1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
and
KERRVILLE CITY COUNCIL
City/County Joint Meeting
Thursday, January 31, 2002
6:30 p.m.
District Courtroom Number 1
Kerr County Courthouse
700 Main Street
Kerrville, Texas
P R E S E N T
Kerr County Commissioners Court:
FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4
Kerrville City Council:
STEPHEN P. FINE, Mayor
ANN G. SULLIVAN, Mayor Pro Tem
NANCY BANKS, Place 2
DAVID WAMPLER, Place 3
TONY ROBERTS, Place 4
DANE TUNE, Assistant City Manager
KEVIN LAUGHLIN, City Attorney
~I
~I

1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
I N D E X
January 31, 2002
PAGE
1.1	Consider and discuss future of Kerrville/Kerr	
	County Municipal Airport, including T-hangars,	
	master plan, build out and noise study, future	
	capital improvements and grants	5
1.2	Consider and discuss future of Butt-Holdsworth	
	Library, including recent improvements that are	
	City/County and EIC-funded, re-examination of	
	study completed in 2000, and the county delivery	
	system	19
1.3	Consider and discuss current operations and	
	potential expansion for Animal Control	31
1.4	Consider and discuss City of Kerrville having	
	responsibility for approval of ETJ subdivision	
	plats and draft of interlocal agreement	93
1.5	Consider and discuss recent legislative changes	
	concerning road maintenance and participation	
	in maintenance on annexations	62
1.6	Consider and discuss facility enhancements and	
	partnerships for regional wastewater facilities,	
	including U.G.R.A.	78
1.7	Consider and discuss potential City/County joint	
	operations for:	
	Garage Services	86
	Municipal Court	94
	Common Dispatch	102
1.8	Consider and discuss plans and potential	
	partnerships/funding for the Hill Country	
	Youth Exhibition Center	112
---	Adjourned	131
3

1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Thursday, January 31, 2002, at 6:30 p.m., a joint
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court and the
Kerrville City Council was held in District Courtroom
Number 1, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and
the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
DODGE HENNEKE: Before we begin our formal
meeting this evening, let's stand, have a word of prayer,
the pledge of allegiance, and then get started. If you'll
join me, please, for the invocation.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you all. On behalf of
the Commissioners Court, I want to welcome the City Council.
It's our turn to host these joint meetings, which I think we
should plan to institutionalize so we may cooperate for the
benefit of all the citizens that we serve. I want to thank
you all for coming. I want to extend a special thanks to
Mamacita's and Hagi and Dean for the gift of the food which
we enjoyed this evening, and our special thanks to them for
helping to make this a special occasion. Mayor, do you want
to say anything?
MAYOR FINE: Well, thank y'all for having us.
We agreed last summer to make this a biannual -- not
biannual, semiannual -- twice-a-year event. And I think
we've got a lot of exciting stuff here to talk about, and I
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
think with the last meeting being the first one, we were all
kind of new to it, and I think it's -- we know what we're
doing and the direction we're going, and I want to thank
you. And Ron had a lot to do with putting this together,
and the staff of the County and the City, and thanks for
having us.
DODGE HENNEKE: Well, you're welcome. Just
for a quick review, when we met for the first time last
spring, we determined that we really need to have two of
these sessions a year, one in the winter to talk
strategically, to talk long-term, to talk policy terms, and
then one in the spring to talk in dollar terms, to actually
put dollars behind the strategy that we talked about and
that is ultimately determined for our joint operation.
So, the discussion this evening is designed to be more
free-flowing, less attached to dollars and more conceptual
as we move through the things that we're currently doing on
behalf of all the citizens here, and things that we could
be -- or propose to do.
MAYOR FINE: So, tonight we're going to
decide what we're going to do. In the spring, we'll decide
how we're going to pay for it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Basically.
MS. SULLIVAN: Appropriations follow the
bill.
5
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
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any of any Commissioners want
to say anything?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. Let's get to it.
MAYOR FINE: Nope.
MR. WAMPLER: No.
DODGE HENNEKE: Well, we'll call the first
item, then, which is a discussion on the airport, including,
but not limited to, the T-hangars, revenues, master plan,
and related land use and development studies and future
capital improvements and grants. What I think we might do,
Mayor, is for the -- for the items that you -- you all
actually staff, we'll let you lead it, and for the ones that
we have the principal responsibility, we'll take it. Okay?
MAYOR FINE: Okay. One of the things Dane
especially has asked me tonight is not only do we go through
the list, but we prioritize on each one of these topics what
the Council and the Commissioners Court -- what is their
priority, so they know what to work on first. I think
that's going to be really important, as far as how staff
time is spent on each of these items. Some of them are
going to require a lot more staff time than others, just due
to the nature of it and where they are on some of the
projects. Like, with the T-hangars and the airport, a lot
of this stuff is already pretty much set right now. Megan's
6
1
r- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~.. 1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-.
25
done a good job of keeping it moving forward, where other
items that are a little more wide-open, we need to give them
through each one of them.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
MAYOR FINE: The first item is the airport,
T-hangar project. You guys have read this. I don't see
much need for me going through and reading it. Megan, is
there anything else you want to add to this? I don't want
to put you on the spot, but you showed up, so --
MS. CAFFALL: Thank you. The only point that
both Ron and I wanted to emphasize is that the airport is a
real asset to our community, and under the master plan and
related land use and development studies, something to
really consider in the next year, after we get our master
plan finally finished and approved by the F.A.A., is to do a
land use and development plan related to the noise contours
that are generated in this master plan. And that's
something that would allow our airport zoning and advisory
board to kind of turn our hat around and act as a zoning
board and do some land use zoning around the airport so we
don't end up with incompatible development around the
airport, which ultimately, if the airport is noisy and
affects residential or other kind of development, then they

1
.--. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~l
22
23
24
.-.
25
have a legitimate complaint. So, it's something that,
year, or in the next budget year, to study and to give us a
document to turn over to the airport zoning board to create
guidelines to go ahead and do this zoning, which would, I
guess, also fall in amongst the ETJ and all that kind of
overview that we're going to have, would really help us
protect the airport. And that -- that, to me, out of all of
this, is probably the most important thing.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Just as a point of
information, for those who aren't aware, with respect to
airport zoning, an airport sponsor can actually enact a
zoning ordinance that -- particularly if it's in a city; you
can actually extend that zoning out beyond the boundaries of
the airport, whether it's in the city limits or not, so it's
one -- it's about the only exception to state law where
there is zoning outside of an incorporated city. And that
does deal with the airport, so that will be something that
can be done, if -- if it's saw fit to do so.
MAYOR FINE: One of the exciting things --
some of the discussions we've been involved in, Judge, with
these groups coming in looking at Mooney, our airport's not
just a little airport any more. I mean, we're -- it's on
the verge of becoming more than just Kerrville's little flat
8
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
-- only piece of flat land in the county out there. I mean,
it's growing, and some of the things that are being done, we
can -- we can draw in more aircraft of a larger size in the
future with some of the projects that are going on. 'Cause
we're kind of at a point where we really need to make this a
focal point out there and put more money and effort into it
to keep it growing, going that direction. Obviously, we
probably never will be a San Antonio, but we probably don't
want to be a San Antonio, either.
DODGE HENNEKE: No.
MAYOR FINE: But, by the same token, there's
some things we can do to attract more planes and industry in
that area out there. The business park out there is going
to be a big boost for that area also.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Couple thoughts.
Megan, I don't want to put you on the spot, but there is one
thing that's sort of an imperative if you're talking about
the airport -- the airport in general. You recall at the
last Airport Board, we did talk about animals on the
runways, and I've had -- since that meeting, I've had two or
three calls, again, about animals on the runways when
aircraft are coming in, and it is dangerous. And I think we
ought to put that on the front burner and see if we can
figure out a way to get the animals off the airport runways,
and find a way to either replace the animal -- I mean the
9
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
gap -- cattle gap so that we make it large enough so that
animals cannot get back into that area, because there's a
good possibility that there could be an accident. And I had
a call from a person the other day out in his plane; very,
very upset about it. 'Cause I think we ought to push it up
on the front burner and to figure out a way to get it done.
MS. CAFFALL: I'm meeting Kerr County Welding
out there tomorrow morning.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Super. That's great.
MS. CAFFALL: I've been working with the
County and Road and Bridge, and there is, I think, a pretty
easy solution to getting at least a 12-foot wide guard
there. It won't take that long to put in, and I think I
have funds to pay for it. We'll figure out a way to pay for
it; it shouldn't be tremendously expensive, and go ahead and
get that back in there. I've been out at the airport quite
a bit more than I normally am. Primarily, I push paper, but
I've been out there a good bit, and Tuesday there were
antelope out there that were just going from one end of the
airport to the other; they couldn't get out. And it
appeared to me it could be very likely that they're coming
in the road, and if there's any way we can stop it there, we
need to do it. We've also been working the fence and
repairing the fence. Those antelope can get through an
incredibly small fence --
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true, there
probably are some fence gaps that need to be taken a look
at. But the -- but the cattle guard will be very
beneficial.
MS. CAFFALL: But that's the primary -- we're
working on it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Appreciate that. And
one other comment, Judge; it has to do with what Kevin said
with respect to zoning. There is a colony of folks that
live back there behind the airport.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they're certainly
going to be interested in that.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Oh, we're aware of that.
MS. SULLIVAN: Kevin, I wanted to ask you,
what power do they have, as a zoning board, just for noise?
MR. LAUGHLIN: No, it's -- I mean, you can
actually do land uses, just like the City does for inside
the city limits. And the -- the concept is to zone areas
around your airport that are compatible to the noise that
would be generated from the airport, which means for a
certain distance out, you largely want more -- you know,
heavier, more intense uses, more commercial-type kind of --
like airport commerce park type uses, you know, within the
immediate boundaries and to some distance out. And then you
1
~. 2
3
4
` 5
6
i ~
8
9
~ 10
11
12
,,.., 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-.
25
11
can -- then you can go with less intense uses the further
out you get from the boundaries. And there's -- there's
some F.A.A. guidelines that they publish that you can put
with the tables that you can get, that the master plan
should -- or can put together, or we would develop based on
the noise contours, to kind of lay out what those kind of
acceptable uses would be within the various contours.
MS. CAFFALL: And some of it also indicates
-- if you build, say, residential in this area, you can
build it there, but you have to provide in your building
requirements that there be some protection that breaks the
noise level down to an acceptable level. Some -- it doesn't
-- especially at our airport, in that area that's just
behind the airport, Shady Grove and the houses that are on
the hills, fortunately, that whole area falls in a noise
level area that's not prohibited.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Right.
MS. CAFFALL: But things that are growing
towards the end of the runways, it gets very specific about
what you can build, where and how you have to build it.
So -- the studies I've seen.
MR. LAUGHLIN: When -- just so you know, when
we were doing the annexation zoning for the new Catholic
high school site, one of the things we looked at were some
of the preliminary numbers on the master plan study, just to
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
12
kind of see where those noise contours fell with respect to
the proposed site plan for the school buildings, and made a
judgment that based on the -- that they were far enough out
and far enough away from the end of the runway that they
were actually beyond some of the noise contours that would
require limiting the use to something more intense. So,
that's why we -- so, you know, in some respects, we've done
-- have been starting to do some of that, just with some of
the areas we've been annexing out there.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Megan, can you summarize
where the master plan takes the airport? I guess what the
vision is as to where the airport's going to be? Is it
going to kind of stay like it is, just keep on improving it,
or is it -- to get it to another level where you can get
more jet aircraft, more heavy aircraft? Where does the --
you know, a summary of that direction.
MS. CAFFALL: Well, the master plan covers --
we're actually into it a ways, so say the next ten years --
and it's not attracting bigger aircraft, but increased
operations. The ultimate master plan is to include an
extension to replace what we lost due to development down at
the Mooney end of the main runway, but it's not really
indicating bigger, heavier aircraft. We're already getting
about what we can accommodate with all our safety criteria
13
1
-.. 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
._ 13
~ 14
' 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
L L
23
r-.. 2 4
25
distances. It's just more activity and more use of the
airport, which will -- the noise contours move out and away,
just because you're going to have increased frequency of the
larger aircraft. Now -- and the F.A.A. has models that you
increased operations will spread those contours out. So,
there's probably -- as far as development of the airport,
the only major project left that we would be looking at in
the next ten years, besides the -- the runway extension,
which is a major project; I mean, that's something that we
all need to sit down and think about, but just to
accommodate what we have now and the traffic we have now, is
relocating the taxiways to increase our safety distance
there between the taxiway and the runway. But, basically,
we have a facility that's adequate the way it is, and is
just ripe for development just the way it is now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's more just
developing the -- the business side of the airport, as
opposed to making it larger?
MS. CAFFALL: I brought this with me, and I
think it's something that it probably wouldn't hurt to look
at. Because inside -- when you talk about the development
of the airport, on the inside of that brochure, which I put
together to kind of promote the T-hangars, and also it shows
the -- this secondary development area behind our -- this

1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L S
19
blue area here is the ramp that we have now with the
buildings in turquoise, are what's actually there. All the
rest of this is what's proposed for development, which will
be done by other people with -- with their money. It's not
City and County development. I'm working with an investor
right now for this area down here shown on the new proposed
ramp, this little purple building down here. That may well
come to be in the next couple of years. But that's somebody
else doing that; that's not us paying for it. So, when --
and this is a lot of what the master plan addresses, is that
we need this, and this is how -- when someone comes and
wants to build something at the airport, this is what is on
file with the F.A.A. And they ask the question when we do
develop it, is it consistent with the airport master plan?
And this is where we get our guidance as to where to go with
development.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Judge, Megan and I
discuss this often, and I've mentioned it at most of the
meetings we've had over the last three years regarding the
airport, but I think it's important enough to repeat it
again, and that is, as we plan for the airport, I think one
of the things we ought to keep in mind is to make sure that
we don't do anything that would preclude having commuter
service at some point. Because there are some things that
we could do that might preclude that, just in general

t ~
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
15
operations or in where we put roads or whatever, because
there would have to be a secure area if that kind of thing
were done. And I think if the -- to the degree that we can,
if we can plan on having a commuter service here someday, I
think we will.
MR. JOHNSTON: With the development along
Highway 27, does that -- that can't be expanded for larger
and larger aircraft?
MS. CAFFALL: We just need to be careful how
it develops along that area.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't TexDOT show
some potential movement of 27 towards the river a little bit
on that master plan?
MS. CAFFALL: It's shown on there, and it's
in the process of being reviewed by the F.A.A. They will
make determinations. And, unfortunately, September 11th has
really slowed things down. I mean, we just -- it's been
with the -- in Fort Worth for almost four months now, so --
MR. WAMPLER: Megan, I was wondering, to
further answer Commissioner Letz' question, can you go over
the T-hangars and rationale for applying for the grants and
getting those in, and how this fits in with the airport
master plan?
MS. CAFFALL: Well, the T-hangars were to
fulfill a need for more hangar space for smaller aircraft,

~-
1
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
16
and in another area, in the main ramp area, it's designated
for larger aircraft. The master plan shows four T-hangar
buildings, and then some additional smaller hangars and a
road going up toward where Steve Gray's hangar is. I think
that -- 1 guess you know the City and County paid for the
buildings themselves, and then I got grants to do the paving
and the infrastructure that went with it. Uoes that answer
your question?
MR. WAMYLFR: Yeah. I guess -- I guess what
Jonathan was asking is, what is the plan, long-term? And,
as 1 see it, what we've discussed is that, you know, the
T-hangars fit in that -- in that it potentially draws
aircraft from other areas that may see benefits to storing
aircraft or operating out of Kerrville versus Austin or San
Antonio or what-have-you. And so that I think this lends
itself to increasing the activity at the airport, provides
more of an economic boost with that activity that we hadn't
seen in the past.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Well, the other thing it does
is that it provides another vehicle to make -- to generate
revenue at the airport, to get us closer to the day when we
all hope -- and I think -- I'm assuming we all hope that the
airport can -- can be self-supporting. One of the F.A.A.
guidelines with respect to airports is that, besides
creating airport funds, is to make the strive towards those
17


