a vehicle, look at the make, model, and
mileage, we can project what that cost would be for
preventive maintenance, as well as routine. You know, just
routine maintenance of things you know are going to go out;
change -- oil changes, as well. That's preventive, but you
can also predict what you think that vehicle might cost you
in repairs. So, we're taking a look at that and trying to
build some cost model around that. That's so we can have
some conversations about it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I really would be
JUDGE HENNEKE: I will -- the list I provided
you, though, Ron, is the Sheriff's Department and the
Maintenance Department, all right? I haven't discussed with
the Road and Bridge Department whether they would want their
-- their pickups to be included in it.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: There's a few other odd
82

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
vehicles; the -- the Probation Department has a couple.
MR. PATTERSON: Right, a few here and there.
We've got the preponderance of what's there, so at least we
can get some sort of numbers out of that. Heavy equipment
would send us off the deep end.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Heavy equipment, I don't
think, is contemplated, at least certainly not at this time.
MR. PATTERSON: No, we haven't been looking
at that one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is road support?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's maintenance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The road maintenance?
MR. PATTERSON: There's been, you know, some
discussion about, you know, maintenance and -- maintenance
outside the city limits, maintenance inside the city limits,
funding those, what processes could be used to do that. You
know, again, as you know, we've got road issues all over the
county, and a lot of them are in the city. So, that was --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's another one,
probably needs a little time to look at and some time to
discuss what the possibilities are. We probably need to
address that in time.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Couple other potential new
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
programs. Common dispatch with the Sheriff's Department and
the police and the fire we're interested in. And, also the
area of wastewater treatment. We're already actually
involved in that with the Kerrville South project with the
U.G.R.A. as the go-between. I think we all see that as a --
hopefully a model for future participation. On motion by
then City Councilman Fine, the City Council has taken the
position they'd like to be the regional wastewater provider
for this area, and so we need to tap into that and talk
about ways that the County and other government agencies
like the U.G.R.A. can facilitate getting fewer septics and
more septic treatment.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. And, the -- the
Council is currently looking at some plans for upgrading
some of our systems right now, and we'll be presenting that
to them on the 8th, as well. So -- and we also have to do a
bigger-picture view of it for expanding those facilities,
not just upgrading.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. PATTERSON: Really, just two issues to
address. One is, is this format -- is this helpful? Is
this -- I mean, are we giving you what you need? Are we
not? I want to make sure, when we get here again, that we
don't -- if we make mistakes, that we don't repeat them. Is
this --
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Very helpful.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I like having a book
in advance, because that answers a lot of questions, if you
really read it.
MS. SULLIVAN: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excellent.
JUDGE HENNEKE: As far as future meetings on
the potential problems, like the municipal court, my -- my
suggestion is that as -- as we get closer to a decision,
then we -- we have some of the fundamental issues fleshed
out, like jurisdiction. Can we do this? Then let's
schedule a specific meeting on a specific topic, and take
about an hour, work our way through it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Who buys the barbecue?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: City did a good job.
MS. SULLIVAN: It's your turn next.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, I do believe that
calling meetings for those specific issues is important, but
I also believe that, in terms of the big scope, what we're
doing here, as the -- as the mayor pointed out, I think at
least once a year we need to be doing this so that we can
get this data to you and we can talk about it, and -- and,
again, share this information on these projects. You know,
maybe it's something we do semiannually, so that that middle
meeting is something where we're doing planning instead of
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
looking at -- here's numbers that we want you to consider.
It's more like the questions about the airport and those
kinds of things. Well, where are we on that project? You
know, what are we looking at? Just a suggestion. But, if
you're interested in it, you know, we'd like to be able to
support that, you know, get those going.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I personally would like to
see us do it that way. We could have a meeting in the
December/January timeframe and -- and without numbers, and
talk about visions and -- and, you know, where's the library
going? Where's the airport going? And do we have the basis
for road support? Do we have the basis for additional
wastewater treatment? And then, based on those discussions,
come together in the May/June timeframe with specific
numbers that implement the direction we arrived at in the
previous one.
MR. PATTERSON: Sounds good to me.
MS. SULLIVAN: Sounds good to me, too.
MR. PATTERSON: We will begin to schedule all
of that and look at it, prepare for it. Again, we thank
y'all very much for your time, both Council and
Commissioners. We really appreciate the opportunity to do
this, and look forward to another exciting year as we go
into the new budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Ron.
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Excellent presentation.
MS. SULLIVAN: Yes, very helpful, all the way
around.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: We are adjourned.
(Meeting adjourned at 1:56 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 3rd day of August,
2001.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY : _____ _ _ __ ___ __
Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
SPECIAL JOINT COMMISSIONERS' COURT AND CITY
COUNCIL AGENDA
TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2001 AT 12:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
800 JUNCTION HIGHWAY
KERRVILLE, TEXAS 78028
THIS NOTICE IS POSTED PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS
ACT. (TITLES, CHAPTER 551, GOVERNMENT CODE AND TITLE 5,
CHAPTER 552, GOVERNMENT CODE.)
This Commissioners' Court will hold a special joint meeting at 12:00
P.M., Tuesday, July 31, 2001.
• Call to Order
I
1.
CONSIDERATION AGENDA: (Action may be taken on
Items listed below)
Discussion of Joint Budgeted items between City/County including, but not
limited to: (County Judge)
a.	Library
b.	Airport
c.	Fire Protection
d.	EMS/First Responder
e.	Emergency Management
f.	Task Force
g.	Recycling
h.	Tax Collection
i.	Animal Control
2.
wsa 'z"1 b, oe~~
~ r~ ate: ~ <~ t,n"''
Discussion of other potential Joint Ventures including, but not limited to:
a. Municipal Court
b. Gazage Services
c. Plat Review
d. Road Support