1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1/
18
ly
20
21
22
23
24
25
airport funds to be self-supporting, not dependent on
general fund revenues. And, having T-hangars and having
based aircraft there buying fuel, and thus paying a fuel
flowage fee that goes into the airport fund, those kind of
things meld together and help enhance the operation of the
airport, and start -- hopefully, the plan is to decrease the
dependency on the -- the County and City's general funds in
supporting the airport.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the current
deficit?
MS. CAFFALL: Because we're in the grant
situation now, you know, we are -- our deficit is basically
the grant match. And my goal in the next five years is not
to only make the airport pay for itself, but start building
that Lund balance, so when we come up on one of these deals
where we have -- next year's a substantial grant match,
which the airport itself isn't generating enough money to
pay for, but if we have years in between these larger grant
matches, you know, to build the -- the fund balance up so
that we can contribute towards those out of the airport
money, which right now the fund balance in the airport fund
is minimal, because we have to contribute to it. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the grant match
estimated for -- during the next 5-year period? I know it
goes up and down from year to year, depends on the projects,


1
1
1
G
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
but what's our -	- just	the grant amount that we're	looking
at?			
MS. CAFFALL: Well, we aren't programmed for
anything beyond this -- this year right now. I would
imagine it's going to be at least three to four years after
next year's grant match, and it's projected to be, I think,
$123,000 each, because it's about two and a half million
dollars worth of improvement. We won't be scheduled for
another capital improvement grant of that size for at least
three years, I wouldn't think. I mean, historically, that's
the way it's been. And the other -- the other -- the
entitlement funds that I got last year go through this year
and next year, but they're ten cents on the dollar, about a
$16,000 grant match, which is something I'm hoping to see
the airport able to pay those things. Like right now,
within our budget, we can pay our $20,000 or $30,000 a year
for the grant match for the ramp projects, and we can use
the entitlement money, if we get it, and if we find a grant
match to do things that we would normally have to pay for
anyway, you know, to improve pavement or do maintenance and
things like that. So, my goal is to have the airport up
paying for itself and building in the years that we don't
have the big grant matches.
MAYOR FINE: There's a good goal.
DODGE HENNEKE: An excellent goal.
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ly
20
21
22
23
29
25
19
MAYOk FINE: Any further questions for Megan
or Kevin? Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Stephen, I think the only
question is, sometime -- I'd probably appreciate if we could
get -- I don't know if the full court would be interested in
a more detailed review of the master plan. If it is, we may
put it on our agenda, see if Megan can come over in a
workshop setting for the whole court, or I can just meet,
myself, and -- one-on-one.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think I'd like to do that,
too, is have a -- a special session on the master plan at
some point, just to come up to speed on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe some of the members
of the Airport Board can come --
MS. CAFFALL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- talk about it, 'cause
they're the ones that did a lot of work on it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Next item is
Butt-Holdsworth Library, including recent improvements,
re-examination of the 2000 study, and the county delivery
system.
MAYOR FINE: Antonio, I guess you're going
to -- you showed up too, so --
MR. MARTINEZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You're on.
I
,.-~ 2
3
4
5
5
i
~ 7
8
I
9
1
10
11
1
12
~ ~, 13
14
' 15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
.-..
25
20
MAYOR FINE: Why don't you --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Aren't we lucky these people
showed up'?
MAYOR FINE: Would you bring us up to date on
the --
MR. MARTINEZ: Sure.
MAYOR FINE: -- Library, City/County Library,
the delivery system and some of the other projects going on
down there'?
MR. MARTINEZ: Well, let's start with the
renovation project. If you've driven by the library, you've
seen all the activity, and as stated here, there's three
major items being addressed at this point. And we were
waiting on bids on two other large items. As it happens, we
do have some updated information as of a day ago; we
received cost proposals on the roof and the lighting, and it
looks like we can accomplish that with the existing funding,
and so we're moving ahead with that. It's being reviewed by
staff, and we intend to move speedily on it, so that's where
we are on renovation items. As you'll recall, to segue into
the study comments, we had to address A.D.A. compliance and
all the other regulatory issues before we could do anythinq
else. We had a long list of projects proposed by the study,
so the staff proposal is to review that study once more, now
that we're underway with the compliance issues, and come
21

1

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
back and try to pick some of those projects that are doable
and fundable, to actually provide some service benefits and
some space benefits. That was really our intention all
along, but A.D.A. compliance sidetracked us quite a bit.
As far as the delivery system, I did meet
with the Commissioners Monday, and we do intend to discuss
location of delivery sites, and all the other items are
underway. Job description's being written. We do have the
vehicle on order, and expect delivery within a week, week
and a half, and we'll be fitting out the vehicle, getting it
ready for the service, and preparing the media announcements
and trying to promote the service. I'll be glad to answer
any other questions that you all have.
MS. SULLIVAN: Yes, Antonio. Are we going to
do the things that are -- were stated in the plan
project-by-project as we find funding for them? Is that
what you're saying?
MR. MARTINEZ: I haven't had a chance to
discuss the approach with Ron, you know, since he left; we
didn't get to review that, so I'm not real sure how that
will go. I know one of our top desires is to enclose that
balcony space.
MS. SULLIVAN: Yes.
MR. MARTINEZ: You know, that's really all
along the top. We desire to create new public space, which

1
1
1
1
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
22
is what we need the most. We're very crowded, and, you
know, we're seeing 400, 500 people a day coming through that
library, and we need space to put them, so that's really the
most desirable thing. But we're going to look at everything
very carefully and see if there's anything that needs to be
addressed before it gets to a critical point. If there's
anything that needs to be repaired, you know, we also need
to do that, and not do crisis management.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Even if the balcony space
isn't enclosed, isn't the building still severely over
capacity, as far as the use?
MR. MARTINEZ: In terms of seating, yes. We
probably have sufficient capacity for materials, for books,
et cetera. But seating areas, computer usage areas, study
areas, that type of thing, take up a lot of space, so we are
underconfigured for the usage.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What are the long-term plans
for the recently acquired strip shopping center there where
Center Travel and --
MR. MARTINEZ: We still have leases running
there. Kevin, about two and a half years?
MR. LAUGHLIN: Well, no. Through the end of
this October.
MR. MARTINEZ: Okay. You know, my
understanding is -- and, you know, I'll defer to Kevin to


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
L L
23
24
25
23
give you more on that, but my understanding is that we will
be looking at creating parking there eventually, when we've
run through all these leases. That's another critical need,
parking. You know, we just don't have enough spaces for the
number of people that come in.
MR. LAUGHLIN: That's an issue that City
Council need to be addressing. The funds that were gifted
to the City to acquire that property limited it to library
use, and so the property will ultimately have to be used for
the library purposes. The timing on whatever ultimately
happens with the -- with the buildings, whether it be, you
know, with demolition of either all or part of it, however
the Council ultimately decides to do it, would -- you know,
still has to be decided. You know, 'cause one of the things
that we're going to have to look at is, you know, we're
trying to generate some revenues from the remaining leases.
Our -- we've got three tenants -- paying tenants right now.
One is leaving at the end -- she may have already closed up
shop, I'm not sure. She was leaving today or -- or within
the month, anyway. It's either -- and then Center Travel's
still in its lease, and then Mr. Elmore still -- he's on a
month-to-month. And -- but he -- he'll be leaving at his
desire, but at the end of October at the latest. So, we're
trying to generate revenues from those rents to -- to bank
away, but I don't think it's going to quite get us there to



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
7J
23
24
25
24
actually paying for the demolition of the building. I mean,
there's still some funds that are going to have to be put
together for -- to do that, and that's something the
Council -- Dane and the Council and Antonio will need to be
kind of get together from a budget standpoint as to where we
generate those funds.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kevin, that property was
given to the City only?
MR. LAUGHLIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How --
MR. LAUGHLIN: We acquired it. We bought it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, you bought it. How
are we going to, long-term, have a -- you know, a facility
that's going to have -- I mean, how are you going to
segregate expenditures? I mean, if we start using it for --
like, if you clear it out, use it for parking --
MR. LAUGHLIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- who's going to -- are
you going to say, okay, you know, the County paid for
repairing the pothole here, but the City's going to pay for
this pothole?
MR. LAUGHLIN: Keep in mind, the existing
building, the City holds the title to it too, so it
wouldn't -- operationally, it wouldn't be -- shouldn't be --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it would be the same?
25



1
%-~ 2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
~ 13
.--
19
` 15
16
17
18
ly
20
21
22
23
24
•--
25
MR. LAUGHLiN: -- shouldn't be any different.
MR. TUNE: We do -- by the way, the history
center's -- and r'red's question about kind of where is all
this going space-wise, the idea has been a complex on the
river with the library, with adequate parking, and with the
history center. And the history center, Phase I, is
And that also was gifted, between grants and
H.E.B. and some others, so you've got that over there, and
we're working on funding for that. Now, currently, where I
think you're going, Jonathan, y'all have not had to fund
anything in the history center, nor in the strip here. And,
you know, up the road, I don't know, but there's -- we're
not going there. That's not the purpose of this one. But
we do have to find ways to fund the history center, and
that's what we're working on. We want to try to have a two-
to three-year, even up to a five-year plan to put -- you
know, you don't want to open it up and then you can't
sustain it. That's the problem with some of these gifts we
get; we don't get money for operations. So, to make a long
story short, remember also we do have the basement of the
library, and that's a large area under there. There's some
A.D.A, problems. There's some problems with that structure,
just the way it's built, but it's a beautiful structure.
And, anyway, that's kind of the thinking right now, that it
stays there for a certain period of time, but it becomes a
26




1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
complex. And, you know, how do we fund it? Y'all are --
City/County obviously fund the library, proper. And the
rest of it's another issue.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The history library was a
wonderful gift, but isn't it limited in its use? In other
words, you can't put the children's section in that
structure; is that correct?
MR. TONE: There's a lot of things we could
do with it, but right now we're looking at genealogy -- just
what you're saying. There's some things like genealogy, for
instance, and then all the -- optionally, all the history
stuff. I don't think that -- Antonio might want to speak to
that. I don't think there's any plans to put library pieces
over there. It's strictly history and things that lend to
that type of operation.
MR. MARTINEZ: If I could comment on that,
moving any other service really creates a problem due to
staffing level. If we start dividing up staff and sending
them to satellite locations, then we don't have staff to
help the 500 people a day that come into the main building,
so that's not really a desirable objective for me at this
point, with the limited staffing we have. So, yes, you're
right, it would be limited to history and genealogy
operations for the foreseeable future.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems to me that we
27
	1
^-,	2
	3
	4
'	S


h
7
8
9
10
11
12
,..-. 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
^-.. 2 4
25
probably -- I mean, I hate to put more meetings in the
future, but it would be helpful, I think, for the City and
I mean, and a situation where you could have conflict as to
how you fund when there's one facility that's being funded
by different components. I think we need to be real, real
careful, when we start going down that path, that we're, you
know, in agreement as to where we want to go. Maybe -- I
have no idea if the County wants to participate in some of
these things, or if the City wants to participate, but I
think it would be real healthy for us to, you know, get real
blunt and say, "We want to do this and we don't want to do
this," or, you know, whatever on both sides, so we don't end
up with a situation that we're, you know, bickering amongst
ourselves about where the money's going.
MAYOR FINE: Well, things like the parking, I
mean, there's not many options.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MAYOR FINE: I mean, that's kind of a -- not
much to argue about there. If the parking lot's done right,
hopefully we won't be worrying about potholes for a long
28
	1
-	2
-.
-	
	3
	4
'	S



6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
G S
time. Now, as the history center develops, you're going to
see more and more activities down there, too. It's also
going to be infringing on whatever parking we put down
there. And -- and I don't know if you remember when the Red
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But even on the -- and I
but I would think you would have to look at the County funds
going to be used on that new property, that we have to make
sure that it -- our interlocal agreement would allow County
funds to be used for something that we're having no part of
in the ownership. And maybe it's covered right now under
our current agreement, but it just seems that we really need
to look carefully at that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If memory serves me
correctly, there was a master plan-type meeting put together
by the former director of the library, just about time you
got here or just before you got here, Antonio. Do you
recall? And -- and that -- and it was a brainstorming
session about things. But I think -- and it didn't go too
far beyond having one meeting or so. I think it might not
be a bad idea, following up on what you're saying, Jon, that
we do have a master planning session that involves members
of Council, members of the Court, and staff, and see where
29
	1
..-_	2
	3
	9
'	S
	6
	7
	8
f	9
1	
	10
	11
'	
	12
	13
	14
'	15
	16
	17
	18
	19
	20
	21
	22
	23
	24
	25
we go with this thinq, because library services to this city
JUDGE HENNEKE: My household is a very large
consumer of the library services, but I don't -- I think
it's unrealistic -- unrealistic for us to expect that the
current facility can handle the library -- the book demand
for very long in the future. I just think it's unrealistic.
I think if we devote 100 percent of the current building to
shelves and stacks, it's still not going to be very long
before we're out of capacity. So, as we look at this issue,
I think we really have to look realistically at, do we
devote large dollars to converting that facility into the
maximum repository of books that it can be? Or do we take
some of those dollars and look at another structure in a
complex area, or in some other solution to the capacity
problem? 'Cause as the county grows -- and we have a very
active young retired community here, which is what I like to
call us. They read, they use the Internet, they use
computer services, and they're down there researching their
purchases of their RV's and their cars and things like that.
And -- and I want to be careful that we don't devote dollars
into making the current facility the maximum it will be,
because that won't sustain us for very long into the future.


1-
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
MR. MARTINEZ: To tie in with that, the usage
we have here in Kerrville of that facility matches or
surpasses cities twice the size, so you're very right about
that. The usage is just very high.
MS. SULLIVAN: That master plan, wasn't it
written in '91, Antonio?
MR. MARTINEZ: The consultant study was the
one done in '91. You know, we had the building study that
was done a couple of years ago by Artisan Group.
MS. SULLIVAN: Yes. And did Artisan say how
much capacity we would gain by enclosing the balconies?
MR. MARTINEZ: I don't recall the square
footage on that, but it's a substantial amount.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All of which is to
say, a master plan meeting might not be a bad idea.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else on the library?
MAYOR FINE: I think, like you said, they
just -- Antonio needs to sit down with the Library Board, or
-- and kind of look to see how far this library can take us.
I mean, whether it's 10 years, 20 years.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It seems to me like, when I
looked at the 1991 study -- and Antonio shared at a meeting
shortly after I came on the court that the library is
currently approximately 300 percent over its maximum
capacity, something like that. I --
31
I
`t .-.
I
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. MARTINEZ: We were already over capacity
in '91.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's over its maximum
projected greatest ever capacity. And that's why, you know,
I think we need to be careful about putting money into
bringing a building up which will never catch up to the
usage.
MAYOR FINE: Maybe that satellite project
will come on and --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's going to be a
great deal. People out in the county are looking forward to
it. Moving along, the next topic is the Animal Control.
Marc Allen's here. Marc has provided us with some
statistics on the capacity, in the past few years, of
animals. I see the total animals has gone up about
40 percent over a three-year period, looks like. Marc?
What's going on out at the Animal Control?
MR. ALLEN: Last year was a record year for
the animals that r_ame through the shelter. I don't know the
exact number between dogs and cats. I know last year we had
a real problems with the cats, where we didn't have enough
room for them, but we've solved that problem this year.
We've bought some new cat cages, and that's alleviated that
problem. But we average probably 20 to 24 dogs a day at the
Animal Shelter. We currently only have 16 dog runs that we
32
	1
--	2
	3
	4
	5
	6
	1
	8
	9
'	10
	11
'	
	12
,~	13
'	14
'	
	15
	16
	17
	18
	19
	20
	21
	22
	23

•--	24
	25
can use. I have quarantine runs, if I don't have
quarantined animals in there, which I can use for overflow,
but if I have quarantined animals in there, I don't. I have
to double up, and the runs that we have, the majority of
them are 3-foot by 5-foot. Well, you put two medium-size
dogs in there, they're way overcrowded. Now, I've got three
large dog runs. We have outdoor runs, but the problem with
those, we don't have sewer. So if we move the dogs during
the day out there to the outside runs, which the dogs would
rather be outside than inside, we don't have sewer. So, I
mean, we definitely got a problem. I'm having to euthanize
a lot more, sometimes three and four times a week. It just
depends. This is not a peak time, but from March to
October, that's our peak time of the year, and that's
usually what we average, about 24 dogs.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Question. What
immediate improvement, or what -- in order of priority, what
improvement would alleviate the problem you're talking about
fastest? Not the ultimate answer, perhaps, but, you know,
what -- what do you need the most right now?
MR. ALLEN: Dog runs.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Dog runs?
MR. ALLEN: If we had probably 7 to 14
good-size dog runs, where I could double up and the dogs
would still be comfortable, and I keep the male dogs with
33
--~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
L
23
24
25
the male dogs and the female dogs with the female dogs,
which makes a difference. But, you know, I -- if I'm going
to double up, I'm going to have to have a pretty good-size
dog run.
MAYOR FINE: Do you have the land for it?
MR. ALLEN: Yes. I believe the City gave us
the land that --
MAYOR FINE: I mean enough, like, to add that
many more?
MR. ALLEN: The way the shelter was built, it
was built so we could add on.
MAYOR FINE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Marc, what about on the
sewer side of the -- there's the tank with the grinder pump
and all that. Is that at capacity now? In other words, if
we built another dog -- or more dog runs, would we have to
expand that as well? Or --
MR. ALLEN: No, we should never have a
problem with that. That's got that pump in there with that
grinder and everything, and we're right next door to the
sewer facility, and it takes care of that really quick.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What impact do you think that
the new Humane Society facility will have, if any?
MR. ALLEN: I don't know. They've promised
me that they'll always have two dog runs open for me. We
34
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
give them all they can handle. And Freeman-Fritts, also.
Any adoption agency, we'll give them all the dogs they can
handle. I think three years ago, the Utopia Rescue Ranch
opened up, and they said they were going to take every
animal that we euthanize, and we filled them up in about two
or three trips, and they haven't been back.
MS. SULLIVAN: Oh, dear, oh, dear.
MR. ALLEN: You know, and last year the
S. P.C.A. in Fredericksburg was really doing a good job, but
all the girls up there got sick; they had to shut down for a
while, so I think they're trying to start back up. But I
don't know that it's going to make that big of an impact.
They don't take nothing but quality dogs from us, and it's
normally the purebred, small breed type dogs, and mostly
what I get are mixed-breed dogs.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Are you seeing an increase in
bites or attack incidents?
MR. ALLEN: Not in attacks. The bites have
been up, but I think it's because we're getting the word out
that they need to be reported. We haven't had any severe
bites to speak of lately. I mean, we probably average one
or two a year that we really take pictures of and send it in
to the State.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We had a -- the county had a
problem with rabies last year. I mean, how did y'all handle
1
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
l2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
35
that? Have you seen any incidents of that this year?
MR. ALLEN: No, we haven't had a confirmed
case in 19 months. We did have, I believe, tour cases
inside the city limits, but those were all bats, which we do
have bats. You know, parking garage has a colony. Usually
when you have a -- and that was where some of the rabies was
from. It's kind of a weird number, but 10 percent of that
colony would probably have rabies, but once the animal
contracts the rabies, they're going to die. So -- and they
migrate in the wintertime and come back. But the other
rabies was mostly -- we didn't have anything in domestic
animals, and you don't really have any control over that.
That's just -- rabies is on a cycle; it goes up and down
every two or three years,
JUDGE HENNEKE: What would be the cost to add
the additional dog runs that you say you could really use?
MR. ALLEN: Oh, I wasn't even -- with the
cost of construction nowadays, I couldn't even give you a
price. I'd have to research that. I know I would like to
do it a little bit different than what we did with the
original building, but I'd have to do some research on that.
I couldn't give you an exact number.
MS. SULLIVAN: How many did you want to add?
Seven,	did you say?		
	MR. ALLEN:	Seven to 14,	something in that
1

1
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
area.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, it seems we -- I
don't know if -- four years ago, I guess, we thought about
adding on, and it was about $20,000 to add -- it wasn't a
whole lot of runs.
MR. ALLEN: Well, if you built indoor/outdoor
runs --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This was kind of outdoor,
but they were sheltered. It was cinder blocks and
heavy-duty -- something in the $20,000 range for -- I think
it was -- I want to say 14 runs, something like that, maybe
a little more than that.
MR. LAUGHLIN: That's just outdoor runs.
MR. ALLEN: Well, they would be
indoor/outdoor, where they would have the option -- they
could go in and out. If the weather's bad, you drop a
guillotine door inside there. You have some heating.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Judge, on something like
that, since it is City/County owned, why couldn't we also
consider using inmate labor to help cut down those costs?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we could.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: For those type of
facilities?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We could. I mean, that's
certainly an option. We've had good success with that at
37

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the courthouse, the finish-out on the annex basement. But
that's always a possibility, a good possibility,
particularly in nice weather. So, that would cut down the
cost significantly if we get us a foreman and the materials.
Almost all of the finish-out that's been done in the
basement here has been done by trustees or community service
workers, and it has saved us a bundle. I think Keith
Longnecker reported to us on Monday that the Juvenile
Probation Offices, which were four offices, a reception
area, and a conference room, came in at $11,000 under budget
because of the use of -- so we're talking about $11,000 on a
$40,000 budget, so it came in about 30 percent under budget
because we were able to use trustees and community service
workers. That was paying a foreman in that figure, too, so
we can accomplish some savings with that program.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Marc, do you have
current designs of the runs that you'd like to build?
MR. ALLEN: I've got some ideas.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Maybe you
ought to get them on paper.
MR. ALLEN: I could probably bring you some
pictures.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I bet you could.
MR. WAMPLER: What do you attribute the
growth --
38
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
CUMMISSIUNER GRIFFIN: The statistics here
show that we don't have as many dogs in the county, but ours
are meaner.
(Laughter.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: David?
MR. WAMPLER: I was just wondering what you
attribute the growth -- is it just growth in population?
MR. ALLEN: It's got to be.
MR. WAMPLER: I mean, I guess my question is,
do we ever get in front of the -- the demand? Are there
other things that we can do to try to discourage the need to
have, you know, an over --
MR. ALLEN: Spay or neuter your pet.
MR. WAMPLER: I mean, because we're saying
that we're going to need to double the size of what we have
now. Are we going to be talking in five years about
doubling again because we've got more people coming into the
county, or is there another way to try to limit the need in
the first place?
MR. ALLEN: Spay or neuter.
MS. SULLIVAN: Spay or neuter.
MR. ALLEN: We push it. The Humane Society
gives away free spay and neuters, but there's a lot of
people who just refuse to do it. I think California went to
a deal where they had -- you have to have a $500-a-year
39
1
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
breeding permit. If you get caught breeding your dog
without that permit, it's a fine. So, I think that's the
only way --
MR. WAMPLER: So that the animals that were
taken in today, those 24, 25 animals, are those actually
animals that have been captured? Do you have to go out and
capture --
MR. ALLEN: A lot of them are surrendered to
us.
MR. WAMPLER: Or they've been surrendered,
dropped off. What do you think the ratio is?
MR. ALLEN: I don't know exactly what it is.
I mean, if you go by what -- what this says, last year we
had 1,483 animals surrendered to us or brought in. That's
stray cats and dogs. And the whole total number of all the
animals was 3,500, so it's a little less than half.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Stephen, are you all -- what
are y'all hearing from your constituents as far as the
service? Are they as satisfied as they'll ever be?
MAYOR FINE: I haven't heard anything one way
or the other, to be honest with you, personally. Have you
guys gotten any --
MR. LAUGHLIN: Which generally reflects
satisfaction.
MAYOR FINE: Do what?
40
1
J
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. LAUGHLIN: Yeah. And we're -- you know,
we're not hearing anything in our office either, from -- you
know, which occasionally our office will hear, because, of
course, we -- at least the in-city stuff, we prosecute, you
know, dog-at-large tickets or animal-at-large tickets with
Marc and his folks, you know, testifying on them. So -- and
we don't -- we're not hearing anything either.
MS. SULLIVAN: I've heard comments that they
could use more facilities, as Marc is saying.
MR. ALLEN: As far as officers, I think we
have actually three officers, and that's right where the
national standard would be for a county of 40,000 people.
Phat's where we need to be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The fact that you're
not hearing anything is really good.
MR. ALLEN: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER WiLLlAMS: When we hear it, it's
usually bad.
MS. SULLIVAN: People call to complain, not
to compliment.
MR. ALLEN: I try to make no problems. Or
let's say solve the problems before they get to you. So --
MAYOR FINE: So there's no program right now
sponsored by the City or County in any way, as far as
spaying and neutering? It's all done by --
41

1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
7J
23
24
25
MR. ALLEN: No.
MAYOR FINE: -- Humane Society or --
MR. ALLEN: We have spay days, 1 mean, little
things that go on, but it's usually -- that's usually done
by the Humane Society. 't'hey promote it, and we just push
it, you know. Our rabies drive starts Saturday; that's one
thing I'm pushing, because that's my main concern, is
rabies.
MAYOR FINE: Y'all get a big turnout for
that?
MR. ALLEN: I'm hoping to have a good
turnout.
MAYOR FINE: Have you done it in the past?
MR. ALLEN: Yeah.
MS. SULLIVAN: Once a year?
MR. ALLEN: Once a year is what we do.
MAYOR FINE: Is it just like a discounted
rabies shot?
MR. ALLEN: Yeah, and the registration is
reduced at that time. And that's another thing we push,
too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Most of the area vets
participate, you know, in the rabies vaccination.
MR. ALLEN: Actually, all of the ones in the
county do.

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
42
MAYOR FINE: Yeah, we got a r_at at the Humane
Society; they gave us a little coupon to get her neutered.
We took her in and --
MR. ALLEN: We all work real well together.
MR. DICKERSON: I'd like to make a comment.
The Police Department gets a lot of calls from citizens on
animal problems, if they don't call directly out to Marc,
and we usually get them in touch with Marc, and he's handled
everything just great. We don't have -- my office doesn't
hardly get any complaints any more. And my officers that
call for Animal Control to help them on animal calls, Animal
Control shows up just as quick as possible, and so we're
real satisfied with it.
MAYOR FINE: Your guys helped me a couple
weekends ago with a wild animal.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have the same thing
with the county. Marc is fabulous with the county, for
helping us.
MAYOR FINE: Yeah, your office was closed
that day.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In fact, he not only
helps us with the cats and dogs; now we have a bigger
problem with estrays and all the estray laws and getting
those animals to auctions and that, and housing them and
getting the cowboys out there to actually rope the cows off
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
the highway, and Marc handles every bit of that for us.
MR. ALLEN: I have a problem saying no.
(Laughter.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's just -- it's a very
big benefit to both law enforcement agencies, I'm sure, to
have the Animal Control that we have here, so anything we
can do to help him, we'd like to do.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Anything else on
Animal Control?
MAYOR FINE: I don't think so.
JODGE HENNEKE: Okay. The next topic is
consider and discuss responsibility for approval of ETJ
subdivision plats, and there was an interlocal agreement
presented.
MAYOR FINE: I think we'll let Kevin handle
that.
MR. LAUGHLIN: I think both the Council and
the Commission are aware that the Legislature, this past
session, approved legislation, signed into law, that by
April 1st of this year, cities and counties are supposed to
get together and put together an agreement to decide who's
going to handle plats within a city's extraterritorial
jurisdiction. There's a couple different options. One is
the County can do it. One is the City can do it. And, in
any case, the -- the ultimate process has to go through a
44
	1
	
	3
	4
~	5
	6
I
1	
~
	8
1	
1	9
~	10
	11
1	
	12
~ ~	13
	14
~ 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~--
25
single office and be handled with -- with more or less a
process is now, and that's, you know, basically two separate
application processes, two separate sets of rules, which, in
the ET J, typically in most instances ends up deferring to
the cities, because the law says you got to defer to the one
that's most stringent, and ours tends to be in most of the
areas. Not all the areas, but in most of them.
And, so -- so what we've -- we've prepared a
entered such agreements. This one, in particular, I got
from my counterpart at the city of Waco, and in their
agreement with McLennan County. And in this option, this --
this particular option would -- with the draft, would
actually have all the work being done by the City staff;
application would be made to the City. The one exception
that's written into this draft is submission of the plat
drawings, plat application, to the County Engineer for
review, as we would with -- and the concept being to do that
in the same manner as we do all -- all of our own stuff, you
know, when we circulate plat applications, and so the County
Engineer's comments will be included in -- in the
application process. But, aside from that, you know, at
least -- at least this particular option would be to have it
45
1
1
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
all be handled through the City staff and the Planning
Department. Now, I just threw that out there as an option.
I'm -- I don't know if that's a -- a recommendation, 'cause
we really haven't decided that yet. And, so -- but
that's -- that's kind of, in a nutshell, what we need to be
doing and where we need be to be heading before April 1st.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan, you want to run
with it first?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- personally,
I probably think the City is probably the best -- I would
agree, the City's -- let them be the lead on it. But I
think what we need is to get -- figure out a good -- a
process and really look at the subdivision rules of the
County and the City, you know, because I don't know -- I
mean, we have changed; ours are pretty strict now, certainly
more strict than the hill country, and probably the state in
a lot of areas. But, they're different. And my biggest
concern comes in two areas. One, I think that somewhere in
the process, the Commissioner whose precinct it is needs to
sign off on it, beyond it's going to the County Engineer,
because it affects a lot more than just that subdivision
down the road. And, you know, I don't think we need to
bring it to the court necessarily, but I think, just on the
approval sheet that goes through the city system, there
needs to be a spot for the Commissioner to sign off, at a
1

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
46
minimum. When it comes to roads, you get into a situation
where, unless the City's going to annex the property, which
generally is not the case, the County's going to be
maintaining the roads. So, on the road standards, I think
we need to be very careful that there's standards that meet
with what we're currently doing in the county so we don't
have to start buying, you know, different materials for
roads in the ETJ than we are the rest of the county. That's
-- those are the types of areas. I guess the other area
that's real important is water availability. I don't know
if the County has water availability requirements like the
-- if the City has water availability requirements. The
County does, and they're pretty strict. And, we're going
through Headwaters as our primary --
MR. LAUGHLIN: Just on that last one, we have
discussed that at a staff level, and we will be -- of
course, as you know, we're going through our comprehensive
plan rewrite. We'll be -- we're just now beginning
negotiations on discussion for Phase II of that process,
before we even finish the Phase I, with respect to the
development of our new land use ordinances, which would be
both our zoning and our subdivision. One of the things we
have discussed at staff level, and I think I can -- I'm
going to make an assumption that Council will be more than
happy to go along with it, is to incorporate that water

1
I
~ ~_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
47
availability standard into our ordinance as well, as another
added component to our overall water conservation drought
management plan.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I've -- to follow up
on the point Jonathan's making on roads, has there been any
attempt yet to reconcile the standards between the City and
County to see how tar apart we may be, or how close we are?
MR. LAUGHLIN: I probably have to leave that
to Paul and Franklin to see if they've talked about it.
MR. DOLAN: I'm Tim Dolan. Franklin and I
have talked about it to a very small extent. But, while I
sat here waiting for this agenda item, I went ahead and
compared some similarities and differences between both the
City's subdivision regulations and the County regulations.
What was interesting, when you discussed the idea about a
cattle guard at the airport, the animals, there's no
provision in the City subdivision regulations about cattle
guards, while you have that information. So, that's
something that obviously could be changed for that. But
some of the other similarities we do have would be those
things that focus on the right-of-way width for collector
roads or local residential streets that are in both City and
County subdivisions. The one area that you -- the City
needs to catch up on is the idea dealing with the conveyance
plat or development plan plat. The County regulations go
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
' 7
8
1

9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
ahead and contain that, and that's still something that we
On some of the administrative procedures,
constraints, the construction might not take place within
one year. The City regulations don't allow the provision
for an extension -- or the request for an extension. The
County regulations do. Again, another thing that we would
be able to change, and look forward to be able to do that.
Some of the similarities, as far as requirements, focus on
the concept plan, the preliminary plat, and the final plat
process, and so we're very close with working together. On
the idea about road standards, there's a rural residential
development road standards section in the City subdivision
regulations that almost reflects or almost mirrors County
regulations, and the difference may be where a base
compaction depth may be a difference of 2 inches, and it
could certainly be brought back to -- to conform, I believe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think it's
preferable to have -- I mean, I think it's a good law. And,
I mean, from a developer's standpoint, one of the biggest
complaints I hear, and I'm sure people in the Council hear
as well, is that, why do they have to go through two whole
1
1

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
49
sets of rules for the subdivision?
MR. LAUGHLIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if we can
simplify that for the developers, I think it's a good thing
to do. I'm in favor of doing it. We just need to make sure
that we come up with a set of rules that work, both in the
city or for the City's purposes, and the ETJ and the county.
And, as I understand the law, it's a strange law from the
standpoint, it's kind of like it's a carrot out there. You
have until April 1 to do it, but if you don't do it -- but
it's really, the law -- intent of the law is more to
encourage it to happen, and hopefully -- the Legislature is
hoping it will, and if it doesn't, they may come with a
hammer later and make you do it.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Right. And, of course, that
same comment has kind of circulated amongst the City
Attorney group. And, of course, the -- what they -- what
we've also said, and there've been a couple articles written
that says yeah, there may not be any penalty, but, you know,
some developer may decide they're going to come out there
and enjoin one or the other from making you go through an
application process, because this law is out there and
you've got to have it. Frankly, I'd just as soon not wait
that long and find out --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
29
25
50
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have one
comment, Judge, about it. I think everything that's been
said is great, and I like Jonathan's idea that -- that the
Commissioner of that particular precinct, wherever the
development in the ETJ might take place, would have an
opportunity to sign off on it. And, at some point in time,
I would think if we go into this in-depth, and r'ranklin
certainly would be reporting back to the Court all those
things that transpired within whatever period of time. My
only comment I would like to see perhaps strengthened a
little bit has to do with County Engineer review.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: While this provides
for the County Engineer to get a copy of all proposed
subdivision plats and so forth for review and comment,
that's all well and good at the outset, but I'd like to see
the County Engineer have an opportunity to review it the
last time, after everything has taken place, to make certain
that everything is in place and satisfies all the regs and
so forth. So, I'd like to see a beginning and an ending
review.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Well, that's -- let me -- you
know, we need to talk about how that would work. We can
work through how that would work. I mean, ultimately, what
we're talking about is the Planning and Zoning Commission,



1
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
51
based on the recommendation of staff, making that decision
on approval of a subdivision plat. I mean, that's what
happens now with subdivision plats. And --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think, though,
Kevin, what Bill's saying is that before it went to that
last final approval cycle for the Planning and Zoning, that
the County Engineer would have --
MR. LAUGHLIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that's it.
MR. LAOGHLIN: And that's -- when we're
talking the review process, that's what would happen in any
case, because if it's not -- if, for some reason, it's not
compliant in the regs, it doesn't go forward with a positive
recommendation, so --
MR. JOHNSTON: I assume the City inspection
department's going to do the inspections on the
construction?
MR. DOLAN: That's a good question, coming
back to me. Reviewing the plat, though, let's just put in
-- the Planning/Zoning Commission meets the first and third
Thursdays. Typically, the first and third Mondays of a
month, projects are submitted, and so within nine calendar
days, we provide our first review of a plat, circulation,
concept plan, and final plat, as the case may be. And what
we'll do within that first day is send it out to the



1

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
52
different agencies, e-mail them as well, and state that you
now have nine days to respond, and then I will gather those
comments back and literally try to give one sheet of
comments to that applicant or his developer. They then have
one week to turn it back in, to make whatever corrections
there are. We then get those revised or corrected plats and
plans and send them out to the very same agencies with a
correction notice. And so, again, no plat will go to the
Commission before its time. And, essentially, we're --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't know exactly how this
law would work, though, but we have a 60-day window within
which we have to act on a plat.
MR. LAUGHLIN: We have a 30-day window, but
that assumes that the plat conforms to the regulations and
is what we would consider a, quote, complete application,
and so our trigger is actually shorter.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't know how those two
are going to match, because you all have a lot more ability
to fine-tune, you know, what you want your applicant to
submit than we do. Ours is written with a pretty broad
brush.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Well, as I understand it,
though -- as I understand the law, if we decide the City's
rules apply, then all the City's rules apply. Now, I can
certainly doublecheck and make -- confirm that that's, in






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
53
fact, the way it's supposed to work, but that's my
understanding. If we decide, between the entities, that the
City's subdivision ordinance applies, that would -- that
pulls with it all the state law that governs that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If you then change your
Subdivision Rules, does the Commissioners Court have an
opportunity to say grace over it?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I think what
Kevin said earlier was that -- is that you thought, and Tim
too, that between the two sets of rules, that those could be
reconciled so that this would be the same.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, but say they're
reconciled, we agree on them. We go down the road, and the
City changes --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, future changes?
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- the Subdivision Rules.
Does the Commissioners Court then have an opportunity?
Because I think the way the law is written, we don't.
MR. LAUGHLIN: And I think that's correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The other option, which I
think is a procedurally palatable one, is the fourth option,
where we set up a single office through interlocal agreement
where all plats are submitted, and we agree collectively on
the standards that are going to apply in the ETJ. And
that's effectively a melding, just like Tim's talking about,

1

1 ~--

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
54
just like Franklin's talking about. It doesn't give either
jurisdiction exclusive control, but it provides the one-stop
shop that we're talking about. I think that may be
something that we want to look at, as far as how to
accommodate the desire of the Legislature to solve the
problem in Dallas County and Travis County and the small,
rural counties.
MR. LAUGHLIN: I'm just not sure we can get
there before April 1 on that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm not sure we can this way,
either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I don't --
JUDGE HENNEKE: We're looking at about four
meetings.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Yeah, I understand.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thirty days, you know, we
have to have a public hearing.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Right. We do too.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thirty days notice of the
public hearing, so you're -- all of a sudden, you're already
into the early part of March.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Right. Well, see, we're under
-- you know, we also get into issues about, under the taking
statute, dealing with differentials in regulations between
the ETJ and the City. I mean, there's -- we can't have
1

I

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
55
different regulations between the two under the taking
statute set out in the Government Code. And, so -- so what
you're proposing would actually, in fact -- and, again, I'm
going off the top of my head without doing the research, but
may have the impact of actually having us redo our entire
subdivision rules.
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, because you set out a
specific set of common -- of jointly agreed-upon rules just
for the ETJ. That's what the law says, in Section D.
MR. JOHNSTON: You have the rural subdivision
ordinance now that's separate from the city.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Yes, but it can be utilized in
the city. It was written in such a manner that it applied
to the size of the tracts, not to whether it was inside or
outside the city limits.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the law contemplated
doing this. Maybe it's in conflict with another law, which
is very possible, but I mean --
JUDGE HENNEKE: What happens if the City
gives the County the ability to -- to regulate plats in the
subdivisions in the ETJ? Then you've clearly got a
distinction between the City's rule inside the city and what
goes on in the ETJ.
MR. LAUGHLIN: That's -- I think that's a
question worth doing some research on.



1
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
56
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think that -- I
mean, to me, the reason I brought up the April 1 deadline is
not a -- a penalty for not doing it by that time. I think
it's really -- the intent of the law is to get cities and
counties to do this. Granted, it's driven by a couple of
cities, probably two. But, anyway, it's -- we all have to
live with it now, and I think that we just need to -- you
know, if we're both -- I think Commissioners Court and City
Council are committed to doing it. We just need to start
going in that direction, and if it's June 1st, well, so be
it, June 1st before we can get it done. I don't see any
reason to rush through it and have something that's not
going to work. We need to -- and it's going to take a
little bit of time, I think, for Tim and Paul to get with
Leonard and Franklin and go through to make sure exactly
what the rules are going to be.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Yeah. See, here's -- and as I
said, we're fixing to embark on an entire rewrite of our
subdivision ordinance, and so I -- frankly, I'm not sure I'd
want to have our staff doing the work twice.
MAYOR FINE: Yeah, it doesn't make much sense
right now anyway, because, like I said, everything's fixing
to be rewritten for the most part. So I think your
suggestion is probably best. Let's just agree that we agree
we're going to do it.




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
57
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: As fast as we can.
MAYOR FINE: As fast as we possibly can.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we can even do
resolutions from both saying that we're going to do it,
'cause I think it's a -- the hammer, if there is one, is the
next legislative session.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They've said that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They've said it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Resolution of intent?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We've got until --
MAYOR FINE: Nonbinding.
MR. JOHNSTON: Kevin has an interest in, you
know, making sure the roads are actually built to whatever
standard -- you know, whatever we come up with, because
we're in a position now where the City's approving the
subdivision, but the County's going to take over maintenance
on a lot of these roads. So, we want to make sure we follow
through, have testing done on the -- you know, have a record
of what's actually put in, inspected, and that's important
to us.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Of course, the other -- the
flip side of that is, while the County may actually end up
initially with the plat and have the maintenance, the City,

r
1


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
58
upon annexation, may get it back, so we have an interest in
making sure they -- well, that's --
MAYOR FINE: Well, it depends.
MR. LAUGHLIN: I mean, that's --
MR. ODOM: We're stuck with it.
MAYOR FINE: It depends.
MR. JOHNSTON: We're looking at 1 mile -- or
you're right at the border of 2 miles, so you might want to
plan for a 2-mile.
MR. ODOM: Two-mile ET J, because we got
discrepancies.
MR. JOHNSTON: There's a few.
MR. ODOM: Runoff. Runoff coefficient is
totally different than the City's. We've got The Woods down
there. You've got the new park going in, 25-year frequency
versus five years -- or two years and 25's. And your
population is almost at the point where it's going to --
within the next couple of years, it's going to go to 2
miles.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Two-mile ETJ.
MR. ODOM: And I think if we do that, then
we've got time to --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Go all the way to Center
Point.
(Discussion off the record.)
1
1

1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
MR. JOHNSTON: I think part of our drainage
requirements may even be more stringent than the City's. We
need to take a look at that.
MR. LAOGHLIN: Well, and that may be
something that you guys need to get -- you know, the
engineers need to get together and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Storm water runoff.
MR. LAUGHLIN: -- and do some comparisons,
'cause it may be, with your latest revisions, y'all may be
tougher than we are right now, which would be contrary to
what people used to believe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One other thing, just to
bring that up, that we need to address somewhere in this --
and it comes up on -- Commissioner Williams had a plat we
looked at Monday where there was literally a sliver of it in
the ETJ. I understand the City said, "Hey, County, you take
care of it," but what's the criteria going to be? I mean,
if it -- any bit of it comes under this new set of
guidelines? Or is it the -- you know, the majority of the
subdivision? I mean, or only the portion that's in -- I
mean, if you're in a -- nine times out of ten, part of it's
in the county and part of it's in the ETJ.
MAYOR FINE: We had it once before where we
had to do a variance on it. That was out there off of Spur
100, out there behind the V.A.
60
1
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L 2
23
24
25
MR. JOHNSTON: Actually built two kinds of
roads, one in the ETJ and one in the rest.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Twin Springs off
of --
MR. LAUGHLIN: Yeah, Twin Springs.
MAYOR FINE: I thought we ended up giving a
variance on that.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Well --
MAYOR FINE: That's the only one I can
remember since I've been on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you also had
Horizon going back a few years.
MAYOR FINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The one we did this week
was Paso Creek, but a very small part of the floodplain --
MR. LAUGHLIN: Right, and -- well, there
really wasn't anything that -- any new development that was
occurring in that sliver, 'cause the road, I think, existed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. LAUGHLIN: There weren't any new
dedications, and so that was one of the reasons we said
there really wasn't anything for us to concern ourselves
with.
MAYOR FINE: Well, I think it's obvious, from
all the points that have been made, that there are some --
61

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
we're still a little ways apart, but I think there's a
desire to get together.
JODGE HENNEKE: My suggestion is that we ask
Franklin and Tim or Paul to get together and just do an
outline. Not point-by-point, but just, "Drainage, County's
requirement is more stringent in that it requires 'X'
roads." Same for major collector, "County's more stringent
for country lane," whatever. Just a -- not a -- not real
detailed, but so that we understand where we're the same and
where we're different. You know, just fairly broad. And
that will give us some idea of how we can come together,
'cause we are going to have to come together. Perhaps --
I'll offer that as a suggestion.
MAYOR FINE: We can -- we know where we are
right now, but it may change slightly in the next few
months, and we can fine-tune it then. But, really, there's
nothing we can do right now.
MR. LAOGHLIN: One of the things we may do,
we may be able to make some interim amendments to our
existing subdivision ordinance that would apply city-wide.
And, again, depends on the issue and how it impacts
development, 'cause obviously, different factors inside --
with more dense development inside the city is -- is -- you
know, may not justify it. We'll just have to look at that.
MAYOR FINE: And if you want a letter of
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
intent to satisfy the Legislature --
MR. LAUGHLIN: Maybe we don't want it in
writing saying we're not going to comply with April lst. I
don't know.
MAYOR FINE: Just don't put a date when we're
going to --
MS. SULLIVAN: We're in the process.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's our intent to do
what the Legislature says.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. I think we've rolled
that one out of the barn enough. Next one is consider and
discuss recent legislative changes to city road maintenance,
and participation in maintenance on annexed roads.
MAYOR FINE: This was brought up several
times in the past, about the County's participation with
annexed roads. A good deal of the funds -- I know it's been
a thorn in a lot of people's sides for a long time, but the
money goes from the city to pay for the county roads, and
none of it's spent back in the city. And, apparently the
Legislature finally acted on that.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Actually, '99 Legislature did
that.
MAYOR FINE: '99. And --
MR. LAUGHLIN: We just haven't done anything
with it.
63


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
MAYOR FINE: Yeah. And we just wanted to
discuss -- our roads are probably in the same shape as
y'all's. These hot, dry summers -- long, hot, dry summers
followed by extremely wet seasons have taken their toll on a
lot of roads in the city. I'm sure they have in the county.
Our potholes have potholes. And -- you know, and it wasn't
just because of this last year that this came up. The
Legislature changed -- it was brought up at the City back
then about approaching the County, but we weren't having
meetings like this to discuss it with y'all, so it just kind
of got shelved. And, now that we're here together, it was a
good time to bring -- bring this up. And I'm sure it's like
everything; every -- you know, everyone has their budgets
and what they're going to spend on roads. It's like we have
a resurfacing project that's ongoing in the city. I don't
know how many years it's going to take us to resurface the
entire downtown, but it is on a rotating basis; hopefully
eventually we'll hit everybody. But we wanted to discuss
this change in the law and how it might affect Kerrville and
Kerr County.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It was actually two changes
in the law. One is that -- one which allows the City to
make a contribution to maintenance of roads in a
municipality. The other change, and I think the change
which really triggers the discussion, is the fact that the
64

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
law now says if you annex part of a road, you must annex the
whole road.
MAYOR FINE: Right.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And the change in connection
with Peterson Farm Road and then the new Catholic high
school.
MAYOR FINE: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Because I raised the issue
with Ron -- I'll take advantage of that fact that he's not
here -- that the major access for that facility is going to
be Peterson Farm Road.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And the County has no plans
to do anything to that road, other than routine maintenance
as part of our schedule of surfacing, just like you have.
And that road, in my opinion, is not adequate to handle the
traffic that it has now -- or had, because that was the main
access in and out of Mooney.
MAYOR FINE: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It certainly won't have the
capacity to handle the traffic when that high school is
built out there.
MAYOR FINE: Were there any plans in the
County's master plan to upgrade that road at all because of
65
1
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
traffic in and out of Mooney?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No.
MAYOR FINE: I mean, if it's already
overutilized -- there was no plan?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Actually, I think -- is part
of that road -- the upper part of that road in the city,
Leonard?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, down there by Mooney.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That part is actually --
MR. ODOM: That portion is the city.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Al Mooney Road,
right?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, the part of Peterson E'arm
Road right by --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mooney Road connects
with Peterson Farm Road in that area.
MR. ODOM: At that old structure.
MAYOR FINE: That services the actual Mooney
facility, then?
MR. ODOM: That's your city limits right
there.
MAYOR FINE: Okay. But that's our joint
property, so we can't count that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah, that's true. That's
true.
66
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: Won't give you that one.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Well, and that's something we
need to look at. Of course, we -- when we annexed that
property, we annexed based on the property line, so we
didn't annex any part of Peterson Farm Road. And, of
course, in that particular annexation, our notice for our
first public hearing came before September lst, so the law
didn't apply to that annexation anyway.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. That was very
carefully done, yes.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Well, no, actually quite
accidentally done. Frankly, I didn't even know about the
change in the law until after you had made mention of it to
Ron.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Which was before the 1st,
though.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Well, but I didn't learn about
it until afterwards. But, as it -- as it turns out, I mean,
it was -- that just happened to be -- but it does -- it does
raise an issue for us to review when we do future
annexations, and that is issues dealing with the adjacent
roads.
JUDGE HENNEKE: You cannot assume that, by
act of your annexation, you're going to commit us to any
sort of road improvement policy projects.
67
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. LAUGHLIN: No, and I don't think there
was any assumption made in that regard. At least not to my
knowledge. I don't know that anybody even consciously
thought about it, to be frank with you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Leonard?
MR. ODOM: Yes. I believe that the law
says -- and he can check it to be sure -- that anything
since 1999, when that was written in, and that encumbers any
annexation of up to 1999 to the present time till 1
September, is to be put into that law. So, just because
there's a date there that you say is before August the 30th
has nothing to do -- it's still in there. Any plans that
were presented in 1999 would be -- that law affects.
MR. LAUGHLIN: I think you're --
MR. ODOM: You can check me to be sure.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Well, I've done it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment is, I'm
thinking of the roads, and I guess it gets to a situation --
I mean, if the County can -- I can see the City's, you know,
taxpayers' -- their arguments, but they're also using county
roads, most of them. And I think, as an example, that
Sheppard Rees is probably one of the best examples that --
that's, you know, a major upgrade that the County is doing
on that, which is becoming a major thoroughfare into the
city, and that's as much a city road as it is a county road
68
1
^-.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~ ,-~	13
	14
1	
	15
	16
	17
	18
	19
	20
	21
	22
	23
	24
	25
by a usage standpoint, and getting more and more that way.
That's one of the reasons we're committing a huge amount of
We're fortunate -- both
you know, I mean, if we start -- I mean, there's a fixed pot
of money that the County has for roads, and if we have to
start putting some of that money into the city limits, that
just means the county roads are going to get worse, which is
going to affect the city residents and the county residents.
So, I mean, I -- there are some projects we work on
together, like the High Water Bridge or Thompson Drive and
all that. That's a joint city/county project. But I
just -- I can't see the logic of the Commissioners Court
heading away from county road projects to do something like
Guadalupe Street, you know. And I don't -- you know, or
just give you a blank check and say, "Well, here's the money
for the city's road fund." I would be willing,
individually, as a Commissioner, to -- certain projects, you
know, let's talk about it. We now have the ability to help,
by the legislation, but I don't think that I just want to
see us doing it on a regular basis, just carte blanche,
saying, "Here's the money."
MS. SULLIVAN: We pay taxes to the road
69




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
district on a regular basis.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it's -- I mean,
it's --
JUDGE HENNEKE: If we get into the issue of,
you know, if you're in this jurisdiction, you pay this tax,
so you should get benefits, we get into a lot of sticky,
difficult areas there.
MS. SULLIVAN: That's true.
JUDGE HENNEKE: With E.I.C.
MS. SULLIVAN: Yeah. Yeah, true.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Probably conservatively, oh,
40 percent of the funds that end up in E.I.C. come from
outside of the city limits, but they have to be spent in the
city.
MAYOR FINE: A lot of it comes from outside
the county, too. Some of it comes from outside the county;
probably 10, 15 percent comes from outside, and that's where
the funds for library are coming.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If you get into that issue,
how do you start parsing those questions? And I think
that's something that's very, very difficult to --
MS. SULLIVAN: To do fairly.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- to do equitably. I'd like
to think -- I'd like to look more in terms of, well, let's
see how we can -- we can perhaps meet periodically and have
70

1
1



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a -- a common road maintenance strategy and, as Jonathan
said, perhaps identify specific projects we can cooperate on
that are -- are really significant, like Thompson Drive and
High Water Bridge, or we might even look ultimately towards
the idea of having more of a combined maintenance program.
MAYOR FINE: But talking about the people
from the city going out and using the county roads, it's a
fair statement to say that people from the county come into
the city and use the city roads.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Sure.
MAYOR FINE: Just as much, if not more. Most
of them come into the city and go to work.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And spend money.
MAYOR FINE: Right. But as properties are
annexed and developed, your tax base goes up, just like ours
does, so to say that the city's the only one benefitting
from it is not right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I don't think any of us
are trying to say that. I'm just trying to say if we start
talking about, well, taxes are paid to a certain
jurisdiction, so they ought to -- and we live in another
one, so those taxes ought to be spent in the other
jurisdiction, then we have to address the issue of sales
tax, E.I.C. money.
MAYOR FINE: Well, no, 'cause E.I.C. was set
I
1



1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
71
up by the citizens of Kerrville for the citizens of
Kerrville. Now, whether you come into town and --
JUDGE HENNEKE: But the tax -- you know, a
large amount of the revenue comes from outside of the city
of Kerrville, and you don't return that revenue.
MAYOR FINE: Well, no, because they come into
the city to spend it. If I go out and eat supper outside in
the county, you're not going to pay me money.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But by that logic,
Stephen, the people that live in the Comfort area never pay
-- why should they pay to fix Kerrville if the State's --
MAYOR FINE: They're not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you're saying we
should spend some of the tax dollars from Kerr County in the
city. Well, then, why shouldn't -- logically, why
shouldn't, you know, we spend some of our money in Kendall
County because they're using city of Boerne?
MAYOR FINE: I think the logic is, the
money's spent where the money's taken in. I mean, if half
your tax base comes out of the city of Kerrville, at least a
portion of that money should go back into the city of
Kerrville, 'cause right now you're taking city of Kerrville
money, if that's the way you want to look at it, and
spending it in Comfort.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm saying I think that's a


' _~

1
2
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
72
dangerous way to look at it.
MAYOR FINE: Okay. That's the way it was
brought up. I mean, I didn't --
JUDGE HENNEKE: The way you get with -- you
know, and I'm just tying to say, I think that's a very
dangerous --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There's sort of a loop
you get into when you start down that trail. You might be
able to deal with it, but it would be very difficult. I
like the idea of -- of the joint project kind of things,
where -- where it's obvious that there's an interest in both
entities and both jurisdictions, that we sit down and we do
that as a joint planning effort and say, well, what can we
do? What should we do? And perhaps we assign it to one or
the other jurisdictions, and then -- but share some funding
in that for that specific project.
JUDGE HENNEKE: An example would be that if
we get to the point where the City gets the property and
decides to extend Loop 539 to Highway 16, just east of the
State Park, I mean, that's clearly a project that I think
the County would be justified in participating in,
regardless of where the annexation stops. That's the kind
of project that I think, if it came to the Commissioners
Court, the Commissioners Court would say, "Yeah, we can see
a lot of direct benefit, and we're willing to make a



1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
73
financial contribution or a talent contribution to that
project." That's what -- I think that's what we're saying.
If we identify joint projects, then we can combine our
finances.
MAYOR FINE: Too late to hit you guys up on
Holdsworth?
MS.	SULLIVAN:	That'	s a	big	--
MR.	LAUGHLIN:	Part	of	it's	in the county
right now.
MAYOR FINE: Yeah, part of it's in the
county.
MR. LAUGHLIN: We haven't annexed it yet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the type of
project I would think would be justifiable coming to us and
doing. And I think there's -- when everyone sees the
transportation master plan, there's going to be a lot more
on the horizon.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd rather approach
it on a project-by-project basis and weigh the relative
merits than to get into a constant discussion over your
money versus our money. I think that leads us nowhere.
MAYOR FINE: Well, obviously, it's not just
city of Kerrville. I mean, it was done on a statewide
basis, not something that is exclusive to Kerrville or Kerr
County or anywhere else. And it's enough of an issue now,
1

1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
l~
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
as the cities are growing. I mean, look at Kerrville, how
it's growing right now, and y'all are having a lot of growth
in the county; in fact, more than we are. And a lot of
those people are coming into town to work, and we're
experiencing some of the wear and tear on the roads because
of that. And I think it's worth discussing, anyway.
Whether it's a merit-by-merit basis or we look at some other
ways to make it happen, I think it -- it's something that's
on the table. I think it needs to be discussed and looked
at further, because, like I say, I think it's a fair
statement that there's a lot more county people, on a daily
basis, coming into the city than vice-versa. I mean, I know
I probably don't use the county roads once in -- very
rarely, 'cause the way my route is, I'm either on I-10 or --
you know, rarely on I-10; I'm on the state highways. And
maybe I'm not a good example, but I think a lot of people
work, live, go to school, eat in the city limits, and most
of them don't go out in the county to eat, where a lot of
them come into the city to eat.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's right. And that sales
tax goes, then, into the City coffers and E.I.C. coffers,
and it stays --
MAYOR FINE: But the County also gets some
sales tax.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We get some from that too.

1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~s
MAYOR FINE: Y'a11 are getting the same
proportion that we are, so --
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, y'all get a major hit
from E.I.C.
MAYOR FINE: Well, y'all have that same
option, too, and we have a joint project in the library.
CUMMISSIUNER LE'1'Z: Right.
MAYOR FINE: That's available to the County,
too, if they want to go that route, so it's not -- to say
that we have something y'all don't is not fair, because the
citizens of Kerrville set that up for themselves. We didn't
thumb our nose at the County when it happened; you guys had
the same options. You just used your sales tax for
different things than we did.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1 think you've maxed
it out in the city, Stephen. I don't know that we could
apply it even if we were of a mind to do so, because there's
a cap on the total amount you can apply, so I think we may
be maxed out in that regards.
MAYOR FINE: But, even so, you know --
JUDGE HENNEKE: But it's something we can
talk about.
MAYOR FINE: For every penny of sales tax we
get, you guys get some also, so it's not like you're being
excluded from --
76
1


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
JUDGE HENNEKE: There are different ways we
can cooperate on that, I think. The solution is to find
ways that both governing jurisdictions are comfortable with.
MAYOR FINE: I think the same thing applies
to the road portion also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- and this was
not specifically talked about here, but there's also --
there's roads that, you know, in my mind should be city
roads, too, that are currently county roads. And the ones
that come to mind are up around Stadium Drive, some of those
streets that are --
MS. SULLIVAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those people don't
understand why they're not city roads. I mean, and it's
hard to explain it, "Well, they never annexed them." And --
but I think that it's part of the overall picture on roads,
in this whole suggestion; we need to look at some of these
roads that are -- where they may not technically be in the
city limits, they basically should be or are.
MAYOR FINE: Also, people didn't want to be
annexed years ago, when the roads were put in. That's why
they're -- and they still don't want to be. You may have a
few of them that do, but I think most of them probably --
MR. LAUGHLIN: Well, let me ask you this,
just on this question, because one of the things, obviously,




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
77
I assume that's being looked at as part of the comprehensive
plan review is some of those irregular annexations we've got
on that northwest quadrant of town that you mentioned.
Would the Court at least discuss and entertain the
possibility of maybe doing something on those county
sections that would then encourage us to go ahead and annex
it and get it off your books for once and for all?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think --
MR. LAUGHLIN: 'Cause one of the things --
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, I think,
you know, that's reasonable, yes. I would say yes. I mean,
I think that just -- some of the roads that I'm thinking
about, it's just difficult for the County to take their
equipment the to the city, almost. It's not efficient. Anc
I think that -- I would support that, I guess, but we have
to work with --
MR. LAUGHLIN: I mean, we do
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Road and Bridge.
MR. LAUGHLIN: As long as it's something that
could be put on the table for discussion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
MR. LAUGHLIN: For planning purposes, 'cause
I think, ultimately -- again, we've talked at a staff level.
Ultimately, we'd like to get rid of a lot of our irregular
~s
1

~ ~-^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
l~
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
boundaries, but some of that -- some of those areas, it's
difficult for us to -- just economically, to be able to go
in and do that right now, with everything else we've got on
the table. So, to the extent that we could get some of the
funding for that. And, of course, you have no development
occurring -- the folks in there, you know, in those areas
typically can't afford to do it themselves. So, you know,
maybe we can work on something along those lines.
MR. JOHNSTON: When Holdsworth comes in, are
you going to annex over to the interstate, or take in a big
chunk, or just along the road, or how are you going to do
that?
MH. LAUGHLIN: We haven't actually decided
that.
MAYOR r'1 NE: Depends on what shape the roads
are in.
MR. ODOM: Put sealcoat on them.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else on this one?
If not, let's take a break and let's reconvene promptly at
8:15, and we'll finish up here pretty shortly.
(Recess taken from 8:05 p.m. to 8:15 p.m.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. if we could reconvene,
we have three more items to take up this evening. Next item
for consideration, which is Number 6, is consider and
~9
1


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
discuss facility enhancements and partnerships for regional
wastewater facilities, including the U.G.R.A. And we're
glad to have with us this evening Mr. Jim Brown, the General
Manager of the U.G.R.A. Welcome, Jim. Always glad for your
input.
MR. BROWN: I'm here to get the latest poop
on this.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Wrong use of words.
MS. SULLIVAN: Wrong term.
MR. BROWN: No pun intended.
MR. LAUCGHLIN: Sure.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Take it away, buddy.
MAYOR FINE: Paul Knippel's going to lead us
on this one, as far as some of the work that's been done on
it going back with some of my participation, involving --
along with U.G.R.A., the -- we've been looking at Kerrville
for a long time as being the regional wastewater provider.
Years ago, every small town had its own sewer facility along
with its own water production facility, and I think the
F.D.A. -- not F.D.A., the E.P.A. kind of helped everybody
get away from this. They're wanting more regional systems
now. It's a lot harder for a city such as Ingram to get a
permit to do wastewater treatment than it used to be. And
it only makes sense, as we have the facility, and due to the
location of it especially, that we become that provider of
80
I
1


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
wastewater treatment in the county -- or in the area; 1
guess we're not limited to the county, as long as they can
get it over the hills. But, it's never been really
discussed in a formal setting. It's just come up as bits
and pieces. As you know, we've annexed. Obviously, we've
taken on those needs as -- as we could, or as necessary.
The new elementary school in Ingram is an example; that was
put onto the system. And there's been some discussion with
O.G.R.A., as they're expanding into water treatment as
subdivisions come in having wastewater collection systems
that would tie into it, and also the potential for Kerrville
South -- not the potential, the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Reality.
MR. BROWN: -- reality of Kerrville South
coming onto that plan also. And, I think it's just going to
be discussed in a more formal setting. And Mr. Knippel
knows more about that facility, probably, than I do.
Hopefully more than I do.
MR. KNIPPEL: My name is Paul Knippel. I'm
the Public Works Director for the City of Kerrville. We are
working with U.G.R.A. on accepting wastewater from outside
the city limits right now. The approach that our staff has
taken to looking at these potentials is very simple. Our
system as a whole has certain amounts of capacity, and it
could tie in at any point around our perimeter. As you


' ~'
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
81
trace that wastewater flow through our system, through
collection lines, through the lift stations, and through the
treatment plant, you have an impact on -- you, or whoever
that may be, has an impact on our existing system. And that
can be quantified mathematically; it's not very difficult.
It's a very objective exercise to do that, and to associate
a dollar amount with an increase in flow from outside the
city limits. So, that's the approach that we took when we
were approached by U.G.R.A. about the Kerrville South area,
and that's the approach that staff has right now with any
other future expansions, or incorporation of flow from
outside the city limits.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Quick question, Paul.
What is the percentage of that capacity for the system as it
exists today, that's currently being utilized? In other
words, how much slack capacity is there right now?
MR. KNIPPEL: In the --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How much could be --
MR. KNIPPEL: In the collection side, that
varies. Some places, there's a little bit of excess, but
generally in the city, we don't have a lot of room left.
Most of our infrastructure in the interior of the city
limits, in terms of collection, was built in the '40's. On
the treatment side, the treatment plant does have excess
capacity available -- treatment capacity available in it
82
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
right now. We have a permit for 4.~5 million gallons per
day. We're seeing an average flow of around
2.3 million gallons per day.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. So there is
treatment -- excess treatment capacity, which is great to
hear. I just never heard the number before. And I --
MAYOR FINE: Part of the bond issue we just
recently voted on Monday is going to upgrade a lot of the
wastewater collection lines. That will help tremendously,
hopefully, and enable us to --
MS. SOLLIVAN: In our head works.
MAYOR FINE: Yeah, and replacement of the
head works. But as far as the size up in the ground, we're
going to increase that so we can, as the city grows or
whatever -- as we get more stuff in our lines, we'll be able
to handle it right now. As he says, there's areas where
we're just, on the capacity, not there.
MR. WAMPLER: And to add onto that, we're
also replacing about 11,000 feet of pipe that's currently
substandard, broken, old, what-have-you, so we've seen a lot
of infil -- inflow and infiltration of fresh water during
rain that we're treating as part of our waste stream, so if
we can reduce that, then the overall system capacity will be
more efficient, and so we'll just be treating waste rather
than, say, rainwater, storm water, that sort of thing.
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I, for one, Stephen,
am gratified that the City has taken the position of
regional wastewater facility. I think that's super. I
think it lends itself to tremendous opportunities for
additional projects using the U.G.R.A., if you will, as the
middle person, putting out -- giving the County the
opportunity to look for grant moneys to -- to bring sewage
collection and treatment to areas which need it, which are
contributing to water quality problems and contributing to
some of their own quality-of-life problems within these
small areas. So, I'm gratified by it. And it's going to be
my intention, as soon as we break ground on the collection
system -- and I think we're just probably a few months away
from that; is that correct, Jim?
MR. BROWN: Probably toward the end of the
year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Towards the end of
the year. That as soon as the first backhoe goes in the
ground, I'm going to ask permission for the Court to go out
for more grant money, either expand Phase II of that one,
and to probably try to move to the eastern part and bring
some back this way. So, I think it's a great -- it's a
great move on you guys' part. I appreciate you doing it,
and willingness to do it, and it lends itself to many, many
good opportunities.
84
~ ^
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
MAYOR FINE: You guys have the ability to go
for the grants that we don't.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can.
MAYOR FINE: And U.G.R.A. doesn't. Y'all can
do that. It's going to take an effort --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're good at grants.
That's been proven, that we can go out and find that money.
MAYOR FINE: And it's going to take an effort
of all three entities --
MS. SULLIVAN: To get the whole thing
together.
MAYOR FINE: Yeah, to make it all happen. We
can't go into Kerrville South and do what y'all have been
able to do, or y'all will be able to do with the grant. But
if you bring it, we can treat it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's great. That's
what we want to hear.
MAYOR FINE: At least up to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Up to the maximum --
MAYOR FINE: Up to the maximum. Well, not
quite the maximum; we got to start upgrading when we hit,
what, 85 percent?
MR. LAUGHLIN: Seventy-five.
MR. KNIPPEL: Well, at 75 percent, you have
to start planning. At 90 percent, you have to be under
85
I
1 _'
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
construction.
MS. SULLIVAN: You have to be under
construction.
MAYOR FINE: So there's some limits in there,
but just don't bring it too fast.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. It takes a while
to get the stuff moving.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Jim?
MR. BROWN: I -- there's -- and I'm sorry
Tim's not here. Last Thursday, I delivered a -- presented a
paper for the Texas Water Laws seminar in Austin on
conjunctive water use practices of O.G.R.A., a new group in
the frontier. And one of the things I looked at is what's
happening in our area, and -- and I don't think that we
realized that if you look at what's occurring in Kerrville
South and Center Point and everything out between here and
Ingram and the Ingram area, if you look at what the water --
the investor-owned utilities are selling them water, and if
you apply the 80 percent factor to that -- or the
80 percent -- I think the City of Kerrville says that
80 percent of the water they sell ends up back into their
wastewater system. If you apply that number to the amount
of -- of water that we're currently losing in septic tanks,
through evapotranspiration and ground absorption or
whatever, there's enough water there -- if we brought that
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
back and treated it, there's enough water there to sustain
5,800 households that we are currently losing. I know no
one around here wants to talk about drinking treated
effluent, but let's get realistic. The Region J plan -- I
mean, we've moved up to 2035, we looked at 1050, but we
still have water shortages. And I think that -- I think
that we have to consider the amount of natural resources
that we're losing through septic tanks that, through this
joint project, then we could bring that water back in, it
could be treated and distributed back out to the county
water users. So, it's more than -- I mean, cleaning up the
creeks and taking care of the watershed is really U.G.R.A.'s
responsibility, but a side -- a side benefit from that is
that we're developing new water resources.
MAYOR FINE: I definitely agree with you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Anything else on that
one?
MAYOR FINE: Nope. That was an easy one.
MS. SULLIVAN: Yeah, it was.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Item 7, consider and discuss
potential of joint operations for garage services, municipal
court, common dispatch, et cetera.
MR. TUNE: Okay. Let me try the first two,
and Chuck can do common dispatch. These are things I think,
over the years, we've talked about several times with the
87
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
different bodies, and I'll start with the garage services
here. This will be much like what we've done with the
Animal Control area, where one group does it all. There's
some challenges with it. There would have to be some
capital out front. And -- and we have four bays right now
-- or five bays with four people and three lifts. We did
some -- I think Ron and the Judge have talked about this a
little bit, so we've done some preliminary studies. We got
some -- some of y'all's fleet, that kind of stuff, and
looked at it, and just to give you some rough idea of what
it would take, it would probably take a couple more bays, a
lift, a couple of more employees. It would be -- we'd try
to put it together somehow where the County would have their
own -- we would run it, so to speak, like y'all do Animal
Control, but you wouldn't -- your vehicles wouldn't be
staggered any different than anybody else's. In other
words, it wouldn't be city first, county last, or -- it
wouldn't be one of those, so it would be dedicated for the
county.
Again, the problems with this would be -- or
the challenges would be capital outlay would be needed. It
would be a while before it broke even. In other words, it
would probably cost us more than we would get back for a
period of time; then it would be a break-even -- there would
probably be some savings. The main thing we have found out
88
f
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
is that our garage -- where it gives us our biggest benefit
is that things get in and out, more than it is a savings,
even though we do think we have a savings there. We've also
done things to cut down on fuel and different other things
to try to get with the times, so that's one area. Municipal
Court, this one --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't we take these in
turn?
MR. TUNE: Okay, sure. Could I answer any
questions?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: On that one, I think
what I would sure like to see, if we could do it, 'cause I
see -- I know that the question is, should we pursue this
with any more staff time? Should you pursue it with any
more staff time? And I think what I'd like to see is sort
of a rough order of magnitude cost model, and where would it
break even? And that -- and not spending a lot of detailed
time on that, but sort of, is this a big --
MR. TUNE: Obviously, this is one of these
tail end of the budget things, because it's numbers. And I
guess what we would like to have is just what Larry -- what
you're saying. If y'all even have an interest in this one,
we can get you some more numbers. There's some
possibilities -- there's some good possibilities with the
garage. It has some -- you know, there's going to be some
1
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
89
problems working it out because of the cost and things like
that, but it could even be bigger. It could take in the
school. I mean, there's all kinds of opportunities here
that this thing could really kind of take off.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think it's worth
looking at, and we need some rough numbers without spending
a whole gob of your staff time, just some rough numbers of
what it looks like. Is it big? Small? How many years
would it take to break even?
MR. TONE: We can do that for you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a related
issue, too, Dane, and I'm not sure that -- I don't want to
get too deeply into it. I know there are environmental
concerns, but that is fuel, a centralized purchase of fuel.
I assume you guys purchase your fuel outside, just like we
purchase ours outside. Are there -- is there an economy of
scale that can be acquired?
MR. TONE: We bid it, and the short answer --
yes, the short answer is yes. Now, we used to have our own
fuel, our own tanks and all of that. We don't any more. We
closed all that out and we bid it, and we pull up and take a
card and swipe it and gas up and are gone.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We do that too.
MR. TUNE: Yeah.
MR. LAUGHLIN: But we've only had one bidder
90

1
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
for the last two years, the one local vendor who's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's been
the case for us, too. Right, Sheriff?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Two or three last time.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Currently, we use the
exact same gas people the City does. We did have three
bidders last year, and all in all, they were very close to
each other. It was just a mark-up price in the long run
that -- that made the current one that we're using a better
option. I -- you know, I still think it's -- it's a very
good possibility on all of it. The joint garage part
would -- would be great in some ways. Some of the
discussions I had -- and it would be just a matter of
running numbers -- was that if it was just taking over our
department's -- our units and patrol and that, as far as
some aspects of it, being oil changes, okay, just normal,
day-to-day maintenance, and I provided y'all's guy with
the -- with the cost and figures of what we're currently
paying. His -- his words to me was there was no way the
City could do it for that cost; that it would be higher than
that for this normal maintenance, okay? That was where
we're getting it; there wasn't any way they could beat what
we're paying already.
You know, major service stuff and that, I
don't know if they grouped in more -- more people into it or

I
1
I
1 --
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
91
more agencies, you know. I don't know if you added -- and
then there was a deal that he had said that concerned me,
and I think just expanding of the facility would -- would
take it, is -- of course, all of us, being EMS, fire, you
know, Chuck, our departments, all of us think that our
vehicles individually should be priority, okay? Because
we're all limited, and there is going to be just some having
to work out those type of deals to make sure that -- that
everybody's are equal priority on getting them out. Except
EMS probably should be a little bit more, so -- the rest of
us have enough units we can share. But it's just minor
things that, personally, I think it would be a great idea if
we can work out those little ones, get the numbers.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's the way you look
at it. I mean, if any government maintenance facility can't
do an oil change cheaper than the Oil Stop, well, we ought
to shut it down and all go to the Oil Stop. If we can't do
unit cost cheaper than we can get it done at Walmart or the
Oil Stop, then we shouldn't be operating a facility. So, I
think it's all in the way you look at it. And -- and I
think there are benefits to it.
MAYOR FINE: The school does all their own
maintenance, don't they?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
DODGE HENNEKE: I think Ron may have had some

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
92
very preliminary discussions with the school. He told me he
was going to approach them. Now, whether he did or not, I
don't know if he had time. Things have been pretty hectic
the last two or three months.
MR. TUNE: We know our garage person did
call. I don't know the results from that. We did take
y'all's numbers.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
MR. TUNE: The oil thing, just to touch on
it, we do more than oil changes. We don't run them in, run
them out. Our -- our people do a full-blown check on cars
and things like that. If you -- if you're doing the same
thing, maybe we could get cheaper. You know, let our staff
do that sort of stuff, but that would be the kind of numbers
we'd want to pull out -- figure out, would this work for
both groups or not?
JUDGE HENNEKE: And this is a long-term --
it's like the T-hangars. We're not making any money on the
T-hangars yet, 'cause we haven't got our capital investment
back yet, but we will over time. And it makes a
contribution to the operation of the airport. The same
thing with the maintenance. I mean, if you have a
seven-year payback, you're probably money ahead to do that,
because the facility you're going to build is certainly
going to operate for more than seven years, and that's the
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
way we have to look at things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dane, the -- to me,
there's two -- the vehicles that are, you know, like light
trucks and cars are one set. Then you also have the heavy
equipment part. Have you looked -- have you looked at both
sides, or just the --
MR. TUNE: A lot of the heavy equipment we
have to farm out. It's just too much. We do have one
person that can work on diesel and all that, some of the
bigger things, but that -- that's pretty tough. The
equipment and the weight on some of them are kind of
dangerous. Most of that we farm out. We farm out body
work, transmission work. There's a few things we just don't
have the expertise to do with all the different cars and
everything, but as far as -- you know, if a car breaks down,
we can get it in, and if it does need a transmission or
needs -- we get them to the places and get them back and get
them on the road. It's just some of it we have to -- we
have vendors we use outside to get the vehicles to.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would there be any
merit in looking at our doing the heavy ones and you doing
the regular light vehicles?
MR. TUNE: Could possibly be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 'Cause we're equipped
to do the heavy ones.
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We are, but at the same
time, we don't -- we lease more and more and more, and have
a quicker turnover.
MR. WAMPLER: I think we've got some older
equipment, but we're moving in that direction too, leasing
with service contracts and getting out of the maintenance
business.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause we don't --
DODGE HENNEKE: What Ron and I discussed is
we basically agreed that we just wouldn't touch the heavy
stuff, because that was too specialized and not enough
volume to make it worthwhile.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause, I mean, I don't
think we hardly own any heavy equipment any more. Very
little.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think our consensus
is we'd like to push a little further and see what we get.
MR. TUNE: Okay. The next one, Municipal
Court. This is a little more complicated. It has to do
with some legal questions. Let me tell you where we are on
this. Chuck wants to get the court out of there, because,
number one, he needs the space. If you've been to our
court, it's not anything like this, okay? There's -- we are
really crowded and cramped in there. We bring in about
$200,000 a year. We have three good people in there. We

1 ._
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
95
got a part-time judge. It works. We get them in, we get
them out, but we don't have a lot of space. So, we're
looking for something -- possibly either, one, to move it
over and have it done -- just like we're talking about the
garage, we would do it the opposite. Or possibly, if that
doesn't work because of legal reasons -- there's a good
chance that might not work. We just don't know. We've
tried this about ten years ago, looking into it, and we just
ran into so many -- so many obstacles, we just sort of gave
up, so we haven't done a lot of research on this one, but it
might -- that might work. The other option is, of course,
we just rent some space. If y'all would rent us some space
or something and we provide our -- our people, those kind of
things could be done jointly. Y'all do it, renting to those
sort of things. So, that's pretty much it. It's just a --
for us, it's a space problem. We're going to have to find
some other way of doing it over the next year or two; we're
going to have to make some kind of a change, and so this is
one that we would -- we would entertain any thoughts y'all
might have on that, or if y'all had any interest in that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: First crack out of the
bag, do any of you lawyers know if there's a possibility of
doing that?
MR. LAUGHLIN: Well, I think it's possible.
96
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
There are some questions -- and, again, I haven't spent any
need to research, though, would be things like, you know,
particularly on jurisdictional issues on judges. I mean,
you know, to what extent could any of the J.P.'s, if that
were the case -- in other words, if we were talking about
actually having one or more of the J.P. courts doing the
municipal court work, you know, from a jurisdictional
standpoint, can we even do that? One. Of course, then
you've got whether or not J.P.'s would want to do that;
that's two, you know. And, so, let's see how --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The answer is yes?
MR. LAUGHLIN: So -- you know, so I think
it's -- and then it's -- the question is, okay, even if you
did that, which cases that came through the city could or
could not be, from a jurisdictional standpoint, handled? In
other words, traffic tickets. I think there's -- there's
overlapping jurisdiction between J.P. courts and municipal
courts inside the city, although cities have primary
jurisdictional responsibility for that. I'm not sure the
case would necessarily be the same for our Code Enforcement
prosecutions, you know, our zoning issues and -- and, you
know, weed lots and things like that, so -- those things
that arise strictly under city ordinances. So, it would
seem to me, from just looking at the judges alone, those are
97
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
some issues that would have to be dealt with, if they could
be overcome at all. Then you get into, okay, who's doing
the prosecution? I mean, is it somebody hired by my office?
Is it the County Attorney's office? You know, again, it's a
staffing issue at the prosecution level. How does that get
I think the one thing that could -- has a
potential for most easily being combined of anything would
be just the court administration, the clerk-type operations.
You know, it -- there is -- and, again, exploring all the
issues that would be involved in that, you know, as far as
recordkeeping, software, computer, you know, money-handling,
collection of fees, all that kind of stuff. You know, how
does that get worked through on the administration side? I
mean, it's -- you know, because you've got all these state
reporting issues with all the state court fees that we
collect and county court fees that we collect and all that.
Even with municipal court and stuff, you know, what all the
issues are dealing with reporting that. So, as Dane said,
it -- it is -- it can be a very complicated issue. I mean,
it's -- I think, conceptually, it sounds like a really nice
thing to do. I'm just thinking it's a little more
complicated than trying to put together a garage operation,
just because of all the jurisdictional issues.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kevin, how much -- or how
98

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2~
23
24
25
often does your Municipal Court meet, and how much time
would they actually be in the courtroom?
MR. LAUGHLIN: We hold court -- right now,
we're holding court every other Tuesday afternoon at 4:00
during the school year, 'cause Mark does juveniles at
4 o'clock -- 4:30 on Tuesdays, every other Tuesday, and then
every -- every other Wednesday morning, so basically two --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, every --
MR. LAUGHLIN: -- part-days, you know, three
-- about three days a month. Plus we're doing one jury day
maybe once every six to eight weeks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems like, on that, I
mean, it would be very easy to figure out how to meld that
schedule into one of the courtrooms in this building.
MR. LAUGHLIN: I think if it was just -- if
it were something as simple as available court space, you
know, to solve our space issue, and we could work something
out, that -- you know, that might work. But -- but the
thing is, even if -- even with -- you know, one of the
things to think about, though, that even with just holding
court in the courtroom, we still have the -- the clerks are
there every day collecting fines as people come in and pay
their tickets, and so -- and file their pleadings and
what-have-you, so our clerks are there full-time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
99
1 .-~
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
MR. DICKERSON: Sheriff's got it figured out.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What if, due to -- and I
wouldn't suggest, from what I've seen of the courtroom use
in this courthouse, that the courthouse would actually have
enough use for it, but what I'm wondering is if, with a
little addition out the -- the side of the building at the
current Law Enforcement Center for just office space,
itself -- to me, it would seem like that would be a
possibility of keeping your court exactly like it is, but
moving it to that current location and sharing with that
J.P. courtroom we have out there. That is a nice courtroom,
too. And then it gives more access to, one, the inmates
that need to be in court, and -- 'cause we do a lot of
paperwork and that back and forth, as far as time served on
city, and what we were talking about earlier, the number of
city arrests compared to county arrests. We're all putting
about the same number of people in there. And later, when
we get into the common dispatch part of it, it could also
figure into that, but it would just be -- be office space
itself out there that is not currently there, that, like,
J.P. 2 has. But the courtroom out there is a -- a very
nice, up-to-date courtroom, and with the number of court
days y'all have, I don't see why something couldn't be
worked out with the J.P. on that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Basically, the concept is
100
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 we run nine courts right now, and every one of our
courts probably has as many cases as that one does. You
know, we can absorb another court with that case load. If
we can help you all out, fine. Now, if you can't work it
out, we offered.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And I think that -- I don't
-- I don't have any qualms about finding J.P.'s that will be
willing to sit, you know, three months out of the year for
an additional --
MR. LAUGHLIN: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- $8,000, $10,000.
MR. LAUGHLIN: And, Judge, honestly, like I
said, I haven't even looked into the -- you know, started
researching the issue, 'cause I kind of wanted to get the
feel here of -- of whether or not J.P.'s even had the
jurisdictional ability to handle -- to do, you know, city
municipal court-generated type of stuff, other type of cases
from a jurisdictional standpoint. Maybe they can. Maybe
it's some, maybe it's all, maybe it's none. We just -- just
have to look at that and see what they want to do. But --
you know, but if it was simply just a matter of
space-sharing, I mean, that's -- that's easy, you know.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, it's not --
MR. LAUGHLIN: Easier to handle.
101

R .--.
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
JUDGE HENNEKE: It may be easier to handle,
but it's not easy to handle.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Because I don't think you're
going to get one of these guys to give up his courtroom.
MR. LAUGHLIN: No, I wouldn't even think
about that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Judge Brown, maybe.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The idea that -- that
Sheriff Hierholzer has is maybe one to pursue, at least to
look at, because then you don't have to change -- there are
no jurisdictional questions. It's just the use of the
facility.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That we might be able
to work out something.
MR. LAUGHLIN: And it would make it a little
easier for our bailiff to -- if we do have a -- occasionally
somebody that he needs to bring over, they're already there.
Don't have to haul them all the way across town, put them
someplace where we don't have a holding cell.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: See, there is a cell in
that courtroom. There's a cell that actually goes into the
courtroom where we can take inmates out of the jail
population and put them in the courtroom, and there is a
102




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
camera system and security system that monitors that
courtroom, okay. The whole thing would be office space.
There is not office space over there to move, you know, City
personnel, your clerks and those that would have to -- and
then just a scheduling deal on -- on days, to where Dawn,
J.P. 2, wouldn't lose any of her court days that she needs
that courtroom. But we were using it quite a bit before
these courtrooms were finished, when the 198th was doing
grand juries out there and actually court cases out there,
and it's probably the -- the nicest J.P. court we have.
MR. TUNE: How about there, then? If it's
all right with y'all, why don't we take a look at that
between now and budget time, just take a look at it and
we'll kick around the other ideas and bring it back up if it
looks like something that's got some possibilities.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: What else do we have on that
one?
MR. DICKERSON: That leads us into common
dispatch. You see how well we're getting along.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have argued over
who's going to house it. Chuck has said me, I've said him,
and --
103



~ .-~
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
MR. DICKERSON: We've discussed this common
dispatch for quite some time. Basically, what we're waiting
on, we haven't ironed out all the firm numbers of what costs
are going to be. Waiting for Rusty to get his system up to
where his coverage problems don't exist any more and he has
his radio system in place. Right now, we don't see that
we're going to be saving any people, because we're both
running short-handed as it is. The City just gave me an
extra dispatcher in this -- this year's budget that I was
able to hire -- well, I haven't got him hired yet, but this
month.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Are you going to take one of
ours?
MR. DICKERSON: I can't --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's a sore subject;
we won't talk about it.
MR. DICKERSON: But we don't really see that
we're going to save a lot on personnel. And it may even
cost me -- if we go out to Rusty's house, then it may cost
me some new consoles to marry up to his new system -- radio
system. And those things are -- we anticipate maybe
$20,000, something --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Something like that,
each.
MR. DICKERSON: Something like that, each.
104

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
So, there could be some capital costs there to do this.
However, during budget time, we try to come to you and let
you know about any kind of long-term savings that we would
get out of that, because combining functions should
ultimately save us some -- some time -- some money and time
somewhere down the road. Those people -- I know we could
work a lot more efficiently with my ten and his six.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Seven.
MR. DICKERSON: Seven. We should be able to
not be coming back to you looking for more people. So, I
think last year I was asking for two dispatchers, and I
wound up getting one.
MS. SULLIVAN: Yes, you did.
MR. DICKERSON: If we did do the combined,
then, of course, I wouldn't be coming wanting another one.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And Chuck and I have
both agreed, there's a -- I think, number one, the biggest
benefit of all, we would not save -- and the County may have
to come up with where we'd want to make sure the employees
that are all dispatchers, the emergency dispatchers in
there, are pretty equal on benefits. It would be bad to
have one sitting in one chair, another one sitting in
another chair with the same exact experience, same training,
same everything, and yet they're -- they're way out of whack
on benefits and salaries. That would have to be
105
~ --
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 -- I don't see that that's a major problem. That
could be adjusted.
DODGE HENNEKE: I don't see how that would
work if we had employees of two different jurisdictions.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's why it would be
probably better if everybody gets absorbed under one
jurisdiction, and then the other jurisdiction helped fund
that. The benefits out there would be that Chuck has
warrants, you know -- and this was brought up years ago when
they talked about dispatch and common dispatch -- and
inactive warrants and things like that. Right now, if we
arrest somebody that's got city warrants out for them,
either we have to send another officer to the city police
department to pick up those warrants, or they have to bring
them to us. And this is a time deal, 'cause the jail
needs -- with a common -- common dispatch we have out
there -- since it's a decent facility, we have just like air
tubes at the bank that goes from our dispatch office, and
air-tube everything that we need, paperwork-wise, straight
back to the jail control room, and we could all keep our
warrants in one location, to where they're -- you know,
working-wise is what I'm getting at. It would be a hundred
times more efficient than what we both have now.
Service to the public, I think it would be a
whole lot more efficient than we both have now. We won't

1
1 ,-.
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
106
have 911 transfers from the city to the county, that the
call being transferred gets cut off for some unknown reason,
which happens. I mean, it's nobody's fault. That kind of
stuff would be alleviated. And, really, the working
atmosphere, itself, would -- with everything coming out of
one office there, it helps, because his officers will be
more attuned to what the county officers have going on
call-wise, crime-wise, everything else, okay? It's a closer
relationship. We would be more attuned to what the city
officers actually have going call-wise and everything else,
which is -- can be nothing but a benefit to everybody.
'Cause the crooks don't know city limits or county, you
know, signs. I mean, t"hey don't care about it. I just
think it would be beneficial in a lot more ways than just
monetary.
MR. DICKERSON: Living in the county, coming
in the city, using our services.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Living in the city,
going in the county.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No matter which.
MR. DICKERSON: Using our streets and stuff.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Dumping their
garbage --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Dumping their garbage in
the county.
107
1
1
L
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No matter which
direction it went, if it were coming about, is there
sufficient facility space in your operation to handle it?
Or yours, Rusty? Vice-versa.
MR. DICKERSON: Both of us -- both of us have
the ability, I think, to house -- house a combined -- Rusty,
like he says, you know, with the jail out there, there's
some positives at his location. And he's right, as far as
if we are combined, then what's presently at the police
department is the PSAP for 911, so, I mean, every call for
911 goes in my building. So, iT it was -- if we took all of
our stuff out to Rusty's, then all of that would just be one
place, and that's going to be beneficial, 'cause I know
Rusty has complained about getting dropped calls or dropped
information off of 911 calls. Of course, some of those
don't have information anyways.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's true. That's
911.
MR. DICKERSON: That's another story.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Question. Have --
have you two talked this through with Fire and EMS to make
sure that they fit and are comfortable with this kind of
arrangement? Would that be -- I mean, is there any -- are
there any issues there that --
MR. DICKERSON: I've had discussions with the
1
,.-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I
~ 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
108
Fire Chief, and right now we presently dispatch for the Fire
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
MR. DICKERSON: -- P.D. and volunteer fire
conversations going on and something's going to be coming
down the road. So, I guess we could get his input.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. And the nice --
with the new system that the County will have, the
communications system, even though the City has a different
frequency, we still have, you know, the same -- radio
antennas and that would still be the same. The -- the new
equipment that the County will have has the capability --
and it's all a touch screen console-type deal, where all the
screens -- we currently have two consoles in there, and what
I'd recommend is the City have two consoles. All the
screens are set up identical; everybody's trained the same,
okay? And all you have to do is touch K.P.D. icon on the
screen and you're talking to P.D. You know, touch K.C.S.O.
icon, you're talking to K.C.S.O., with all that equipment
that's going to be there for that. They also have the
capability, with us having two complete radio channels that
we'll have in this new system, that we can interlink up to
four agencies at one time by touching the screen.
In other words, it doesn't matter if P.D.'s
	1
~-	2
	3
I	4
`
1	5
	6
	7
	8
	
	9
	
~	10
	11
12
~ ~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~-. 2 4
25
109
on their Channel 2, we're on our Channel 1, okay, Fire
Department's on their channel, EMS or even the Highway
it very simply in that new system of just touching it, and
everybody can be talking to everybody else without having to
change channels, without having to know what's going on for
an emergency communication channel, to where if it's during
a flood, City Street Department, okay, they have their
system. If we program that into that new system, even
channel everybody's on. So, it's just a communication
ability that would be enhanced for everybody in Kerr County.
I think it's worthwhile looking at.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Yeah, just -- if I can put in
two cents, having worked in a city where we did this, and
having a written agreement between a city and county
previously, ten years ago, when we did it in Midland County
and City of Midland, it works real well. And one of the key
things is, first of a11, having the cooperation of the -- of
all the chiefs that are participating, which we certainly
seem to have here.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We just pretend.
MR. LAUGHLIN: And, you know, the
transitioning -- I mean, the one thing that really worked
110
	1
	2
	3
	4
1	
~	5
	
	
	6
r	
	
	
	8
	
	5
	
~	10
	11
12
	13
	14
	15
	16
	17
	18
	19
	20
	21
	22
	23
	24
	25
out was bringing in the fire dispatchers, bringing in the
became city -- city employees, because in that case, the
benefits were pretty comparable. We may have had to do some
pay adjustments, actually had to bring some of the county
folks up a little bit in that particular instance, but over
time, everybody got cross-trained so that everybody was
dispatching for everybody, you know, so it didn't matter.
So, you went -- you were a city employee, but you were
dispatching for the sheriff, you're dispatching fire,
dispatching police. And, in that case, we were dispatching
the -- the guys -- I forgot the agency that does the cattle
rustlers out in the west 'Texas ranches, what-have-you. And
it worked out real well. Now, the only other thing that
they did that went beyond that was they ultimately turned it
into a civilian department, so that no longer were they
attached to a particular law enforcement or public service
entity, but they were a civilian department within the city
in that particular instance. And -- but the head of that
department was constantly reviewing and meeting with the
different chiefs to make sure the protocols were all
followed, response times were working, working through
problems, and it worked out real well. So, this is -- you
know --
MR. DICKERSON: I know I've talked with some
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
111
chiefs and sheriffs that have done -- that have combined and
split back up because of problems between agencies, and I
don't anticipate that happening with me and Rusty. I just
don't. A lot of that has to do with your policies and
procedures and how you're going to work out protocol and
stuff, and once you get that all ironed out, you shouldn't
have these little nitpicking problems that's caused in other
agencies.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, are you all going to
work up a proposal to -- I mean, we'll -- here's how we want
to do it, and get it to us?
MR. DICKERSON: I'd like to try to do
something by the time, you know, this budget session comes
up, April, somewhere around there, you know.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The next time we see
them, they may be fistfighting.
MR. DICKERSON: May be sitting across the
room.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll sit in the back.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Actually, it will be the
dispatchers saying who's going to work for who?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What's really nice --
'cause there's an intercom back and forth now, okay?
MR. LAUGHLIN: Is there?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I think all the

i

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~4
25
112
dispatchers, ours and the city's dispatchers, get along
great. They always do, because they are essentially doing
the exact same job. They can relate to each other at work.
And, like you were saying, you know, the idea is not to have
a city dispatcher sitting at this console, worried about the
city, with a county dispatcher sitting here, worried about
the county. It's more of a deal of having, you know, two or
three dispatchers in that room at all times, or maybe up to
four, depending on the, you know, call volume that we have,
and everybody being cross-trained, knowing exactly what
their duties are, and they can sit at any console, or even
pull it up from the console they're at and make sure they
can dispatch without any kind of separation between whether
it's city, county, fire, EMS; it doesn't matter.
MR. DICKERSON: Hopefully, we'll have some
numbers and stuff to present to both groups, let you know
what we'll do.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good.
MS. SULLIVAN: Fine.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Final item, at least listed,
is plans and potential partnerships/funding for the Hill
Country Youth Exhibition Center. I'm going to just touch on
that real lightly. I think the Commissioners Court has --
has a concept and a direction, but the offer that was
vaguely outlined to us by the Lion's Camp has really made us
113
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
kind of pull back, because we need to know what their
COMMISSIONER LETZ: December or November.
because they have some plans to build a hotel on land
immediately outside the -- the Lion's Camp, and they're --
they've done this two or three places around the state where
they've built more or less a convention-type motel with
meeting rooms, and they've been very successful, because
people will come to that in order to use the Lion's Camp
facilities. And they came to us and said, we understand you
have some plans to possibly build meeting rooms, and we'd
like to know what they are. Can we participate in those?
Can we build our facility on your land? And so I think we
collectively kind of decided we'd pull back a little bit,
wait and see what they have in mind.
I've talked to Steve Mabry, and their board
is meeting in February, and until after that board meeting,
he's really not in a position to sit down and talk with us
about what they have in mind. But, at this point, I think
just -- what we'd like to do to you all is to just pose the
question, without necessarily wanting an answer at this
time, in what form or fashion, if any, do you want to
	1
	2
	3

t	4
	5
~	
	6
	
	7
	8
1	
	9
i	
	10
	11
1	12
~ r, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
•--
25
119
participate in this project? Do we want to think along the
lines of an airport-type project? Or Animal Control, where
we jointly own and operate and participate in a facility?
Do y'a11 have -- would y'all have any interest in making any
sort of a contribution of any kind based on the study that
indicates that -- you know, that the motel/hotel/restaurant
receipts would be enhanced significantly by the facility
that's successful? We don't have a concept. We don't have
a position, but all we want to do is say if y'all want to be
involved, certainly in an ownership/management capacity, we
want you involved in the beginning, as opposed to further
down the road, 'cause we don't want to -- if you're going to
do that, we need you as partners as opposed to someone who
simply signs on at the last minute. So, I think that's all
I want to lay out on this -- this topic right now. Anybody
have any --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the only thing
I'd add to that is that -- and I think I probably visited
with a number of the City Council on this project, or doing
something out there; looked at lots of different plans.
It's certainly been in the press a lot. But one of the
things I hear a lot from the -- in the community is that, is
the City going to participate? Or, what's the City doing?
I think in the community, there's a -- you know, a thought
process, a desire, whatever you want to call it, that
1

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
115
whatever's done out there, we should do it together in some
fashion. And I think when they see it as a -- a city/county
facility, both benefit from it. And I just -- you know, and
I'll just kind of leave it at that.
I think we've -- wherever we go out there,
clearly, in our mind -- or at least my mind, it has to stay
primarily an ag facility, or that has to be a big component
of whatever we do. That's the purpose of that facility, is
youth and ag. But it can be expanded beyond that. We
certainly, in all of our planning of different ideas out
there, have included people from -- from the city and
Chamber of Commerce; Sudie and all kinds of people have been
involved in it, and have kind of, I guess, represented the
city as to what you may or may not want out there. So,
that's mainly the main thing, is just to think about
participation at some level. I think it makes sense, but
until we can come up with a definite plan -- and we thought
we were going to be at that point a year ago, but in
November it all got delayed again, and I think for a good
reason. I think if we can get another partner, be it a
Lion's Camp -- and their design, their participation is
financial, serious financial, so that's a big help to both
of us, or certainly to us.
MAYOR FINE: Well, I think, number one, I've
heard just the opposite when people have talked to me. It's
116
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 county facility; they don't want the city involved. Of
course, they're not going to tell me what they're telling
you, and they probably wouldn't tell you what they're
telling me, just because of who they're talking to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MAYOR FINE: And this project kind of has
been a moving target, I mean, since it's been -- was first
introduced a year or two ago. So, you know, until something
were more solid, I mean, you -- just like you just said,
really, it would be kind of hard for us to say at what level
we would want to participate, and how. In the past, you
know, we've kept our nose out of that one, or tried our best
to. Now, we've -- we've done things like providing the
sewer and the -- that type of thing to the facility, but
other than that, really haven't done much else.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Stephen, in terms of
a moving target, it has been a moving target in terms of its
design and scope, but what's in your workbook -- or our
workbooks tonight is the revised -- the revision of the
scaled-back version, which we think is economically more
palatable, and it certainly is just as functional and cuts
out a lot of frills, so about 25 percent of the original
cost -- right, Jon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- of the first plan
117
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
we unveiled has gone away. So -- and that -- in that sense,
the target is now pretty stationary in terms of the scope of
the project.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The plan hasn't changed
from the beginning. The facility hasn't changed. What
we've done, basically, we had a master plan that a
community-wide group put together. That was what was shown,
and there was a lot of criticism that it was too much, too
quick. And we looked -- we just scaled it back, and there's
Phase II, III, IV, V, whatever you want to call it, to get
it back to the same original facility. And it was just kind
of -- it was cut back in a way that it could be added on --
added onto if the other portions were ever needed in the
future. But, for those that look, it's basically the same
design as we had two years ago.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think there's
another thing that we can probably ask for your help on, and
that is sort of a vision, without even attaching the dollars
to it, necessarily, at first. But, you know, it would be a
facility -- it will always be a facility that is really a
regional facility, and it's -- it affects and benefits both
the city and the county, obviously. But what, in your way
of thinking -- I'm not looking for an answer now, but what,
in your way of thinking, what should it be? What should it
be like? Is there something that could make this plan even
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
better, maybe for less money? Or whatever. But, I mean, I
think that the vision of what the facility should end up as
can help us as well, 'cause that's still going to be
developed over the next months and years until we actually
start to drive a nail into the plan and say here's what
we're really going to do. So, I think this -- helping us
with that piece of it could be very important.
MAYOR FINE: Well, the need for a convention
center is obvious. I mean --
MS. SOLLIVAN: It is.
MAYOR FINE: -- every hotel that's ever been
around here talks about it. I don't think there's any doubt
that a convention center facility of some sort is needed.
Whether, you know, we do it or you do it or Lion's Camp does
it or one of the hotels moving into the area does it. I
mean, if they're even discussing it, that shows there's a
need for it. They recognize it in the private sector also.
And I think one of the things I've heard -- comments to me,
anyway -- is trying to hold a convention in the same
facility that you held a shock show in the week before is
difficult, if it's an enclosed convention-type deal, because
the current facility doesn't lend itself well to that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This new plan doesn't
embody that at all.
MAYOR FINE: I'm just saying, that's --
119
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
they're things that were brought up to me. Like during the
County Fair when they had booths out there, everyone's
covered in dust and you can't breathe and that type of
thing. It works good for what it -- for its purpose, but
that's one of the concerns that's been brought to me. The
need for that, I don't -- I don't think anyone in this
room's going to argue about that. As far as our
participation, I think a lot of it really is going to come
down to dollars and cents. We just undertook a $15 million
bond issue the other day. We don't have money laying around
to jump into bed on something like this.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We don't either.
MAYOR FINE: Right now. And -- and I think
it's -- you know, if it's going to happen, I think it's
something that should definitely be a community-wide
project, you know. The voters have a say on it, if they
want it, if they want to spend the money on it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: A project of this size has to
go to the voters. We will not do this on C.O.'s, because
this is not a core government function.
MAYOR FINE: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But we have to do something
out there in the next two years time frame, because the
facility is no longer -- or barely functional at this time.
MAYOR FINE: Yeah.
120
1
.~ 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
L L
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: And the dollars simply to
keep it going are of the magnitude that it's hard to do out
of the typical 0 & M. I mean, like replacing the
air-conditioners. All of the air conditioners out there are
people out there, they look at replacing the air
conditioners. They say, well, it will cost $99,000 to
replace the air-conditioners, but first you have to rewire
the building, because it's -- the wire's not to code. And
so you -- it's a rolling target simply to keep the building
going the way it is now. And, is that even good -- you
know, good management? I think we're going to have to do
something out there. I think the Court is committed to
doing something. This is the plan that we've got now,
because it enhances the facility and provides additional
capabilities. Kind of our benchmark is the Junior District
Livestock show, and this plan here gives them the capability
not only to continue what they're doing now, but to expand.
So we're going to continue going on. At some point we'll
have to make a decision to go on. What we're offering to
you all, if you're interested -- and, truly, it's an
offer -- is to get involved in the planning now and be part
of the process from the beginning, because this has got a
momentum we can't hold up too much longer. If we're going
to take this to a bond, we'll take it, I think, within a

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
121
year, year and a half at the most.
MAYOR FINE: Well, from the city -- on the
financial standpoint, we haven't had a tax increase in five
years. We've got one coming in a couple years now because
of the bond we just passed, about 2.93 cents. And we've
been able to keep the city functions going based within our
expanding of our economic base and increase in value, that
we've been able to stay within those boundaries. We have
enough -- I say enough. We have a lot of things we offer.
We have an extensive park system. Parks don't make money.
We sink a lot of money into those things every year. The
auditorium was a big money pit for a long time, and luckily,
you know, that's been alleviated right now, but eventually
-- you know, that thing will never make money. It will
never pay its own way. we have a golf course that, you
know, it -- it barely pays its own way, you know. And we
just sunk a million and a half bucks into that thing. And,
from the standpoint of taking on something else that we know
is going to be a financial drain, I don't know if
financially the City can do it. Because, I mean, this
facility won't make money either, and it's going to take
some serious soul-searching on the part of Council as to
whether or not they want to take on something like that
that's going to continue to be a financial drain when we've
already got all these other things we're offering that are
t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
122
already financial drains.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we understand that;
we're in the financial drain business, too. We're all in
the business of managing scarce resources. If you have
something that breaks even, you're doing better than we are.
We're going to go ahead with this, you know. If y'all want
to -- if you want to have an ownership/partnership
arrangement, then we really need you to let us know that,
and to get actively involved in a short time frame, because
we're going to go ahead. And we're going to get to a point
where we're going to have our plan set, going to go forward,
and then if you decide you want to be in an
ownership/partnership role, you're going to have to buy into
what we've done, 'cause we're not going to back up.
MAYOR FINE: Yeah. I doubt that one would
happen. If the City didn't buy in from the beginning, they
probably wouldn't come back in later wanting to ride the
coattails. I just don't think that's feasible. That would
be like y'all trying to jump on board the golf course now
that it's finished.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, hey, that's -- can
we add that to the agenda?
MAYOR FINE: Right. And I'm just -- I
just -- what I'm getting at, you know, it's -- if it's
something that, you know, the figures come in, and we think

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
123
of something that we can -- because the burden would
ultimately go right back on the taxpayers, and it's
something I know we can't absorb now.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
MAYOR FINE: We just -- we can't do it.
There would have to be some form of tax increase or
something on our part to make this happen on an ongoing
basis. And it's just a matter of whether or not Council
sees that as something they want to undertake.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just wanted to add
one thing, Stephen. The point you made originally about the
multiple uses and how the current facility does not lend
itself to --
MS. SULLIVAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- some multiple
uses. I commend to you Page 24, where it shows the
Livestock Show laid out, and there's nothing laid out in the
Exhibit Hall. So, you don't have -- don't have to sit down
to dinner behind the swine show.
MAYOR FINE: Yeah, and that's good. I mean,
I understand.
MS. SULLIVAN: Where was that?
MAYOR FINE: 24.
MS. SULLIVAN: Okay.
MAYOR FINE: Obviously, if there was a hotel

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
124
that put in a convention center, they probably wouldn't hold
a livestock show in their facility, either. It wouldn't
work the other way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Absolutely not.
MAYOR FINE: And we're not going to argue
that facility would --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I just wanted to
point out --
MAYOR FINE: Parts of it have been there for
a long time, but it's also served this community very well
for a long time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
MAYOR FINE: And I think it's a commendable
project; I think there's some of this stuff that probably
should have been done a long time ago. And, you know,
whether you guys do it or a hotel comes in and builds it, or
Lion's Camp or whoever's going to do it --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or a partnership,
public/private partnership.
MAYOR FINE: -- partnership between whichever
groups, it's going to happen. Sudie's -- we've heard Sudie
speak to it, and we've heard Sherry's speech, and -- and,
you know, the same thing it always boils down to in those
conversations, I agree, how are we going to pay for it?
And, you know, it's easy to say we need it. It's hard to
125
1
G
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
say how we're going to pay for it, and that's where the
conversation usually ends. And that's why the private
sector hasn't done it. If you could make money at it,
somebody in this community would have already done it.
So -- but it's -- it's a matter of who the burden is going
to be put on to make it happen.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Good.
MAYOR FINE: So, in other words, I didn't say
no, but I didn't say yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Evervbodv else was real
quiet over there.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else?
MAYOR FINE: Do y'all have anything else?
Did I say too much or too little, or --
MS. BANKS: No. No.
MS. SOLLIVAN: No.
MR. WAMPLER: I guess the question -- and
we've kind of talked around it and really kind of answered
it through the discussion, but I guess really the question,
to get down to the core issue, is the invitation to
participate primarily motivated by the financing of the
facility? In other words, what -- I mean, why would it be
desirous of -- you know, of the Commissioners of the county
for the City to participate in any way?
JODGE HENNEKE: Because we think it's a
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
126
community-wide project. Why -- why would the County
Commissioners want to participate in an airport 50 years
ago? Because it was a community-wide project. It was
something to enhance the whole community. We don't claim to
have all the answers. We think there's an opportunity there
for everyone to enhance what we have here. I think that's
the whole purpose. It's how we're going to move forward. I
think if the City participates, there's a different dynamic
as to the use and structure of the facility, perhaps, than
there is if the County does it on our own.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think the design
would be different.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Could possibly be different.
The Lion's Camp, the people who have come to us -- I should
have mentioned this earlier -- with the proposal for funding
say if we fund a significant portion, we want a management
contract, which indicates that they think that, either
stand-alone or in conjunction with their hotel, that that's
an economic opportunity.
MAYOR FINE: I think if the City
participated, we'd want sort of a management contract, too.
I mean, you'd have to --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah.
MAYOR FINE: You know, it would have to be
under someone's control, someone who had control of that
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
127
facility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, going back to
David's question, another reason for the City participation
is the City is clearly more interested in the convention
side of that --
MS. SULLIVAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- than the ag side of
that.
MS. SULLIVAN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it is a way to get --
for the City, as I see it, to get a convention facility,
possibly, that may not be as great as they would have liked,
but it's a heck of a lot better than they have a chance of
getting any other way. And it's a way -- because there
is -- at least the land's paid for. The parking is there.
I mean, and at a minimum, you're -- and the County's
certainly willing to pay for part of the structure of the
convention side of it. So, I think the -- if the City is
going to do a convention center anytime in the next five or
ten years, it is probably the most economic way for the City
to get that done, is to join the County together to get it
done.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the reason I
say it could potentially affect the design, because if we --
if we were in partnership, then, you know, your input to
1
I
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
128
this may be, hey, you know, the convention facility ought to
really be done this way, because this is the way we would
prefer to have it. So, you buck that up a little bit. And
so you -- it could affect the planning as well as -- as well
as the execution of the project.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Phase I has an Exhibit Hall.
MS. SULLIVAN: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Phase II has covered space.
MAYOR FINE: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If you finish the covered
space, you air-condition it, wall it, bring utilities to it
for about $250,000, and you've added approximately 100,000
square feet of exhibit space, which then the exhibit hall
becomes not a banquet facility, but a small convention
facility.
MAYOR FINE: I have no -- I'm not disagreeing
that the potential is there. I mean, the plans are there,
and I don't -- 'cause I don't think it would really be a
whole lot different, to tell you the truth. You guys have
done a lot of work on it. You've brought in the right
people to do the plans, and I don't think the input of five
of us and probably staff would change those a whole lot.
Because, I mean, the -- with the City being involved, I
don't see where the City -- quote, unquote, the City of
Kerrville's going to bring in any more particular

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
129
conventions than we would if you guys owned it. I don't
think that would change a whole lot. I mean, I -- and the
use of the facility I don't think would change dramatically
if we were involved, one way or the other, if we were or if
we weren't. I don't think the focus of that facility will
change. And I think as people find -- if the convention
center portion is in there, I think it will catch on, and it
will -- people will want -- people already want to come to
Kerrville for their meetings, and they can't; we don't have
the facilities. I mean, Sudie can tell you how much
business we're losing a year. We don't have a place to put
them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The key to success is
in its management.
MAYOR FINE: Yeah, no argument. No argument
there.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we -- we extend the
offer. And, you know, if y'all are interested, let us know.
If not, we'll -- we know you'll give us your support and
encouragement as we move forward.
MAYOR FINE: Yeah. It's going to take some
serious soul-searching on the members of Council as to the
burden that we've just recently placed on them as of Monday
night; you know, how much more we want to put on them at
this point, on top of what we've put on them the last few
1
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
130
years. I mean, I look at my taxes at the medical center.
Luckily, it's not all mine, but -- but they've gone up
50 percent in the last three years due to increase in value,
increase in taxes, and that's a hard -- I was telling Dane
earlier, damn, it was hard to write that check today. Rut,
you know, you got to do it. And it's -- you know, more
beds -- or heads than beds aren't going to help my medical
center very much, but it will bring more people to
Kerrville, and ultimately helps the doctors, and it does
benefit me in a roundabout way. So, like I say, it's just
going to take some soul-searching on the part of Council as
to how they feel about how we can participate and at what
level.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As a County
Commissioner who dwells in the city, I do want to commend
you for what you've done. Your $15 million issue of
certificates, I think, is a beautiful step forward.
MS. SULLIVAN: It's a lot of water and
wastewater stuff.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Looks like the kind of nuts
and bolts that we never get any credit for as public
servants, but really that's our charge.
MAYOR FINE: It will allow us to grow.
MS. SULLIVAN: Yes.
MAYOR FINE: If we don't use it, it's there,
131
1
3
4
5
6
7
I 8
1
9
' 10
11
^ 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,,,,, 2 4
25
but if we do need to grow, it will already be in the ground,
ready to be used. And, plus we'll still be able to flush
our toilets once we get that replaced.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No way to put a moat
around the county. I don't think we can stop the growth.
MAYOR FINE: No.
MS. SULLIVAN: I don't --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can manage it, but
we can't stop it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else from anyone?
If not, we're adjourned, and we thank everybody.
MAYOR FINE: Thank you guys for your
hospitality.
(Joint Commissioners Court and City Council
meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m.)
132
1
.-. 2
3
4
5
5
7
i 8
9
to
11
., 12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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.
UA'1'rlll at Kerrville, 'Texas, this 7th day of February,
2ooz.
JANNE'1"1' Yl~EYEH,/ Kerr County Clerk
BY: ____ _ I~____(/_C________ _
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter